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.
Streaning Star Trek: Insurrection Full Movie
-
[D'movies *HD*] Streaming Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) Full Movie. Star
Trek: Insurrection can be watch for free registering. Watch Star Trek:
Insurrecti...
6 years ago
2 comments:
I can understand why some organizations chose a leader that is more conformist than revolutionary. However if the organization is in financial trouble, a revolutionary leader might have better chances of returning the organization to profitability. If a company is in financial trouble, doing the 'same' of what was done before will only continue making the organization lose revenue. Doing something different might be a better course of action and in this case a revolutionary leader should be chosen.
The opposite is true, if a company is in good financial health then why risk changing a formula that has worked?
I'm not sure that a revolutionary leader hasn't studied the history of the organization, but I agree that examining organizational history is essential for any effective leader. Knowing the organization's history avoids the problem of reinventing the wheel and of trying ideas that have failed in the past. In additional, familiarity with the organization's past denotes a respect for what was done before and an understanding that we learn from past accomplishments and failures. I also agree that generally people don't like drastic change, although at some points in time, they do seek it out. Consider the recent election of Barak Obama who represents a distinct difference from the current administration. Cathyblog08 also presents a case in which organization members would desire change. Nearly all financial institutions and the Detroit automakers come to mind as organizations struggling economically, so in need of revolutionary leadership.
Post a Comment