Leadership for the Common Good - Assignment Example

Stand Your Ground Book Analysis Part A: Introduction Most leaders are remembered for their outstanding performance during worst moment, not best of moments. Good leadership is mostly needed during difficult periods. Offstein argues that West Point is the most appropriate laboratory for the purpose of studying the subtleties of character, leadership and honor: first, it oversees an enforcement program and a comprehensive honor education that has been exposed to arduous congressional inspection; secondly its athletic, academic and military activities are built on this bedrock of honor. In return, West point heavily invests in training, evolution and mentoring of its cadets. Beginning with Robert E. Lee who was a civil war general to astronaut Edwin E. Buzz Aldrin extending to basketball manager Mike Krzyewski; West point is perceived to have groomed leaders whose influences exceed the efficacious management of their close charges. Through pointing out the extent to which West Point nature leadership, Offstein not only provide a unique take-through behind this revered institution’s scenes, it generally imparts honor lessons and character building that can be easily adopted by any leader who is aspiring to be a great leader (Madhavan, Oakley and Kun 2008). Evan Offstein approached leaders in the military academy with some questions that would need answer to have good management practice. After several extensive researches with military leaders and renowned company leaders in and out of the United States of America, Offstein avails unprecedented access to what is involved in leadership development at West Point and practical insights that can actually be applied in any kind of organization that aims to operate on integrity principle. This discourse will focus on much work that has been done by Evan Offstein in the book Stand Your Ground, his thoughts that are appropriate and his ideas which according to him were relevant but is unaccepted or should not be applied in real life management of any kind of business. Reasonable fact One of the most applicable and relevant responses to contemporary leadership segmentation at places like Adelphia, Enron, Abu Ghraib and WorldCom; Evan Offstein delivers a message that historicaly began with founding fathers, but has not been talked of for the last several years. Offstein is very right when he provides compelling evidence pointing out that first, true leadership is founded on honor and High-round leadership is generally tough. Just like other leaders in various institutions, few of them consider practicing honorable leadership. Practically, the difficult aspect is what makes it a special place and an avenue of the eventual competitive merit. A competitive merit exists if one poses things that others lack. As per the fact that reaching high ground is such a time consuming, momentous and a difficult task, you are effectively guaranteed a special advantage. In other words, one may end up in a select company when he or she makes it to the top because few do . Offstein compares this with climbing Mount Everest where not all people who began the journey managed to complete. Several death cases were reported from the activity; every individual who was climbing the mountain had an aim of making it at the top in order to be great. Offstein also points out that climbing honorably also has its obstacles that can never be missed: peer pressure, fatigue, rationalization, apathy or the existence of toxic culture can all pose to be obstacles for a leader trying to reach high grounds. This is very true and applies in real life situations. Unrealistic fact Offstein argues that leaders natured at West point are not Robots; practically they are not Robot but when it comes to life application, they are controlled in a manner suggesting that they are machines. They work by orders and have strict programs that they follow and in case of misconduct they are subjected to severe punishment (Crosby & Bryson 2005). This is almost the case. When the general public sees men and women in similar haircuts and uniform, they perceive them to be all the same. People infer that since people look alike, they act and think in the same way; this is the fact behind this people being referred to as Robots. Leaders that are brought up together will always assume events or happenings the same way. This can be seen in most decisions they make regarding the situation at hand. Offstein is even certain when he furthers clarifies that he is not sure wheather the views are widely held about West Point. As much as Offstein finds different people with different career goals under the same body of the military academy, they resemble robots programmed in different computing languages that the machines can work best with. I don’t much object Offstein’s thoughts but argues on the line over which leaders brought up at West Point rules. As a leader, one is supposed to be flexible and be able to interact with all kind of individual. There are times when rules and regulations could be ignored and a suitable solution reached at minus following the rules as a leader. What if the action to be taken saves without following the rules? No leader at all can be insane enough to let this go. Most helpful Most honorable leaders need not to devote much cognitive strength to the very basics of safety, security and survival. It is very simple, whenever you act with honor, your personal behavior exceeds the fray and your actions are less scrutinized. Contrastingly, when one acts dishonorably, he or she invites natural disaster in the form of more attention from the media, sanction, steered supervision or necessary constraints of complex agreements. Sound decisions and solid behavior from renowned leaders do not make them vulnerable to similar attacks and interference that others face. With the fear of safety and survival ejected, leadership energies and efforts can be used on matters that directly result into competitive merit. It is not a surprise that this corresponding extends almost worldwide to the physical high ground that most people yarn for. At the high ground, one is secure and safe from most common natural disaster such as hurricanes, avalanches or even mudslides. Taking high ground is not all enough. Occupying it as well is not all that is needed; instead strive to secure the high ground. Securing it can mean: one must do more than just seizing the high ground, which piles much emphasis on the journey and the initial occupation. If the summit is not protected by honorable leadership, one is bound to fall from the perch (Offstein, Morwick & Griffith 2009). Conclusion When individuals make the conscious decision of leading from high ground, they are actually guaranteeing their own safety and the safety of their subjects. Genuinely, this isn’t much competitive as it is protective. One should note that after failing to protect, he or she cannot act competitively. Ethical principles avails foundations for several modern work concept, organization and business that broaden corporate and individual far beyond traditional business goals of shareholder and profit enrichment. Developing character and practicing honorable leadership are also significant factors which have significant influence in both the public and private sectors. There no rules that are universally agreed on the basis of good leadership ethics, no absolute controls or standards and no permanent reference points. This seems to be fascinating due to the fact that ethics is hugely important and what role they play in our modern societies. Great leaders are always remembered for their good deeds and achievements. The subjects to a leader will always work best in relation to the character. To avoid issues to do with lots of inquiries, honesty should be the sole shield while outstanding performance should be any leaders’ role. Part B: Introduction Amelia Lassiter is chief information officer at Waite Pharmaceuticals, a large California-based company. In an industry where it generally takes $500 million and 10 to 12 years to bring a new drug to market, companies such as Waite are always looking for ways to increase productivity and speed things up. After about eight months on the job, Lassiter suggested to company president James Hsu that Waite implement a new global knowledge-sharing application that promises to cut development time and costs in half. She has done extensive research on knowledge-sharing systems, and has talked closely with an IT director at global powerhouse Novartis, a company on the cutting edge in pharmaceuticals and animal health care, as well as other diverse products. The Novartis director believes the knowledge sharing system plays an important role in that company’s competitiveness. There are several issues going on in the organization. The relationship between Hsu and Lucy Lee was very good. Lucy Lee was very pretty woman, but besides her good look values, no single person understood why she had to waste much of her time working in that particular company. She lacked talent and needed experience which made her a liability rather than being of help; at the same time she was deferential to her workmate Hsu, however condescending to everybody in the company. Lucy seemed to be a constant root of irritation and hostile will amid mangers all over the entire company. At this point, it is rife that there is no good relation between Lucy and other company members. Lucy is perceived to be as a stumbling block for other members of the organization. Antennae up Lassiter called Hsu to inquire why Standard Systems, a very young consulting firm was never considered to be the potential provider. She was very shocked since the knowledge she had about the company was totally different from what she thought it was. Much of her surprise, she came to realize that the company belonged to one of Lucy’s uncle, from then, things started falling into place. At this point it seems that there is some sort of nepotism that controlled the entire tendering process. Lassiter tries talking privately with Hsu giving reasons as to why Standard should be considered; instead Hsu maintains that Lee take role in all meetings of the company. Hsu still tries favoring Standard by insisting that it should be considered appropriately by the board members. Lassiter made a final report analyzing the pros and cons of considering each firm while making her choice by giving each company a position in her list. Standard was appeared last in her list. This is as a result of relationship between the firm and Lucy. There is some sense of hatred that is creeping in and it can be felt by doing things by claiming that correct procedures have been followed. Lassiter’s hopes to discuss and give recommendation to Hsu are thwarted in the name of limited time. She get shocked when the president returns from the meeting and passes information to her that the board settled on going with Standard Systems as the preferred consulting firm for the application. There is tag of war between managers as it can be seen from the excerpt. Dealing with conflicts at work place is one of the major challenges that employees and managers face. Practically, there exist two responses to conflicts: battle it out or run away. In either way the results must irritate one party since not all will be satisfied with the outcome. By learning how to diligently resolve a conflict, one opens up opportunity growth and creativity (Offstein 2006). Lassiter should have placed aside issues to do with Lucy while figuring out how the company is and who operates it. She should have just placed it on the same weighing scale as other entities and being that Standard was well prepared, then it competes with others along the same line. Be big about small things The first step that is supposed to be taken in settling work misunderstanding is to have in mind that they are bound to happen (Klein & Mitchell 2010). As a manager, once it has come to your attention that there are petty issues that would retard the company growth, there is no limiting factor that can be a barrier in exercising all that is possible. The manger should have furnished Lassiter with necessary details as to why he settled on Standard, but since he is the boss, it is not necessary. Conclusion Leadership involves all parties for it to be successful. Situations may vary depending on the work environment, but one should adapt to the current situation at all cost. It is very important to understand that our own human nature and the will of competitors will constantly attack as one tries to be a good leader. Due to this fact, as a leader always be prepared to sacrifice. While every leader is yarning to be great, the real task begins when you are appointed to be one. References Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Klein, D. E., & Mitchell, G. (2010). The psychology of judicial decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Madhavan, G., Oakley, B. A., Kun, L. G., & International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering. (2008). Career development in bioengineering and biotechnology. New York, NY: Springer. Offstein, E. H., Morwick, J. M., & Griffith, S. W. (2009). Gridiron leadership: Winning strategies and breakthrough tactics. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger. Offstein, E. H. (2006). Stand your ground: Building honorable leaders the West Point way. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Read More