New Leader versus a Revolutionary

The web poster "Building Corporations through Leadership" by Kristle made an interesting point that many leaders are chosen for their organizational compliance rather than revolutionary visions. This of course rings true, because the statement refers to "choosing a leader" - implying that the individual who has been "chosen" is probably just stepping into his or her position as a leader, and employees do not want their organization to change drastically under new leadership. Hence the choice of a new leader as more of a conformist rather than a revolutionary.

Besides, the word "revolutionary" gives a negative impression of leader who with a brazen attitude wants to change everything just because he or she has the power to authorize change. It also has connotations of someone who has not studied the history of the organization sufficiently thoroughly and has not thought through all the repercussions before making a serious decision.

Considering Employee Viewpoints for Change

Cathy's web poster on "Communicating Change Effectively" was very useful to me because my company is now going through a great deal of change, and the employees are apprehensive about the changes because the economy is not doing well at the moment.

One point in the poster that I believe most people will recognize is about how resistance to organizational change is expressed by employees who may not like a particular change, and therefore respond with anger and revenge. The web poster quotes a research study that estimates that almost half of unsuccessful implementation of change is due to employee resistance to change. I wonder if the paper dealt with deeper causes than just "blaming" the lack of success on employee resistance - perhaps the resistance was justified and that management ought to have taken better note and care of employee viewpoints?

Communicating Many Levels Above

In a large organization, it is difficult, to communicate to someone who is much above one's level. Even meeting up with one's manager's manager is rare, and meeting up with someone who is higher up than that is almost impossible.

I've heard in many companies the "Open door policy" that CEO's have with all their employees, and wonder if anyone has actually used the policy with any efficacy. It would seem strange, if not downright weird, for an average employee to walk over to the CEO's office, even if the matter is relevant. The "standard" procedure is to talk to one's manager and never higher up than that. But apparently, IBM's Open Door Policy was indeed used by several workers who were dissatisfied with their immediate manager for some reason or another.

More than Friends at Work

Is it possible to be "more than friends" with a co-worker in a company? I've heard and read about couples who met each other at the workplace, and then converted that friendship into marriage.

To socialize at work is a doube-edged sword: it is good if the relationship works, but can lead to dangerous conflicts if it doesn't. In one situation, a lady at work apparently spread false rumors about the man she broke up with. The guy discovered this quite late, and his reputation was ruined before he knew what was happening. He had to leave the company for this reason. Some employees saw this as a reason to never seek a relationship at work.

Organizational Hierarchy

One of the most difficult things to get a feel for in a democratic organization is that of Hierarchy. By definition, a Democracy is where all members are treated as equal. However, hardly any organization, including a democratic one, is sans Hierarchy. What does it mean to say that everyone is equal, but the leader is higher up than others? In my opinion, true Democracy will work if and only if the leader fully understands that he or she is in the role of serving the organization, instead of living under the illusion that the leader is "superior" to the rest of the organization.

Trivia on President-elect Barack Obama

(A small break from the regular weekly blog to bring you some trivia)

Question: Who was the single most influential person to help elect Obama the President of the USA?

Scroll down for the answer.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Answer: George W. Bush.

Why else would "Change" resonate so well with Obama's presidential campaign?

Better Than Democracy

The democratic election tomorrow got me thinking about whether democracy is really the best form of Government. There is now an apparent consensus in the world that Democracy is indeed the "best" form of Government, because most countries have adopted a democratic government. There are undoubtedly problems with democracy - one oft-quoted flaw is the rule of the majority over the oppressed minority.

The philosopher Plato considered all the forms of Government - Democracy, Oligarchy, Monarchy - and rejected all of them as less than ideal. His disciple Aristotle actually believed that Aristocracy - Rule of the Best People - is the best form of Government.
There are other ways around these, such as Mixed Government, which consists of all the different forms of Government in different measures.