MANAGING ONESELF (1999)

Peter F. Drucker

Peter F. Drucker is a professor at the Marie Rankin Clarke School of Social Sciences and Management (Emeritus)

and at Claremont Graduate University, in California.

This article is an excerpt from the book Management Challenges for the 21st Century
(HarperCollins, 1999).

We live in an era of unprecedented opportunities: if you have ambition and intelligence, you can
to reach the highest levels in the profession you choose, regardless of where you started.

But with opportunities come responsibility. Today's companies are not

managing the professional careers of their employees, the knowledge that they require
to be their own CEOs. It depends on you to build your place, to know when to change course,
maintain your commitment and productivity throughout your working life that can extend
up to 50 years. To do this correctly, you need to cultivate a deep knowledge
about yourself, not only about your strengths and weaknesses, but also about how to learn, how you
you relate to others, what your values are, where you add more value. Because, only when
you work from your strengths you achieve excellence.

Success in the knowledge economy is for those who know themselves, understand their
fortresses, their values, and how to achieve their optimal performance. The figures that hold the
great historical achievements, Napoleon, Da Vinci, Mozart, always knew how to manage themselves. This, in

to a large extent, it paved its triumphs. However, there are few exceptions, so particular
in their talent as in their achievements, which are considered beyond the limits of human existence.
Well, most of us, including those of us who are modest in our abilities,
we will have to learn to manage ourselves. Understand how to develop ourselves. We must

to position ourselves in that place where our contribution is the maximum possible. We will have to
be alert, take part in our 50 years of work life, which means learning how and
when to change what we do.

What are my strengths?

1
Most people think they know what they excel at. Normally, this
perception is not accurate. Often, they identify what they are not good at, and even in this
they tend to be mistaken. However, an individual can only perform from their strengths. Not
Performance can be built from weaknesses, not to mention those aspects.
for which one is not at all qualified.

Throughout history, there was not much interest in the analysis of strengths. An individual
was born in a position, in a line of work. So, the farmer's son would be a farmer,
the daughter of the craftsman would marry one, etcetera. Today, there are alternatives. We must know
our strengths to identify where we belong.

The only way to discover your strengths is through analyzing feedback. When you take
a key action or decision, write your expectations. Nine or twelve months later, compare
your actual results with what you expected. I have been using this technique for 15 or 20 years and, each

Every time I use it, I am surprised. The feedback analysis has taught me that, for example, and
To my great surprise, I have an intuitive analytical ability regarding technical people, whether they are

engineers, accountants, or market researchers. It has also revealed to me why I do not connect.
with the generalists. The analysis of feedback is by no means a novelty.

It was conceived at some point in the 14th century by a German theologian who in the rest of his
thoughts are quite cryptic, and it emerged independently, about 150 years
later, by John Calvin and Ignatius of Loyola. Both incorporated it into the practices of their
followers. In fact, the constant focus on performance and the results it produces this
habit explains why the institutions that these two men founded, the Calvinist church and the
Jesuit Order, they came to dominate Europe in 30 years.

Practiced consistently, this simple method is capable of revealing in a period of time

brief, of perhaps 2 or 3 years, where your strengths reside - and this is the most relevant thing that one

It must be known. The method exposes what is achieved or not achieved and that is
depriving the individual of their strengths. It shows you what you are not especially good at.
competent. And finally, it will show you where you do not have strengths and cannot act.

After the analysis, some implications of actions to be taken from this are presented. The first
And most importantly, focus on the strengths. Position yourself where you can achieve results.

Secondly, work on improving your strengths. The analysis will quickly show you
those aspects in which to improve skills or acquire some new ones. In addition to this,

2
It will expose the knowledge gaps, something that is often solvable. There are
born mathematicians, but anyone can learn trigonometry.

Third, identify those moments when your intellectual arrogance causes ignorance.
paralyzing, and overcome them. Too many people, especially those with great experience in a
area, they disdain that of other areas and equate brilliance with knowledge. Engineers of
first level, for example, they often take pride in knowing nothing about the personal sphere. The
human beings, they believe, are too chaotic for the orderly mind of an engineer.
Human resources professionals, on the contrary, are proud of their ignorance in
elementary finance or in quantitative methods. This pride leads to a self-defeat. Work
in the acquisition of skills and knowledge that are necessary to develop your
fortresses completely.

It is equally necessary to reverse bad habits, actions that you perform or fail to perform that
hinder your effectiveness and performance. These habits will quickly show up in the feedback.
For example, a person who plans may find out that their plans do not come to fruition.
Why doesn't he follow them? Like so many other brilliant people, he believes that his ideas move mountains.

Excavators move mountains; ideas show the excavators where they should direct their efforts.
work. The planner must understand that the work only ends when the plan has been
completed. You must find people to carry out the plan, to whom to explain it. You must
adapt and modify it as you implement it. And finally, you must decide when to let go.
to promote the plan.

At the same time, the feedback should reveal whether the problem is the lack of forms. The forms, the
Courtesy is the lubricant of an organization. It is a law of nature that two bodies that
They move in contact with each other generating friction. This is true for human beings as well.
like for objects. Courtesy - simple actions like saying 'please' and 'thank you', to know the
asking for the person's name or their family allows two people to work together,
regardless of whether they have a good relationship. Brilliant people, especially, people
young and bright, has difficulty understanding this. If the analysis shows that the work
someone brilliant fails repeatedly at the moment when it requires them to
cooperation from others, this likely indicates a lack of courtesy, a lack
in good ways.

Comparing expectations with results guides what actions should not be taken.
We all have a large number of areas in which we have no talent or skill and we rely on.
with little chance of even becoming mediocre. In these areas, a person, -

3
especially a knowledge worker should not assume this work, these functions,
those tasks. One must invest as little effort as possible in developing areas of
low competition. It takes much more energy to go from incompetence to mediocrity than
from high performance to excellence. Nonetheless, most people, - and especially the
the majority of teachers and the majority of organizations focus on transforming the
incompetent performance in mediocre. This energy, these resources, and this time should
investing in transforming a competent person into a person who excels at the highest level
level.

How do I perform?

There is a very small number of extraordinary people who know how to get things done.
In fact, most people don't even know that different individuals perform differently.
different. Too many people work in ways that are not their own, which offers little
performance guarantees. For knowledge workers, it requires much more energy
to go from incompetence to mediocrity rather than from high performance to excellence. 'How
Should I submit? Perhaps it's an even more important question than 'What are my
fortresses?

Like one’s strengths, the way one acts is unique. It is a matter of

personality. Whether personality is a matter of nature or learning,
it surely forms much earlier than a person accesses the labor market. How it performs
A person is something given, in the same way that what a person is good at or not is.
it is also something given. The way a person performs may change slightly, but
It is very unlikely that this will change completely, and it is certainly not easy. In the same way that

people achieve results by doing what they are good at, they also achieve
results working in the way they perform best. Some common traits of
Personality often determines how a person operates.

Am I a reader or a listener? The first thing to know is whether one is a reader or a listener. The
The vast majority of people do not know if they are readers or listeners and that people rarely
they are both. Even less do they know which of the two they themselves are. Some examples will serve to

illustrate the damage that this ignorance can cause.

When Dwight Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, he was the
press favorite. His press conferences were famous for their style. General Eisenhower

4
he demonstrated total control over any question posed to him, and was able to describe
any situation and explain a policy in two or three polished and elegant sentences. Ten more years
Later, the same journalists who had been his admirers stopped holding him in high regard.
consideration: he never answered the questions and, although they complained, he would digress non-stop about

other topics. Eisenhower was constantly mocked for his poor use of the king's English.
incoherent and grammatically deficient responses.

Eisenhower apparently did not know that he was a reader, not a listener. When he was Commander
Supreme in Europe, his aides ensured that all press questions were answered.
They will present in writing at least half an hour before the conference begins. And
Eisenhower had absolute power. When he became president, he succeeded two listeners:
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Both enjoyed being listeners and attending
conferences open to the public. Eisenhower might have felt that he had to do what his two
predecessors had done. As a result, he never listened to the questions they asked him.
In reality, Eisenhower is not even an extreme case of a non-hearer.

A few years later, Lyndon Johnson destroyed his presidency, largely because
I was unaware that he was a listener. His predecessor, John Kennedy, was a reader who had gathered
a brilliant group of writers as his assistants, making sure they wrote to him beforehand
to discuss their notes in person. Johnson kept these people on his staff... and
they kept writing. Apparently, he never understood a word of what they wrote. However,
as a senator, Johnson had been excellent; because parliamentarians have to be, above
All, listeners. Few listeners can become, or can turn into, readers.
competent, and vice versa. The listener who tries to be a reader will therefore suffer the same fate
that Lyndon Johnson, while the reader trying to be a listener will suffer the fate of
Dwight Eisenhower. They will not be able to surrender, achieve achievements.

How do I learn? The second thing to know about how to act is to know how one
learn. Like many distinguished writers, Winston Churchill is one of the many
examples of low academic performance. They tend to remember their school stage as a true
torture. However, few of his classmates remember him the same way. It is
It is possible that they did not enjoy school, but the worst part was the boredom. The explanation
writers, as a general rule, do not learn by listening and reading. They learn
writing. Since you can't learn this way at school, they get poor grades.

5
Schools around the world are organized based on the premise that there is only one
the correct way to learn and that it is the same for everyone. But that they force you to learn
The way the school teaches is not useful for students who learn in one way.
different. In fact, there are likely hundreds of ways to learn.

Don't try to change yourself, it is unlikely to turn out well. Work on improving your.
way of acting

There are people, like Churchill, who learn by writing. Some learn by taking many
notes. Beethoven, for example, left behind a great number of score notebooks, but
he claimed that he never looked at them while composing. When asked why he kept them, it is said
he responded: 'If I don't write it down immediately, I forget it entirely. If I put it in a notebook.'
of notes, I never forget it and I will never have to look for it again.” Some people learn
doing it this way. Others do it by listening to themselves.

An executive I know turned a small and mediocre family business into the leading company.
in his industry. He was one of those people who learned by talking. He had the habit of
call all of their senior employees to their office once a week and chat with them
for two or three hours. I would raise policy issues and support three different ones.
perspectives for each of them. Rarely did he ask his partners for reflections or questions;
he simply needed an audience to listen to him. That's how he learned. And although it is
An extremist case, learning by speaking is not an unusual method. Successful lawyers
They learn in the same way, just like many professionals in charge of medical diagnosis.
(and me too).

Of all the most important aspects of self-knowledge, understanding how

learning is the easiest to acquire. When I ask people, 'How do you learn?'
Most know the answer. But when I ask them, 'Do you act upon this'
knowledge?” Few respond affirmatively. And yet, acting according to this knowledge is the
key to performance; or rather, not acting based on this knowledge condemns one to the
lack of performance.

Am I a reader or a listener? and how do I learn? These are the first questions we must ask.
make ourselves. But they are not the only ones. To manage yourself effectively, you also have to
Ask yourself first, do I work better in a team or alone? And if you work better in a team, then
You should ask yourself, what kind of relationship?

6
Some people work better as subordinates. General George Patton, the great hero
U.S. military from World War II, is an excellent example. Patton was the
Brigadier General of the United States. However, when he was proposed as Major
General, General George Marshall, the Chief of Staff of the United States, and
probably the most successful recruiter in the history of the United States, said: 'Patton
He is the best subordinate that the U.S. Army has produced, but he would be the worst.
general.

Some people work better as members of a team. Others work better alone.
Some have exceptional talent as coaches and mentors; others are simply
incompetent as mentors.

Another crucial question is: Do I function better making decisions or giving advice? A great
number of people works well giving advice but are not able to take on the burden and the
pressure to make a decision. Many others, on the other hand, need a person to guide them.
I advised them and forced them to think, to make decisions and to act with speed, confidence, and courage.

This is one reason, by the way, that the number two person in an organization often fails.
when promoted to the number one position. The first place requires a person to take
decisions. Often those who make important decisions rely on a second
person as your advisor, and in that position, the person is brilliant. But in the first place, the
the same person fails. That person knows that the decision should be, but cannot be, to accept the
responsibility.

Other important questions to consider are: Do I work well under pressure, or do I need a
structured and predictable environment? Do I work better in a large company or a small one?
There are few people who know how to work well in any type of environment. I have often seen people
who had great success in large organizations felt miserable when they moved to others.
smaller. And the opposite.

So, let's repeat the conclusion: you will fail if you are not yourself. Of course, work hard.
to improve and do not try to take on more work than you can handle.

What are my values?

7
To be able to manage yourself, you must ask yourself: "What are my values?" I don't
It is a matter of ethics. In terms of ethics, the rules are the same for everyone and the test is simple.
I call it 'the mirror test'.

In the early years of this century, the most respected diplomat among all the great
powers was the ambassador of Germany in the United Kingdom. He was intended to achieve great
things, among them, becoming foreign minister, or even federal chancellor
from Germany. However, in 1906, he resigned from presiding over a dinner organized by the body
diplomat for King Edward VII. The king was a known womanizer, and made it clear what kind of
dinner wanted. According to the ambassador, he would have said: 'I refuse to see a pimp in the mirror for

the morning when I shaved.

That is the mirror test. Ethics wants you to ask yourself, What kind of person do I want to see?
reflected in the mirror the next morning? What is ethical behavior in a type of
organization or situation is ethical behavior in another. But ethics is only part of a
value system - especially the value system of an organization.

Working in an organization whose value system is unacceptable or incompatible with that of

one condemns oneself to frustration and low performance.

Consider the experience of a highly successful Human Resources professional at her company
it was acquired by a larger organization. After the acquisition, she was promoted to
perform the functions she did best, which included selecting people for positions
important. The expert firmly believed that a company should hire people from outside
after exhausting all possibilities within the organization. But her new company
I believed in looking for talent from outside 'to bring fresh air'. There is something that must be said for both.

approaches; in my experience, the right thing is to do some of the two. However, they are
incompatible, not as policies but as values. They encompass different points of view of the
relationship between organizations and people; different viewpoints on the
responsibility of an organization towards its team and its development; and different points of view
from the most important contribution of a person to a company. After several years of
frustration, the professional resigned causing great losses. Her values and the values of the
organization were not compatible.

Similarly, if a pharmaceutical company tries to obtain results by making improvements

constants and small ones or achieving specific 'advances', very costly and risky, it is not about
about an economic issue. The results of any of the strategies are practically
the same. At its core, there is a conflict between a system of values that sees contribution

8
from the company as a way to help physicists do better what they are already doing and a system
of values oriented towards making scientific discoveries.

If a company must operate to achieve short-term results or with a focus on

what one does well, even very well and successfully, may not fit with the system of values
own. In the long term, it is also a matter of values. Financial analysts consider
that companies can operate for both simultaneously. Successful entrepreneurs
They know better. Without a doubt, every company has to achieve short-term results.

But in any conflict between short-term results and long-term growth, each
the company will determine its priorities. This is not a disagreement about the economy. It is

fundamentally a conflict of value regarding the function of a company and the

responsibility of management. Value conflicts are not limited to organizations.
business. One of the fastest growing pastoral churches in the United States measures the
success due to the number of new parishioners. Their leadership lies in the number of newcomers
who join the congregation. God will take care of their spiritual needs or at least of the
needs of a sufficient percentage. Another pastoral and evangelical church believes that what
Importantly, the spiritual growth of individuals matters. The church supports newcomers who are
they unite but do not enter into their spiritual life.

Once again, it's not a matter of numbers. At first glance, it seems that the second church
grows more slowly. But it retains a higher proportion of newcomers than the first.
Its growth, in other words, is more solid. This is not a theological problem either, or just
secondary. It is a problem of values. In a public debate, a pastor argued: "A
Unless you come to church first, you will never find the door to the Kingdom of Heaven.

—No— replied the other. "Until you first seek the door to the Kingdom of Heaven, no
you belong to the church.

Organizations, like people, have values. To work effectively in a

organization, a person's values must be compatible with the values of the
organization. They do not have to be the same, but they must be close to coexist. From what
On the contrary, the person will not only feel frustrated, but will also not achieve results.

A person's strengths and the way that person acts rarely conflict;
the two are complementary. But sometimes there is a conflict between a person's values and
your strengths. What one does well, even very well and successfully, may not fit with the

9
own system of values. In that case, it may not be worth it to dedicate your entire life to
work (or even a considerable part of it).

Allow me to add a personal anecdote. Many years ago, I also had to

to reflect on whether my values and what was providing me success coincided. It was a
young and promising investor who was thriving in London in the mid-1930s, and the
the job came to me like a glove. However, I couldn’t see myself developing my
career in this sector. I realized that what I really valued was the people. Really
it made no sense to be the richest man in the cemetery and, aside from my work, I had no
greater life prospects. Despite a continuous depression, I managed to leave my job and
it was the best thing I could have done. Values, definitely, are and should always be the
last answer.

Where do I belong?

Some privileged individuals find their place early on. Mathematicians, musicians, or cooks, to give an example.

an example, they generally knew they would be mathematicians, musicians, or cooks since
They were 4 or 5 years old. Physicists, for their part, usually decide which career they will pursue in adolescence,

if not before. But most people, especially those who possess a talent
special, they do not know where they belong even beyond their twenties. However, for
So, you should already know the answers to these three questions: What are my strengths?
How do I act? And what are my values? And only then can and should they decide where to go.
belong.

Oh, at least they should be able to decide where they do not belong. Those who have learned
those who do not fit into a large organization should have also learned to resign from
occupy a similar position in the future. Those who have realized that they are not good
making decisions they should have already learned to say no to taking on a position that entails
the decision making. General Patton, who probably never learned this lesson,
I should have known to step down from an independent command.

In the same way, having the answers to these questions allows for making the decision that is
You are going to take on an opportunity, an offer, or a task that arises. And be able to say:
Yes, I will do this, but this way and it will be structured in this other way. This is how relationships should be.

This is the type of results that will be obtained from me because what I do is a reflection of what
I am.

10
Successful careers are not planned. They develop when people are willing to open up to
new opportunities because they are aware of their strengths, their way of working and their
values. A hardworking and competent person, even if they are ordinary in certain aspects,
he can do extraordinary things if he knows his place.

What do I need to contribute?

Throughout history, not everyone has asked themselves the question: 'What do I have to contribute?'
Someone told them what they should do and their tasks were determined either by the work itself
same -in the case of the peasants or the artisans- or by their lords, as happened with the
servants. And until very recently, it was taken for granted that most people were
subordinate to the designs of others. Even in the 1950s and 1960s of the last century, the newly
emerged "knowledge workers", sought the support of the departments in charge
of the staff in their companies when making decisions about their careers.

Later, in the late 1960s, this changed and no one wanted to be told what they had to do.
do. The young people started to ask themselves, 'What do I want to do?' And the answer was: 'do
"your things." But this solution was just as poor as that of the men from the 1950s. Really
very few people truly believed that focusing solely on oneself could lead to
feel fulfilled or respond to any of the three previous questions.

But, in any case, the option to continue with the assigned tasks was not reconsidered.
others. Knowledge workers had to ask themselves a question never before
formulated: "What should my contribution be?" To answer this, they must address three
distinct elements: What does the situation require? Given my strengths, my way of acting and my
values, how can I make the greatest contribution to what needs to be done? And, finally, what
What results need to be achieved to make a difference?

Imagine the experience of a newly appointed hospital administrator. The hospital was large.
and highly prestigious, but it had been living off its reputation for the last 30 years. The
the new administrator decided that their contribution should be to establish a standard of excellence

in some important area within two years. He decided to focus on the Emergency area,
which was large, easily accessible, but somewhat neglected. It stipulated that each patient who
Upon entering Emergencies, they should be seen by a qualified nurse every 60 seconds.
within 12 months, the emergency room of the hospital had become a model of

11
reference for all hospitals in the United States, and, two years later, the whole hospital
had been transformed.

As the example suggests, it is rarely possible, or even particularly useful, to make plans so far ahead.
long term. In general, for a plan to be clear and specific, it cannot cover more than 18
months. So the question in most cases should be: "Where and how can I
achieve the results that will make a difference in the next year and a half?
it must be a set of several things. First, the results must be ambitious, difficult to
achieve, that require us to go beyond our limits. But, at the same time, they must be within our
scope. Trying to achieve results that cannot be obtained, or that can only be achieved
In some circumstances, it's not being ambitious, it's being foolish. Secondly, the results
they must be significant, they must change the situation. And, finally, the results must be
visible and, if possible, measurable. From this, an action plan will be derived: what to do, where and
how to start, and what objectives and deadlines need to be set.

Responsibility of relationships

Only a few great artists, scientists, or athletes achieve results by working for themselves.
the same. The vast majority of us work with other people and are effective with help
of others. This is a reality whether it involves employees of an organization or
self-employed. Managing oneself requires taking responsibility for relationships. And
this has two parts.

The first is to accept the fact that others are as individual people as oneself.
And they constantly behave like human beings. Which means that they have their
own strengths, their personal way of doing things, and their own values. To be
productive, therefore, it is necessary to know the strengths, the ways of acting and the values
from our work colleagues.

It may seem obvious, but not everyone pays attention to these issues. The example
typical is the worker whose first boss instilled in him the habit of writing reports from
the principle because that boss was a reader. Although the next boss may be a listener, the employee
will continue writing reports that will not produce the expected results. The new boss
he will think that the employee is stupid, incompetent, and lazy, and will fail in his job. What
it could have been avoided if the employee had analyzed the way to act and the expectations
of the new boss.

12
Being a boss is not just a title in a company's organizational chart, nor a function to fulfill. The
Bosses are individuals trained to do their job and who do it as best as possible.
It is up to the people who work with them to observe them, find out how they function, and
to adapt to what makes their bosses effective. In fact, that is precisely knowing
manage a boss.

The same applies to the rest of the coworkers. Each one works in their own way, not to the
ours. And everyone has the right to work in their own way. What really matters is their way.
to act and its values. And based on that way of acting or functioning, each one will do it in their own way.

way. The secret is to understand the people you work with and depend on in order to
to serve you with their strengths, their way of working, and their values. Relationships are based on both
people like at work.

The second part of the responsibility of relationships is to take responsibility for the
communication. Every time I or any other consultant start working on a
company, the first thing I hear is about personality conflicts. Most of them arise
the fact that people do not know what others are doing and how they are doing it,
or what the others are contributing and what results they expect. And the reason why they are unaware of everything.

This is because no one has asked, and therefore, nobody has told them.

This inability to ask reflects human stupidity better than the history of the
humanity. Until recently, it was unnecessary to openly say any of these things to
nobody. In the medieval city, all the people in the neighborhood practiced the same trade. In the countryside,

All the farmers in a valley planted the same crop as soon as the frost
was out of the ground. Even those few people who did things that were not 'common'
They worked alone, so they didn't have to tell anyone what they were doing.

Nowadays, the vast majority of people work with others who have different tasks.
and responsibilities. The vice president of marketing may have a sales background and know
everything about sales, but not knowing anything about topics they have never dealt with: prices,

advertising, packaging, etc. So the people who do these things must ensure that
the marketing vice president understands what is intended to be done, why it is wanted
do it, how it will be done, and what results are expected.

If the marketing vice president does not understand what these experts with a high degree of
the specialization they are doing is mainly the fault of the experts, not of the
Vice president. They haven’t taught him/her. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the vice president.

from marketing ensure that all your coworkers understand how you understand

13
Marketing: what are its objectives, how does it work, and what does it expect from itself and from each one of

they.

Even the people who understand the importance of taking responsibility in their relationships
often do not communicate sufficiently with their peers. They are afraid of being
perceived as presumptuous, inquisitive, or stupid. They are mistaken. Every time someone
he directs a colleague and says to him: 'This is what I am good at. This is how I work. These are'
my values. This is the contribution I intend to focus on and the results that are supposed
What should I deliver?
Did you say earlier?

And one gets the same reaction - without exception, in my experience - if one continues
asking: 'And what do I need to know about their strengths, how they behave, their values?'
and their proposed contribution? "In fact, knowledge experts should do these
questions to all the people you work with, whether as subordinates, superiors, or
team members. And again, every time you do this, the reaction is always, 'Thank you
for asking me. But, why didn't you ask me earlier?

Organizations are no longer based on force but on trust. That there is trust among
People do not necessarily mean there is sympathy. The first secret rule to achieve
effectiveness is understanding the people you work with in order to draw on their
fortresses. It means that they understand each other mutually. Therefore, to take responsibility
From relationships is an absolute necessity. It is a duty. Whether it is a member of the
organization, of a consultant, of a supplier or of a distributor, one must owe that
responsibility to all colleagues: both those whose work you depend on,
like those who depend on your work.

The second half of your life

When for most people working meant a manual task, there was no need
to worry about the second half of your life. You simply kept doing what you always
you had done. And if you were lucky enough to survive 40 years of hard work at the mill or in the
railway, you were very happy to be able to spend the rest of your life doing nothing. Nowadays, without
embargo, most of the work is knowledge work, and the workers of the
knowledge are not 'finished', after 40 years of work, simply bored.

14
There is a lot of talk about the executive's crisis at 40. It is mainly about boredom. To the
At 45 years old, most executives have reached the peak of their professional career and are
aware of it. After 20 years of doing the same type of work, they are very good at
He. But they are not learning, facing challenges, or finding satisfaction in their work.
And yet, they are still likely to face another 20, or even 25 years of work.
That is why managing yourself progressively leads you to start a second
race.

There are three ways to develop a second career. The first is actually to start one.
this only requires moving from one type of organization to another: the section chief of
a large company, for example, becomes the manager of a medium-sized hospital. But
there is also a growing number of people moving to different lines of
job: the executive of a company or the high official who enters the ministry at 45 years old,
for example; or the middle manager who leaves corporate life after 20 years to
go to law school and become the lawyer of a small town.

We will see many more second careers undertaken by people who have achieved success.
modest in their early works. These people have considerable skills and know
work well. They need a community -- the house is empty and the children have gone, and also
They need income. But, above all, they need a challenge.

The second way to prepare for the second half of your life is to develop a career.
parallel. Many people who have great success in their early careers remain in the
work they have been performing, whether full-time, part-time or as
of consultants. But besides that, they look for a parallel job, generally in an organization
non-profit, which means another ten hours of work a week. They could take charge
from the administration of their parish, for example, or from the presidency of the local council of the

Girl Scouts. They could run the shelter for abused women, work as a children's librarian.
for the local public library, to participate in the school board, etc.

Finally, there are social entrepreneurs. They are generally people who have had
much success in your first races. They love their work, but it is no longer a challenge for them.
In many cases, they continue to do the same things, but they dedicate less and less of their time to it.

They also start another activity, usually a non-profit one. My friend Bob Buford, for
example, he created a very successful television company that he still runs. But he has also
founded a successful non-profit organization that works with Protestant churches, and

15
is creating another one to teach social entrepreneurs how to manage their own
non-profit organizations alongside their previous businesses.

The people who manage the second half of their lives may always be a minority.
Most can 'retire in place' and count the years until their effective retirement. But
are this minority, the men and women who see an extensive hope for working life as
an opportunity for themselves and for society, who will become leaders and role models.

There is a prerequisite for managing the second half of your life: you must start it much
before entering it. When it first became evident 30 years ago that hope
the work life was extending very quickly, many observers (myself included) believed
that retirees would increasingly join volunteer activities in non-profit organizations
profit motive. This has not happened. If one does not volunteer before reaching more or less
40, it will not become voluntary once past 60.

In the same way, all the social entrepreneurs I know started working on their
second company long before they reached their maximum development in their first company.
Consider the example of a successful lawyer, legal advisor to a large company, who has
started a company to establish model schools in their state. They began to do work
legal volunteering for educational institutions when I was around 35 years old. It was
elected school board member at 40 years old. At 50, when he had accumulated a
Fortuna founded her own company to create and manage model schools. However, she continues
working almost full-time as the chief lawyer at the company I helped to found
when I was young.

There is another reason to develop a second area of interest and to develop it soon. No one
You can expect to live a long time without experiencing a serious setback in your life or work. We have

the competent engineer who is not considered for a promotion at 45 years old. We have
the well-prepared university professor who realizes at 42 years old that she never
he will get a chair at a great university, even though he may be fully
qualified for it. We have family tragedies: the breakdown of marriage or the loss of a
son. In those moments, a second focus of interest, beyond a mere hobby, can make a difference.
the difference. The engineer, for example, now knows that he has not been very successful in his work.
But outside of his work, such as being the church treasurer, he has been successful. The family
it can be separated, but in that external activity there is still a community.

In a society where success has become so important, having options will be increasingly
more vital. In historical terms, the concept of 'success' does not exist. The overwhelming majority

16
The people aspired to nothing more than to stay in their place, as an old saying goes.
English. The only mobility was downward mobility.

In a knowledge society, however, we expect everyone to succeed. This

it is clearly impossible. For many people, at best, it is possible to avoid the
failure. Wherever there is success, there must be failure. Therefore, it is of vital importance
for the individual and also for the individual's family to have an area that can be
contributing something, making a difference and being someone. That means finding a second area, whether it is

in a second career, a parallel career or a social enterprise, that provides the opportunity
to be a leader, to be respected, to achieve success.

The challenges of managing oneself may seem obvious, if not elementary. And the
answers may seem obvious to the point of appearing naive. But managing oneself
the same requires the individual to face unprecedented novelties, and especially of the
knowledge worker. Indeed, self-management requires that each knowledge worker
knowledge think and behave like a CEO. Furthermore, the evolution of
manual work, where one does what they are told, to knowledge work, where
one managing oneself poses a profound challenge to the social structure. All
society, even the most individualistic, presupposes two things, even if only
unconsciously: that organizations outlive workers and that most of the
people stay in their place.

But today the situation is the opposite. Knowledge workers survive the
organizations and are mobile. Therefore, the need to manage oneself is
determining a revolution in human affairs.

17