Very often, the answer to the questions we posed in the first part of this article is "that is how our Latin American culture is like" and we can actually state that is true. There are deep sociopolitical roots, starting by government leaders and including all lower levels, which show us a clear model of Autocratic Leadership: "I tell you what to do because what I tell you is what is best for you" This is a clear reflection of non participation or maybe fear of a different kind of Leadership.

Should we then accept this model which causes "passivity" as a response? Should we agree that it is better to wait for the clear instruction for acting, i.e., at non pro-activity? Is this what companies expect? Will this behavior model allow them to be more effective? Or should they modify their thought model and stop doing what they have been doing in order to achieve a better result? If in all Competences Models used by companies for Talent Selection, as well as for Performance Measurement "Pro-activity" is a key behavior, then why not develop processes which allow the stimulation of skills according to these principles?

These questions that seem so simple are actually very complex and contain a challenge for the company's Senior Management. It often asks itself these questions, but is not always able to answer them as it faces serious doubts, often supported by its own lack of security.

This challenge involves reflecting about the following:

If the Model changed into a more participative one, will people act in a responsible way or will I lose Leadership?

Have people really increased their motivation when increasing their participation or will they feel they no longer have their leader's support?

Will it be good to have people completely informed or should I tell them only what I think that might be useful for them?

This self-questioning model is just that: the inability or the fear of moving on to a higher level and so be able to recognize the valuable results of participative models.

So, is there a possibility of modifying this style, of achieving a new Model?

We believe there is. Many are the examples in which through our interventions based on a strong participation (with previous Senior Management agreement) work attitudes and climate have been changed.

The dilemma then lies in accepting that in order to be able to change the current paradigm should be changed, by:

I - Accepting the challenge

II - Overcoming the internal fears of Leadership loss

III - Believing in people's group opinion

Which steps should then be taken in order to develop this New Leadership Model?

Which are the necessary attitude changes for improvement to last over time?

Which challenges will we have to accept? How will we know we are getting the required results?

Previous Agreement

Before beginning any kind of intervention, we should clearly agree with the Senior Management on the following:

"The beginning of the solution to a possible negative situation should start by the involved people themselves, who must begin a positive thought process, describing the best of them and of what they have lived in that place (Area, Unit) Thus, we introduce the necessary stimulus so that they can envision how that place would be if it were what they wish it could be and which commitments or responsibilities they are ready to assume, individually or collectively, in order to undertake the necessary actions to achieve it."

1. Accepting the Challenge

This step implies not only self-convincement but also the possible questioning of pairs and superiors, who might be afraid not only of failure -as the situation might have other implications- but also of success- which could make them have to be the next ones to accept the challenge.

However, there are clear possibilities of successfully overcoming this initial challenge through a proper process planning. The following should be done:

v Analyzing the existing background. How did it occur? Which were the intervention types adopted? Which were the results?

v As regards the Consultant involved, which is his experience and background in the subject?

v Proper planning of each stage

v Being clearly convinced of which the main axis or topic of the situation is. And finally

v How to communicate the intervention to be made and its reasons to the people?

In many of the cases in which I was asked to act as Consultant regarding this kind of problem, after properly agreeing on the methodology, the process and the Follow- up Plan, I have always asked to make a presentation for the people involved and explain them what we were going to do, what was supposedly expected from them and which results they could achieve.

This first step of participation, the presentation of what was going to be done searching for agreement within themselves, already achieved the beginning of a strong acceptance.

The presentation of the different actions to be developed in which participants assumed a strongly active role, involved a strongly positive and proactive attitude change, as they had to:

a) Be able to dream about how the place/ Area/ Unit in which they would be able to accomplish their professional and personal hope would be like.

b) Design the Processes and/ or Plans that would allow them to fulfill this dream.

c) Assume their respective responsibilities, both individual and group ones, in order to achieve the proposed objectives.

d) Finally and probably the most important element: the Management believed in them and gave them the opportunity to achieve it.

The impact produced by this Plan already achieved the first step towards a strong and positive participation.

2. Overcoming Internal Fears of Leadership Loss

We must be aware of the fact that these fears appear more frequently than generally supposed. We usually find them in questions that arise, such as:

Won't my people see me as losing my Leadership?

Won't they think from now onwards they no longer need my Management?

Am I not giving up part of my power?

Clearly, the answers to these questions can only be found through a redefinition of the "Leadership" concept itself.

What is really to be a Leader?

Which is the true essence of Leadership?

This takes us back to the first part of this article and the definitions we stated there. If we simply choose

Leadership:

"The art of encouraging others so they are willing to fight for a common vision."

We will see that there are two actions to be taken simultaneously:

1. Permanent Feedback, that will require reporting about advances on:

a) The established aim

b) The analysis of TODAY

c) The adopted Strategy

d) The course of Action Plans

2. A Coaching Process

This process will initially require acting upon the responsible person (the Senior level person in charge) trying to look for the best in him/ her, so that he/ she can leave behind what he/ she currently is and so be able to be what he/ she wishes to be and how he/ she can achieve it.

How do we thus plan these interventions?

They include a combination of these two processes and usually entail a participation that is never shorter than 6 months, considering:

a) The previous process of topic search, agreement and approval by the Senior Management (15 days).

b) The presentation for participants (1 day).

c) A previous Workshop on Leadership, Communication, Team Work, etc. - in general, related subjects (4 days) This Workshop often has a catharsis purpose, which makes easier the passing onto the following stage, adapting a new positive model.

d) The carrying out of Focus Groups with Question Protocols, covering the whole Appreciative Inquiry* Model Process (2 to 4 days).

e) The setting of the subjects to be dealt with, the allocation of each team members voluntarily and the process of Plan Development (1 day).

f) The follow up of Action Plans elaboration (3 to 4 months).

g) The final presentation of the Action Plans to the Management/ top executives (1- 2 days).

Usually, the combination of both processes, Feedback and Coaching, not only answers the questions initially posed, but also causes a strong transformation in the responsible manager/ top executive.

Why does this transformation occur?

Because at this point we are entering a field that, although still related to leadership, acquires a special relevance in this process.

We are speaking about "Cultural Change". This phrase, closely related to values, principles and behaviors, and which can also be simplified to "the way we do things here", acts directly upon attitudes of the manager/ executive making him/ her feel the need for a change in the leadership model used up to the moment, and to move into the stage in which his/ her leadership would really be to motivate others, and to transform himself/ herself into participant of a solution. This solution will be the result of a highly collaborative process in the creation of a desired future.

3. Believing in People's Group Opinion

This third stage is usually the result of the two previous ones. People properly oriented (by a proper appreciative questions protocol) react in a mature and trustworthy way and usually in a better way than the simple individual response.

Very often when presenting and discussing this kind of processes with the Company’s Senior Management, serious doubts arise regarding the final orientation of thoughts and actions in search of the desired future. This doubts frequently oriented towards negative thoughts or actions are clearly brought up to be discussed.

At this point one must then act clearly and rationally in order to overcome this natural barrier that is caused by the already mentioned concepts. We are entering the threshold of Cultural Change.

Which are the steps to be taken?

1) Presenting clear examples of other interventions and what was achieved in them. The comparison with examples of well-known and regarded as comparable Companies is stronger than the enumeration of organizational behavior principles and laws.

2) Achieving co participation in question development, so that we achieve:

a) Commitment

b) Understanding of the reasons for behaviors oriented to positive thinking.

c) Confidence towards the Cultural Change Process

If, as we stated, the questions were properly and appreciatively oriented to the main topic, the Process will flow naturally. This, together with the fact of receiving reports on success, will make positive opinion stronger, which will be simultaneously reinforced by the Coaching Process.

Once the work process has started, it is clear that fears and doubts may reappear at several instances. There are more possibilities for this to occur if the directive leadership model of the Company has been a strong one.

Let's then see the stages of this Process, which will allow us to pass on to a more participative culture.

1) Explaining in detail and in practice the group change process, which -depending on the current situation- will move on from an individual and sometimes group catharsis to a search for what should have been and seen in others. This stage may last up to 2 or 3 days, up to the moment when groups reach awareness that they can dream about the desired future and co participate in its construction.

2) Making it clear for involved groups that proposed actions should later be ranked according to priority, as

The actions will require a thorough analysis

Not all of them will be approved simultaneously

We have performed many interventions and, in our experience, people acting in groups and in the stated way, always look for subjects and plans that will finally have a positive influence on the Company.

Among others, we have found:

Vision or Mission design or redesign (Corporate or Business Unit level) based on the Mission/ Vision of the Corporation.

Internal Integration Proposal.

Actions to improve integration with other Business Units

Process improvement for a better Internal or External Client orientation

Training Programs redesign in order to lower their costs and improve their effectiveness, Etc.

These elements reassure our previous concepts on people opinion, when participating in these processes.

In the several cases in which we have participated, especially the one stated in the Appendix, several changes occurred:

1) Great self-esteem improvement.

2) Awareness of individual and group responsibility towards the climate and productivity improvement.

3) Total change in negative thoughts towards the Company and its willingness to listen to people's opinion.

Some Thoughts:

We should not start a strongly participative intervention if we are not completely convinced that the three questions posed have been adequately covered and completely agreed on with the Senior Management.

Why do we make such an emphatic recommendation?

Why has practice demonstrated us that it is a mistake to trust that we will reach agreement as we advance in the process?

Recently I collaborated with a work group in an intervention, for which a prestigious University had been called. A "theory" presentation on the job was made for the Senior Management, but the implications it would have on staff or their expectations and which will be the Company's reaction towards them were not discussed.

Which were the consequences?

a) The job was interrupted by the General Management

b) The involved members of the Senior Management were displaced.

Experience tells us then that in case this premise does not occur, the following usually takes place:

a) Fears may strongly appear in the middle of the intervention. It will be interrupted, originating the subsequent disappointment of the participants.

b) Certain proposals or recommendations of participants may be considered as not complying with Senior Management thought, which might result in strongly negative and harmful actions for the members.

c) Giving up on the Action Plans. Often, the day to day pressure causes the Action Plans to be slowly abandoned or the Senior Management not to show the same initial commitment. Actions will not carry on and we will be back at the beginning. It is important that from the very beginning there is agreement on the Action Plans follow up model and that it be known by the participants.

A Final Word:

Following this proposed goal of introducing participative Leadership Models in our countries, I had always had to fight not only the local idiosyncrasy but also books and articles stating they dealt with Leadership, when what they were doing was deal with Management models that were often superficial and in a schematic and structured way; they justified a management model that did not go deep into the immense possibilities of Participative Leadership.

Besides, we notice that in other countries outside Latin America there is a certain backward step and a comeback of a more directive model. This is often caused by:

Pressure for profits and costs:

Shareholders who want more and Managers/ executives who go beyond all barriers in order to satisfy these demands.

Finally, new "Internal Control" systems which sometimes, based on justified reasons advance on and overwhelm all Management levels. The recent article "The Reign of Zero Tolerance" by the HBR is a clear and shocking example of these autocratic advances. However, we believe and we are convinced that we must keep going on, as the model to be adopted is that of true Leadership. It is this model, which allows and has allowed people's commitment, dreaming of a desired future and, above all, knowing that you are listened to and the possibility of acting in a proactive and positive way, for which you are encouraged and recognized.

This is, definitely, the model that allows and will allow Companies to reach more effective and successful final results.