Box 7.1 on page 178 discusses how the blame or credit almost always goes to the leader of the organization. This is somewhat frustrating because it is not possible to attribute the entire success or failure to one person. Although leadership is extremely important and can make a big difference in an organization, the leader cannot do it on his/her own. A good leader will inspire, motivate, transform, etc. but the entire success of failure should not go to the leader alone. I think in many cultures, especially the U.S., we put too emphasis on the leader and forget that there is an entire organization that deserves credit or blame as well. For example, a new CEO may step in and make a strategic change, but it is still up to the rest of the organization to implement this change successfully. We often forget about the "team effort" that occurs in all organizations and place all the focus and importance on one person -- the leader.
4 comments:
I agree with your comment that people put too much emphasis on leaders. I think that the reason why this is happening is because it is easier to attribute success or failure to a single person than to an entire team. It would indeed be strange to read about the names of all the people in a team or company when reading about their success or their failure. Also, having someone's name makes it easier to follow "the story" of a company. If there are too many players, the analysis of what went well or wrong is harder to do. Consequently reading business news would be more difficult.
I think that sometimes the purpose of a leader is to have one person to hold accountable. That person, as a leader, has taken responsibility for the project, team, or company that has been put under them. While there are others involved they are often just looking to the guidance and vision of the leader for direction on what to do. Take for example the case of all the financial institutions that have been going under in the past month or so. I absolutely believe that the CEOs and leaders of these companies should be held responsible for what has happened not just with their organization but also with the economy. They became greedy and about 5 years ago developed a great way to give loans to people who could not afford them just so that they could get rich. Well, now they are rich but the people who believed in their leadership and joined the company are without jobs and the people who believed in the company are without homes. While it may not be just one person who has caused this it is definitely a leader who guided them into this direction and therefore should be accountable.
You made an interesting point. It really is unfair to both the team and the leader that it is only the leader who gets the credit or the blame for the the success or failure of the group.Definitely the leader plays a major role in the outcome of the group but the leader alone cannot do anything, i mean without the cooperation and support of the team the leader will become helpless. So the success and failure should be divided among both the leader and the team members
These are all good points. I think that the matter of leadership notareity can be considered in terms of responsibility and streamlining. The concept of a leader is based on who will take responsibility for the success or failure. As we all have noted, it is not all fun and games. When projects fail, someone will probably get blamed. A good leader will face up to that and take responsibility. This is also a way of streamlining the evaluation process. However when there is success, a good leader will, I believe, acknowledge the vital contribution of the group who labored to bring it about.
Post a Comment