Book: Career and Leadership

It was a great pleasure to participate in the co-creation of the book Career and Leadership: Mobile frontiers between the individual and the organization, in which I am the author of three chapters, 2 of which are co-authored with Prof. Joel Dutra

In the first chapter, entitled: The differences between leader and manager: the preparation to act in the political arena of the organization, we show a new perspective on the distinction between Managers and Leaders. Although this distinction is a topic that has been extensively explored and debated, it is still a controversial issue with poorly defined contours.

Currently, the leadership process must be seen as an increasingly broad, volatile, and ambiguous context; that is, the interaction of leaders is not restricted to those who are led but also with peers, superiors, strategic partners, consumers, and suppliers, among others.

In this context, leaders must deal with conflicts of interest between the various actors interacting with the company and reconcile these interests. It is also necessary to create shared meanings. The term “politics,” as applied to leadership, refers to the influence and sharing of meaning.

Second, Dutra (2017) it is crucial to consider the differentiation between a leader who leads in a very structured reality and who is not included in the discussion of scarce resources from other leaders who deal with uncertainty and ambiguity and are embedded in resource disputes. The distinction between manager and leader must consider acting in the “political arena” as a typical and demanded function of managers who work in poorly structured realities in which the allocation of resources is a constant.

The manager must be influential in the relationship with other people connected to him in a hierarchical relationship. Still, over whom to carry out his work, he needs interaction and exerts influence. In this scenario, the manager must exercise leadership regardless of having a team subordinate to him.

In cases where there is a hierarchical relationship, the manager is responsible for representing the interests and needs of his team in the “political arena.”

When considering the career as increasing complexity, acting in the “political arena” starts to represent a greater complexity for the professional who previously worked only in the technical area.

However, not all companies and professionals identify this “political” demand. In our research, we realized that the team leader may or may not be in the political arena of the organization. The leader who needs to manage scarce resources is usually in an arena where he has to create arguments and criteria for the distribution of these resources since its members will seek elements to win the dispute.

The political arena is where the exercise of leadership takes on other contours and starts to require behavioral skills different from those in its relationship with the work team. We verified that only some team leaders are in the political arena, and we started to designate the leader who is in the political arena as the manager (DUTRA, 2019).

In the second chapter (Individual), I discuss Political skills and competencies in times of scarce resources.

When assuming managerial positions, technical competencies lose relative importance, and, on the other hand, managerial competencies gain greater relevance. However, it is necessary to consider that different managers are more and others less effective in using political behavior due to their competencies.

In a broader context of increasing complexity, the role of leadership expands to interactions with peers, superiors, customers, and communities outside the organization. Managers need to represent the interests of their teams and areas in the different “political arenas” of organizations where these disputes over scarce resources occur.

An essential role for managers, which is also related to the conquest of political space, is the conciliation of divergent interests, ambiguities, and contradictions in daily work. Knowing how to deal with conflicts is essential in today’s world.

Despite the importance of the role of management in the “political arena” for leaders’ success, few studies explore the political and positive aspects of behavior within organizations.

According to Dutra (2010), not all professionals identify with the political area of ​​organizations and, therefore, do not have the will to act politically, failing to represent the interests of their teams. The idea is for organizations to create conditions to prepare and expose employees to situations requiring political expertise, to assess their performance later, suitability for the experience, and taste for the activity.

Identifying the appropriate profile for a professional in a leadership position involves an assessment of political will and skill. To describe this capacity, we define it by using the expression “political competence” (BRANT, 2017). Political competency is related to social effectiveness at work and has four critical dimensions – social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and evident sincerity.

We also analyze the personal traits and strategies developed by Pfeffer (1992) to obtain support and create coalitions, that is, to survive in a competitive arena where interdependence is a fact:

1) Energy and physical resistance, 2) Focus, 3) Sensitivity to others, 4) Flexibility, 5) Ability to tolerate the conflict, 6) Ego submersion, and ability to deal well with people.

Pfeffer (1992) also reports some strategies that contribute to effective social interaction and to getting things done:

 1) Knowing how to deal with time, 2) How to use the information and analyze it, 3) Changing the structure, 4) Symbolic attitudes.

In the third chapter, 3, we address “The preparation of future leaders and managers for the tactical and strategic level of organizations.”

One of the organization’s main concerns today is preparing for its future leadership. According to Dutra (2010), the career development of leaders involves the transition to higher levels of complexity. When moving from a technical to a managerial career, the professional deals with attributions and responsibilities of different natures. However, not all organizations interpret this transition as a migration of jobs of different natures and end up not offering the necessary preparation and care so that this transition is successful. A consequence of this situation is that many professionals who are technically sound but without a vocation for the management areas end up taking positions in this role. As a result, companies end up losing good technicians and gaining bad managers.

Some authors warn about the importance of better understanding the differences in the role of managers at hierarchical levels – middle or tactical management and senior or strategic management. A common problem in organizations is the lack of preparation of managers at different levels.

It is common for training to be offered in the early stages of leadership, and it is assumed for other levels that people are already prepared or that learning is natural, but the daily routine in organizations shows that this premise is only sometimes true. The challenges at different levels vary in terms of their degree of complexity, and scope of work, among others.

Dutra (2016), in his studies on leadership, identified two political arenas in organizations: the tactical and strategic levels.

The political arena at the tactical level is characterized by being a space for disputes over scarce resources – budget, investments, wages, physical space, etc. In this arena, rules for coexistence and access to scarce resources are formed, creating relationship rules between areas and with external partnerships.

On the other hand, the political arena at the strategic level presents itself as a space for discussions about the organization’s future, strategic partnerships; relationships with stakeholders; influence on the environment/context in which the organization is inserted.

There are continuous disputes for political space in both arenas; that is, the search for more power of influence in the relationship with peers, superiors, internal and external public, and partners happens constantly.

Our research points to the importance of having a way to measure this competence, as well as training that addresses political issues specifically and directly. This can adjust to improve the identification of professionals’ profiles for management positions. Thus, how to prepare them to use the political influence system positively, enabling the necessary changes and innovations in management and society.

I thank the book organizers for inviting me to participate in this project: Prof. Elza Veloso, Prof. Leonardo Trevisan, and, in particular, Prof. Joel Dutra for the partnership in the chapters and the development of research on the Political Competence of leadership.

If you are interested and want to know more. You can purchase the book on Amazon.