Here is a Study which may be inconsequential because of the value inherent in the structure of review. Most of the Readers who have read the article imagine I am discussing the small amounts of money being utilized in the studies. I am not! Several studies have indicated that Dollars are only a yardstick guiding economic performance, with Self-Interest and Self-Promotion only entering the matrix when there is substantial Gain to the Individual to be realized. The criticism I would express is the lack of acknowledgment granted to social leadership, which is un-weighted in the studies. Small businessmen and Crew Supervisors overwhelmingly set the group consensus of society, with subordinate personnel deferring to the commentary of their economic leadership at the social level. A collegiate class does not contain such leadership, or is there existent a defined system to interview potential Recipients; there are not collateral lines of leadership to adjudge all relevant responses. The Studies define the entrance attitudes of Students into the classroom, rather than the experience of charity at the interactive level.
Cactus at Angry Bear has a Post which again plunges Us into the question of leadership, and the effect of that leadership. The instance of Bhutto only reflects the methodology of most of the World, but especially the Islamic world: even Democratic elections are expected to elect an extended family, rather than an Individual, to power. Such an attitude resounds badly in America, where the emphasis in on personal achievement. It, nevertheless, operates most efficiently in this Country, though Intellectuals can always be found to criticize the practice. Reality states that extended family leadership has built-in Consensus generation capacities which eliminates distortion from leadership. Is it a good system? That Question is debatable, but it probably maximizes survival potential with high Profits.
Here is a Post on getting leadership to work for you, and correctly identifies the corrosion of allowing real social interaction among subordinates; i.e., control the direction of social discussion in the Workplace. The manipulation of beliefs at the narrow social level curtails unproductive effort, and concentrates attention upon economically valuable discussions at the immediate levels. Management pushes a Social agenda for greatest Profitability at the localized center, and defuses any potential harmful intrusion of harmful discussion into that center. This mechanism expands to the greater Social definition of goals, if it has been successful at the lower levels. Leadership is not really a Question of propaganda, but one of focus. lgl
No comments:
Post a Comment