Are the "organizational leaders" a dying breed?

Much has been written about organizational leadership. We have a lot of theories describing the motivational factors of people and driving styles.

Now, there are many myths and paradoxes of leadership and it is important that we work these issues without hypocrisy and absolute and total freedom.

Leaders are complex people, are not easy, they have an ethics code, a body of values ​​and principles which govern their decisions. They are usually envied and poorly qualified and are called to act when companies need their power to influence people.

We cannot generalize and say to what degree or proportion occurs, but it is a reality.

Companies do not always are structured as stock companies, and for this reason it is difficult to identify the direct owners. There are family enterprises, small and medium in which their owners often become present, and spend much time in them, working with his employees.

Sometimes they feel that they can´t use their personnel influence as leaders, and often feel envy and frustration at not being able to achieve the same relationship with them. I observed this symptom in several companies. I dare define this as an "empty from empathy”. These situations create problems that eventually end with the demise of leaders in organizations.

"Organizational leaders" are replaced by QDE's (qualified dependent employees) who compliant with regulations of the company and earn more money for doing the job of the leader. They copy some habits from leaders in order to achieve the connection with the people who have to handle. Thus may adopt postures of humility, arrive early to work and even help members when they do not understand their objectives or are stuck or jammed by the amount of work to be performed.

All this sounds good and seems working until it happens "unforeseen", conflict with one of the team members.

Conflict can develop without cause. The owner of a company may decide, for example, the dismissal of a person because of age, the high cost of labor, or personal characteristics which do not share.

In this situation, a leader who represents a team should "seek explanations", apply for reinstatement and their disagreement.

A QDE could not take that attitude because they either lack a scale of values ​​applicable to this role or indeed, is so weak that it can be readily permeable to the point of being forgotten.

To understand the difference between leaders and QDE’s is important to define concepts such as mission and vision. The vision of an organization or person is "dynamic" changes over time because when this objective is achieved, it must be re-designed. The mission however, is static, representing the rules with which moves a person or company. These rules do not change, nor will accommodate expediency of the moment or context.

Are leaders a dying breed both in organizations and in politics? The question is extremely difficult to answer. To the extent that organizations do not accept the favorable and unfavorable conditions of the leaders, the situation will be complicated.

We all know that a leader needs time and context to act as such, and it is expected that by acting, "solve problems", get loyalty and extraordinary willingness of his followers. It is also expected to have clearly enough to find your way in or out of a conflict or problem of a smaller group like a corporate department, or a larger company. Now, the owners are willing to recognize these qualities?, Are willing to give the dose of power, and empowerment needed to work on change?, Would you be willing to hear anything but praise when things go wrong in the organization?

There is a phrase that says "bosses want reliable people", and it is not easy for them to interpret and internalize a review, then, what figure has a better chance of survival, QDE's or LEADERS?

The answer to the question is still open and will depend largely on our cultural and educational patterns both present and future. For now we must say that to handle leaders, people must reach a status of wisdom because experience and intelligence are insufficient.

Lic. Claudio M. Pizzi