This is how a Japanese proverb says. It is also common to hear: “We hire intelligent people and then tell them how to do things; instead of listening to them how we should do them.”
Many times in organizations, and beyond formal expressions, not only is not only the best performance, but forms of evaluation, which include subjective aspects that end up matching down and averaging performances, forcing curves and making curves and making it through these “all closure” are not only rewarded. Nothing farther from the proclaimed desire to reward the best, their results and their commitment.
And the question then is: why does this happen? The answer, unfortunately, is in the reference to the nail that stands out and its hammer as the proverb mentions.
Many times, leadership styles within organizations, based on their own insecurities, their own folds and failures, not only do not stand out and recognize high performance, but can even “punish” it with subtlety to excel. Therefore, the nail that stands out, will always find the hammer.
Change of functions, delegation of tasks and not of the responsibility of making decisions, dismissal of projects and ideas without even analyzing them are some of the ways adopted by that “hammer” that culminates its work by not adequately recognizing contributions.
The truth is that, over time, that employee will look for other horizons, other challenges and the organization will remain with average taxpayers and an leadership style that we could well equate with Procusto syndrome.
Procusto was a character of Greek mythology. Actually, he was a bandit who lived in Attica and had a inn along the way between Athens and Eleusis. He had a sinister fame since he invited travelers to rest to his inn and the following happened: If a guest was higher than the length of the bed cut their limbs that stood out. If it was lower and left over, it stretched it until it was dismembered if necessary.
In this way nobody agreed exactly with their standard, and everyone died in the process of “adjusting them.” Finally, the hero Tese, on one of his trips to Athens, defeated him and applied the same destiny that applied to so many others.
From this story arises the expression “Procusto Syndrome” that we use to describe those/leaders who try to force others to fit in their rigid molds, eliminating what stands out or forcing what is missing.
So, if we look inside the organization and seek with clear intention, we can basically find three leadership styles:
The first, obsessed with uniformity, discards the new, discards what stands out, seeks to surround themselves with people equal to him by force of what they lack and generate huge inefficiencies in the medium and long term. Discard capacities that will be necessary in the future.
The second is pragmatic leadership; Instead of forcing, design more custom positions taking into account the strengths of each person and values diversity as a engine of productivity and creativity.
Finally, the third, more visionary, sees in diversity not only an advantage, but a strategic opportunity. Understand that a good leader is not a procus that adjusts people to their own mold; but rather an architect who builds different spaces and of different measures where each talent can develop.
It usually happens that over time organizations learn the lesson clearly: “Procustean” leaders generate conformism and fear, while flexible and visionaries generate innovation, commitment and sustainable results.
The formula of success here will be an early and accurate diagnosis about which leadership style is prevailing in the organization and making changes in time to avoid the negative effects of the “corporate procustices.”
*Marcelo Villegas is a lawyer specializing in negotiations, Ontological Coach and former Minister of Labor of the Province of Buenos Aires.
By Marcelo Villegas
