Q1
That a plan developed by a CE only needs to be
implemented and success will follow is a statement stooped in the erroneous
understanding of what leadership should be. There is no disputing that the
developer of a plan becomes its owner. To assume, however, that a CE need only
have his plan implemented to achieve the desired results is to akin to not
knowing how organizations work (Pye, 2005, p.36). The appropriate way is to see leadership as a
form of sense making. The CE must know that he/she is a part of this just as
many other people within that organization.
Seeing leadership as sense making, the CE must strive
towards reducing randomness in the way different people in the organization responds
(Pye, 2005, pp.41-43). It is not a task he/she can achieve by coercion. Rather,
achievement can only by having the organization come up with a collective sense
of the problem. In this way, whatever plan for implementation must be one where
everyone feels a sense of true ownership. Implementation will look like doing
the right thing to do even if the outcome leaves some people with no job. In
essence, the CE ought only to see his/her role as part of a relationship and
not as the hero.
Q2
Implicit in the statement is the difficulty of
understanding leadership. The article actually notes this (Pye, 2005, p.42).
Appreciating that difficulty, the author suggests that perhaps it would be
necessary to see leadership as form of social influence. The relevance of this
issue transcends academic discussions. With some exceptions, conventional
leadership practices seem overly focused on labels. Those bearing designations operate
as if they have a monopoly of what needs to be done. Job titles are of course
necessary for many other reasons other than leadership. For instance, a country
needs to be headed by a President, a Queen or a Prime Minister. Similarly,
there must be a chairman somewhere.
It would be better if designations are seen only to the
extent that they pinpoint those upon whom ultimate responsibilities rest (Pye,
2005, pp.42-47). Beyond that, everyone else must operate from the perspective
that leadership entails moving whatever it is that is being led to some desired
direction and that no single person knows how that should be done. A government
should know that the country wants to grow its economy by say 8%. The exact way
in which this should be achieved must, however, be designed following from
genuine input by the various stakeholders. For instance, there is no way a
government in a market economy can grow that economy without the input of the
business community.
Q3
A bailout solution, as the name indicates, refers to
coming to the rescue of an economic entity in a bid to avoid the prevailing
situation becoming worse (Cohn, 2012, p.1). In the article, the U.S government
came to the rescue of the auto industry so as to avoid massive job losses that
would attend the collapse of the industry. It is imperative that those
organizing bailouts also have interest in the success or failure of the
entities they intend to rescue. The U.S government had an interest in ensuring
that people do not lose jobs in the event that the auto industry collapsed. It
is, however, not only governments that arrange bailouts. For instance, last
week saw the European Central Bank arrange a bailout for Cyprus. Another one
had earlier on been arranged for Greece. The underlying factor is that both
parties have a mutual interest in ensuring the success of the bailed. Thus, the
ECB was keen to avoid a contagion spreading to other parts of the Euro zone.
References
Cohn, J., 2012.‘The GM rescue Matters to everyone.’
Pittsburgh Post online. Available
at< http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/the-gm-rescue-matters-to- everyone-659575/> [Accessed
2 April 2013]
Pye, A., 2005. Leadership and organizing: sense-making in
action. Leadership, 1 (1), pp.31–49. Available at<: http://lea.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/1/1/31.full.pdf+html> (Accessed 2 April
2013).
0 comments:
Post a Comment