The leadership styles that have characterized (and largely continue to characterize) today’s organizations essentially express the ability to give stability to pre-established plans, which can be summarized in the word “execution”. And so, the management practices on which leadership is based, the resulting culture, the measurement and control systems, and (not least) the decision-making process linked to responsibilities are processes that have only maximum efficiency and effectiveness as their principle, due precisely to the “predict and control” approach, which developed with the Taylorist vision of production organizations, machine-enterprises.
Today it is clear that it is no longer possible to maintain this management style. These practices were not designed to fit into current value systems which are instead highly dynamic, interconnected, and complex.
Business has changed radically, and several times, due to the unpredictability of events, the changeability of objectives, the speed of innovation and technology, but also, above all, due to cultural change.
Even the high level of abandonment of a brand by talents is only the exemplification of what is a managerial and organizational model which over the years has not taken into account the psycho-physical well-being, complexity, and cultural evolution to which we have arrived.
We can also venture that today’s leadership is in crisis, it is unable to fully realize itself, as a charismatic figure and in its relationship, above all, with the new generations.
In fact, the leader today must rise to a series of attitudinal roles at the same time: attentive to results but also to people, decisive but kind, visionary but situational, open but charismatic, innovator but guarantor of the corporate cultural tradition, and so on.
The new generations are not satisfied with a “benefactor-beneficiary” relationship (“dear young person, I’m doing you a favor by letting you grow and work with us”): they want to work alongside leaders who can inspire them, who are authentic, with who they can relate to informally, and who can leverage their unique experiential attributes to help them unlock their true potential and become “leaders of the future”.
More and more often it happens that young people, beyond school and parental figures (moreover, figures, it is said, rather permissive nowadays) have never had a real “boss”. This impacts their expectations for feedback, mentoring, support from leaders, and other workplace experiences.
Without forgetting that, among other things, by intensely frequenting social media, they have never known a world without the immediate and continuous recognition and infinite availability of information to which they now have access.
We can therefore imagine that a new approach will be needed for leadership of the future.
It may be useful, for example, not to try to “mold” new talents to company rules, but to help them discover their true potential.
Giving them more empowerment and making them feel “safe”.
Offer them a multidimensional path towards leadership through the experiences of multiple different managerial styles.
Give them more internal visibility and allow them to have an impact: from participation in board meetings to internal challenges on transversal projects, involving them in tasks larger than the main role of their job. In these contexts, in fact, the ability to express “leadership” on the part of those who have less seniority or express a subordinate managerial position is above all based on competence and the ability to bring a new point of view to the resolution of a problem. Organizational distances are thus reduced to the point of disappearing in these circumstances and the contribution given by the individual is valued regardless of the job title and years of company life.
Without these (or, obviously, other more significant ones) precautions, critical experiences end up reinforcing mutual distrust and veiled resentment between generations, and, ultimately, the brand suffers enormous damage, while the organization ends up losing high-potential young people.
And here the key words such as trust, sincerity, transparency, patience, sensitivity, and kindness seem to be the ingredients for new leadership at multiple levels: the more realistic key to promoting the creativity, adaptability, and agility which organizations need to survive and grow, necessarily accompanied by good practices of feedback and delegation, time management, periodic meetings one-to-ones, but also storytelling, gamification, and networking.
I hope these reflections resonate with someone. Comments are really appreciated
This is a timely topic. Aldo.
Change brings need for change. It has its cascading effect. The volatility of our world is such that change is constantly happening. Old leadership models fail to meet the emerging requirements such as the increasing willingness of the new generation to work alongside the leaders.
This is in accordance with what you expressed elegantly, “Today it is clear that it is no longer possible to maintain this management style. These practices were not designed to fit into current value systems which are instead highly dynamic, interconnected, and complex.”
Leaders must change faster than change itself. The new work environment indeed requires completely novel thinking.
I’m glad you found value in this read and added more value with your insight!
The leadership of modern society, of autonomy, of individual freedoms, of free time and of work, is either collective or it is not leadership. No one can orient and interpret the meaning of history alone. If there is a cohesive community, which has common and shared principles, with coherent behaviour, distributed in an appropriate way in the ganglia of the organized being, be it a company, business or family, results that meet expectations and needs are obtained. This is the largest investment we can make as a community. The first level of professionalization is to move from I to we, not in communication, but in perception and the way of reasoning. If society is inclusive and supportive, then it develops. Otherwise, even with the good will of individuals, there will be no possibility of understanding the potential and contribution of individuals, and of growing through comparison