Organizations are a territory of tension. They are not spas. Nor are they prisons. Yes they are companies because they need to survive in markets that are competitive. They are administrations because they live in the complex relationship between politics and the creation of public value. This tension is substantiated in people. There is always a tension between the present and the future. A certain tension between corporate expectations and personal aspirations is also common. Companies need to deliver results to survive, people need to feel the sensation that we are growing and learning.
Working basically means solving these three functions: giving results, adapting and learning. If we do not give results, we are functionally dislocated, if we do not adapt, we are unable to contribute and if we do not learn, we suddenly grow old professionally and enter into what Peter Drucker called sudden incompetence. To carry out these three functions, people must be able to generate their own motivation logic and have agendas full of meaning. And that only occurs in companies, where despite being natural territories of tension, a balanced ecosystem emerges. People feel good when things are reasonably balanced. We know that stress is inevitable, which is why a balanced ecosystem is essential.
A balanced ecosystem is that of a company that is highly customer-oriented without forgetting its workers. That of a professional community, where people respect each other because they learn from each other and are capable of thinking, acting and delivering results together. It is also part of the balance that the shareholders of a company, who risk continuously, have remuneration that compensates their risk without entering into speculative logic. Finally, the society that surrounds organizations is also part of this balance. The gaze of companies has broadened. In the origins of management, a company was a creator of products and services (Taylor). Drucker taught us that the company really only made sense if it created customers. More recently Steve Denning added that companies must delight their customers and their stakeholders. Giving results, making money, is a condition for companies to survive, but the legacy always consists of much more than making money.
Most of us feel comfortable in companies with good (talented) people and good people. Where results and behaviors do not collide with dignity. Where there is an invisible infrastructure that is the corporate culture that is oriented towards respect for people. Where the logic of growing by making grow prevails over a logic of growth at the expense of others. A company is a territory of effort. And the effort is what comes after the fatigue. I don't know of companies that have deployed powerful projects effortlessly. But also in the effort it is necessary to maintain moderation and know what is a punctual arreón from what is an unbalanced structure. Companies do not choose their competitors. Hopefully they aspire to define well the customers they want to target. I know many very good companies that compete with companies where people take between 5 and 15 days of vacation depending on their seniority in countries like South Korea, China or Japan and to get their products off the ground they need to add effort to intelligence and intelligence to effort This idea that Europe or the United States (also with few vacations) have superior knowledge and are the engine of innovation that allows them to maintain much better working conditions and pay is already an idea that is more aspirational than real. Competing costs a lot, every day more. Many people are not aware of it. There is no balance without competitiveness.
Leadership plays a fundamental piece in the balancing game of an organization. Leadership begins when the verb to influence overcomes the verb to command. Jim Collins explains it very well in his incombustible book Good to Great in what he calls level 5 leaders who "channel the needs of their ego away from themselves, towards a broader objective: to create an extraordinary company. It's not that Level 5 leaders don't have egos or self-respect; on the contrary, they are extremely ambitious, but they have more ambitions for the company than for themselves.” This mix of ambition, professionalism and humility makes the difference. A leadership that allows us to bring out the best version of people. A leadership capable of inspiring and not only displaying gallons. A leadership capable of building and defining opportunities for their teams.
We are facing a revolution in data technologies (IOT, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence) and sophisticated automation systems (advanced robotics) that will have a high impact on the world of work. It will be the source of a new tension. To maintain balance, we must resolve the people-machine tension in favor of people. It's the only reasonable thing. Companies must be competitive and will use a lot of technology for it, to achieve competitive advantages. But technologies tend to be democratized, one day everyone will have them and who makes the difference in the end are always people. People with the ability to think and act. If people think, technology empowers us. If people don't think on their own, technology mimics us and ends up stealing the meaning of many of our jobs.
In this era of artificial intelligence, the need for humanistic management is emerging strongly, capable of delivering results, but not in any way. Able to face tensions without violating dignity. Able to take advantage of technology without wasting people. The great success is sustained balance. Boasting a resounding success is only the prelude to endorsing the next failure to someone. We know there is tension. We know that there are glories and failures. Ephemeral delusions. Building consistent balances is the real challenge to endure with dignity. To achieve extraordinary balances we need normal people.
