The
improvement process cannot overlook what happens before the act of learning. Improving performance by acting on
behaviors can be done with work on two aspects: 1. on what occurs before it (antecedents); or 2. on what
occurs after it (consequences). We are going to refer to antecedents in
this section, leaving consequences for the next one.
Inside the organization, an
antecedent is any person, place, thing or situation which arises prior
to a behavior and drives us to execute that behavior. Antecedents may be of
various types (Lopez Mena, 1989:
indicators (‘prompting’), modeling, goal-setting and participation; they serve to transmit information
(about behavior and its consequences) and ‘work’ because they are associated
with the consequences. In the case of managerial leadership, we would like to
highlight two of these antecedents: one with an attributional character (subject’s dispositional states) and
another of a more social nature (modeling).
The first one of them has a lot to
do with beliefs about change. The subject’s mental condition and other
attributional variables are related to beliefs about change. A number of
studies by Heslin, VandeWalle & Latham (2006) have shown that many managers
do not believe in personal change. Some managers believe in natural talent and
do not look for people with a potential to develop. However, good managers do believe
in their collaborators’ unlimited capacity to improve. Everything can be
acquired with the right training (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). For W.
Bennis (1989), most great leaders believe that a leader is made, not born, and
is made to a greater extent by themselves than through media that are external
to them. Gilbert (1978) claims that the average manager’s overcoming potential
is 360%. Any person, of any age and in any circumstances, is able to carry out
self-transformation (which is not the same as becoming a leader).
A lot of corporative training will
have little value without a strong belief in the development of human beings.
McCall (1998) believed that the real leaders of the future are those who have
the ability to learn from their experiences and remain open to continuous learning. Carol Dweck (2006) has
faithfully collected this idea in her research on ‘mindset’ when she draws a
distinction between two groups of individuals: the fixed mindset and the growth mindset ones. The
former think that intelligence is static, which leads to a tendency to avoid
changes, to adopt a defensive attitude before obstacles, to see effort as
something useless, to ignore the useful feedback from others, to feel
threatened by other people’s success and as a result of all this, to be unable
to develop their whole potential. Instead, the latter believe that intelligence
can be developed, which leads to a permanent wish to learn and a tendency to
desire changes, to persist in overcoming hindrances, to see effort as the way
to mastery, to learn from criticism and find inspiring lessons in other
people’s success. The most important lesson in this respect is that the ‘growth
mindset’ can be taught to managers. Dr. Dweck has created workshops called
“brainology” which have as their aim to develop the ‘growth mindset.’
The second one of the antecedents we
referred to above, modeling, has been
used for the training of managers (Sims & Manz, 1982) and has proved its
effectiveness as a form of learning. It is based on the fact that managers
learn through the observation of other managers’ behaviors (models) which
constitute an important set of antecedents for behavior that is valuable for
its frequency of appearance. Modeling is possible through four sets of learning
activities: modeling strictly speaking,
role game, social reinforcement and training transfer or generalization (Goldstein
& Sorcher, 1974). The observation of the right behavior, its practice and
the achievement of positive feedback has proved very useful in the development
of management and problem-discussion skills.
