The character components of managers, at all levels, are fundamental for the good health of the company

In a modern and efficient business reality, of whatever size it is, the human component always makes the difference.

This situation does not usually appear in the short life of companies, where technology and digital communications media ensure an important part of the success of the business, but if we consider a longer period of time, in which the competition has a certain balance on the field, human resources come into play to make the difference.

Once you have acquired a certain position in the market, you have to compare yourself with other entrepreneurial realities, trying to stay as long as possible in a situation of relative competitiveness and business survival.

Human resources, through their chains of command, bring motivation, ideas, commitment, dedication and strength to the brand, impressing small but constant differences in position between companies and company.

These small successes or failures are determined by the quality of the members of the business teams who, through their commitment, their ability and their individual character, will determine improvements or worsening of positions on the market.

The character of the managers plays a fundamental role, at all levels of command, not only the top ones, but very often, the intermediate ones have a fundamental role.

The work teams have leaders who must know how to direct the components, encourage them, advise them and throw themselves into the fray with them, maintaining leadership, creating a positive and charismatic climate that galvanizes the work.

He must be able to reward and punish, with the right moderation and impartiality, the team members without exceeding favoritism or excessive forgiveness, so as to give an equidistant image of the his work and underlining the importance of the group rather than the individual.

This action implies a character of the manager who is confident and resolute, flexible but impartial, determined and independent, who is very clear on the objectives that have been entrusted to him by the 'agency.

But what happens if in a leading position we find a person who is not sure of himself?

The first problem to be faced is his need to continually confirm the legitimacy of his position, both towards his superiors and the people who depend on him.

If in the first case, sometimes it is less impactful, however, the search for confirmations among the collaborators that he must direct creates a mixture of roles and a weakening of his position.

The insecure leader needs a group of collaborators who praise him, reassure him, make him feel at the center of the project and fill his lack of safety.

This situation, however, often splits work groups, as there are collaborators who expect to be guided and protected by the manager and not the other way around, putting in place bad light those who create a relationship of excessive confidence with the leaders.

Furthermore, it often happens that during difficulties in achieving the objectives set by the company, this points the finger on the group leader who, to protect himself, will not protect the 'entire team, but he could blame those parts of people who do not support him as openly as he would like.

Here the opposite mechanism is triggered by which the leader tries to defend himself, supporting his superiors, in order to safeguard his position at the expense of others.

After the storm the insecure manager will probably put people not in favor of him on the sidelines, focusing only on those who support him, as, often, he remains a resentful person, who would like to have extended and unconditional support that would reassure him.

It will create ambiguous, not sincere relationships, small vendettas, a certain laxity, a creeping resignation to do the bare minimum by one part of the team, creating inefficiency, loss of competitiveness and corporate value.

To overcome these painful and inefficient relationships for the company, it is necessary to create work or listening groups, in which human resources are mixed, followed by leaders who have competence in the management of human resources or have a psychological background and relate, in order to free people, through the comparison on other issues, of the fear of coming out into the open.

This is to investigate the positive and negative or dangerous sides that hover in the company's work groups, in order to collect as much information as possible, compare them, cross them and intervene.

Automatic translation. We apologize for any inaccuracies. Original article in Italian.