(Published in Debates IESA magazine, 2017)
Those who manage organizations of the third sector need to manage the human resource in a tenacious and intelligent way , to refine their capacity to respond to the context. Finding the keys to this leadership can also mean finding the basis for the construction of a civil society really committed to the principles of equity and progress.
THE IMPORTANT role of the non-profit sector in strengthening democracy is increasingly evident. Throughout the world, its ability to contribute to promote development, growth and equality within the framework of relations between companies, the State and society is recognized. Autonomous civil organizations, efficient and committed to their mission, are guarantors of the joint action of social factors for the welfare of citizens. Although Venezuela is no exception, civil society organizations have had to adapt to an increasingly uncertain and adverse environment: uncertain, because the regulatory framework and the discretionality with which they are met do not provide clear guidelines; and adverse, because the sector's own obstacles (scarce sources of financing, high personnel turnover, growing needs for goods and services, among others) are increased by a context of multiple restrictions in the legal, economic and operational spheres.
Despite the adversities, several organizations of the third sector of Venezuela have been able to maintain and even improve their performance, thanks to managerial virtues such as resilience and the ability to adapt to changes. This behavior seems to be related to the way leaders develop and interact with their teams.
Leadership styles: from the North American business world to Venezuelan civil society
In his article "Leadership that Gets Results" (Harvard Business Review, 2000), Daniel Goleman identified six styles of leadership in high and middle management: four (visionary, affiliative, participatory, trainer) provide positive results for a team of collaborators, while the other two (coercive and exemplary), if used daily and without measure, could have a harmful effect on the work environment and affect the results of the organization.
To corroborate the cultural validity of Goleman's findings in the Venezuelan context, was analyzed the performance of ten social organizations, selected among a group of seventy organizations appreciated for such traits as perceived reputation, scope of action and institutional trajectory. The comparative analysis of operational performance, measured according to the model of the balanced scorecard created by Kaplan and Norton in 1990, concluded that, in Venezuelan civil society, the most successful organizations have been led by people who combine different types of leadership; particularly, visionary leadership with the democratic or participatory.
The Venezuelan third sector leader: a participatory visionary
From the ten organizations studied, were selected the five with the best comparative performance in order to carry out in-depth interviews with their representatives. These interviews, complemented with structured surveys to the authorities, allowed us to elaborate a classification of the most used styles of leadership, according to the frequency of use and the degree of identification felt by the leaders towards each particular style.
The visionary and participative leadership styles stand out in preference and frequency, among the leaders interviewed.
It is surprising at first glance to discover that styles such as the affiliate or the trainer (coaching) did not obtain higher scores. The explanation can be inferred from the understanding of the dynamics immanent to the sector the organizations conform, explained by their leaders. The third sector is made up of smaller and less structured organizations than organizations in the lucrative private sector or those in the public sector. Their authorities must assume, in many occasions, tasks that consume time and dedication, and prevent them from working hard to manage human resources. This explains, for example, that coaching leadership is not used with the assiduity that some of the interviewees said they wanted.
The same reasoning explains in part why pace/setting leadership obtained results at a medium level. In a way, civil society leaders must follow an accelerated pace in fulfilling tasks and achieving results; a requirement they transfer to their work teams. If to this is added the high turnover of personnel characteristic of the sector, then growth or good performance seems to depend more on the leaders and their way of acting than on their subordinates. During the study, some of the respondents expressed how pernicious the constant use of pace-setting leadership can be, so they declared trying to exercise it less than they wanted.
The majority acknowledged barely using coercive leadership: they considered coercion to be unhelpful given the nature -voluntary, as a rule- of work. For them it is much more effective to encourage human resources through guidance, persuasion and motivation than with the constant imposition of authority, because the work is carried out with people (volunteers or employees) who are more attracted by emotional identification with the organization and its values that for the remuneration or the economic stability that could receive.
Venezuelan civil society leaders tend to exercise more frequently visionary and participative leadership styles without renouncing the possibility of combining them with other styles when circumstances so require. By exercising leadership based on a powerful and persuasive vision, which includes the collaborators in the decision processes in order to increase their legitimacy, the authorities keep the human resource motivated, ready to contribute to the achievement of the mission of the organization.
Towards a third sector protagonist of the national development
In addition to the efforts that can be made by civil society organizations and their leaders, changes in the social environment are required to increase their margins of maneuver. Although these organizations do not have resources comparable to those of the State or the private sector, they can reach high levels of efficiency in specific or segmented interventions, because being driven by a powerful mission, they easily manage the mobilization of human resources with low costs. They also have knowledge in various areas. Examples of this are the large mobilizations of volunteers that can be achieved to manage resources or provide support in the provision of services to vulnerable populations.
Another important characteristic of these organizations is their capacity to consolidate advocacy networks in order to influence legislation or maintain long-term partnerships that allow them to act, in several cases, as subsidiaries of important national or foreign cooperators. Being able to organize society autonomously, plurally and independently, they are presented as a channel of great legitimacy that allows funneling the demands of the population before the State, without being conditioned by political interests.
Both the resilience and the adaptability shown by the organizations of the Venezuelan third sector give rise to optimism, because they allow us to think that the foundations of a strong civil society are already formed. It only takes a small boost to increase their incidence and ensure, in addition, that the management of the public is on track.
The country is at a crucial moment in its history. The turning point Venezuela is going through could mean a positive change towards new opportunities or, on the contrary, a deepening of the problems that afflict it. Whether to consolidate a reconquered democracy or to continue in the struggle for its recovery, the work of civil society is fundamental. Hopefully the leaders of the third sector, and Venezuelans in general, can work together on such an important task.
Lorena Liendo/Roddy Rodríguez (2016)