Conflicts, resolutions and progress are the most salient
ingredients of a credible organization, institution or company. A
company which does not characterize or manifest them is not a good
company at all, or we may refer it as a stagnant company. A dynamic
company is like a flowing river, whereas a stagnated company is like a
stinking pond with full of microscopic animals.
Conflicts are symptoms of change but if they are only handled properly. Some people especially leaders may think that conflicts are bad, and thus they should be avoided at any cost. Genuine leaders, however, believe that conflicts have an inherent power to push an organization beyond mundane boundaries. It is so, because conflicts challenge complacency, and in effect engender solutions, and solutions in return enhance progress. The overall process leads to an organizational sustainability.
Sustainability, however, relies heavily on resolute minds. Resolute leaders never vacillate between thoughts; it is because they are aplomb and visionary philosophers. You may ponder about the deep chasm between leaders and politicians. As many pundits expound, leaders are byproduct of their own hunches, intuitions, visions, experiences or practical knowledge, whereas politicians are side effect of a bad leadership practice and negative social environments.
You always remember that to be a leader costs nothing except the realization of human purpose. There is no such thing as being a leader in one time and a politician in another time. A leader lives as a leader and dies as a leader. What if I put it this way: a leader is like a thermometer who reads the hotness and coldness of organizational contexts, whereas a politician is a temperature of capricious social atmosphere. In other words, a leader can read politicians, but politicians cannot read a leader. For a better understanding of this concept, I invite you to read about natural or servant leaders. There are plenty of books about it.
We may take a small case for embellishment. Suppose two executives from the same company with the same position and resources witnessed an incident of two employees engaging in an altercation about running a plan and the budget it incurs. Two of the employees had the same mindset and adhere to the same principle in translating the plan into fruitful success, yet their approach is somehow different. They acted autonomously and came up with different strategies, but not sure about which strategy is cost effective in terms of time, energy or resources. One employee says this, and the other says that; proving one another wrong. At a certain point, they felt a sense of boxing match: pointing a finger, shouting at one another and banging tables, chairs or walls. The impact of their contentious argument or warlike spirit affected the rest of the co-workers negatively particularly those who involved directly in the issue.
Eventually, the two executives who had been watching the incidence, called their employees for a possible resolution. One executive leaned towards and endorsed one employee and belittled the other, whereas the other executive engaged the staff into a hot discussion with other invitees to brainstorm and share ideas among one another. On top of that she accentuated that conflict is a symptom of growth, and that it is not a personal matter, but rather an organizational impetus. After that, every member of the discussion opened up mentally and put great deal of time for finding out a common ground or best strategy. Ideas generated in a great scale and converged tremendously for a common purpose. Seen this happening, the first executive resisted significantly, and became acrimonious. In effect, the healthful group discussion for a promising resolution was bifurcated into two opposing groups. He took advantage of the situation and used it for his own end.
Improperly handled problems or situations are hosts of predators. These are the same executives in the same company, but their intentions are diametrically opposite. One could be called a demagogue. A demagogue is someone who exploits situations for a personal promotion in any form. We are divided into nations and confined into ideologies because of our own leaders. Psychologically, they make us feel insecure, weak, unprotected or abandoned. That is the greatest strategy ever to manipulate humanity in the struggle of power.
Whatsoever, only true leaders understand the underlying cause of conflicts. Conflicts are challenges. It is true that a child should undergo a continuous falling and rising up before actual walking or running. If the child is afraid of falling or remain crawling, his whole life would be crippled. At this crucial moment, his parents assume a great responsibility and spend a chunk of time with him for guidance. The same story is true with organizations. If leaders are afraid of change or using situations for their own personal advantage, we will be crippled and remain stupid as we are now. The worst is when they victimize innocent people who lack a sense of intellectuality. You may wonder about soldiers who sacrificed their lives, but finally when it is too late they realize that they have wasted their precious time for false leaders, which has nothing to do with national defense or security.
Which side would you take, the demagogue or the genuine leader? Whatever you choose, there is great repercussions which lasts forever, either good or bad.
Conflicts are symptoms of change but if they are only handled properly. Some people especially leaders may think that conflicts are bad, and thus they should be avoided at any cost. Genuine leaders, however, believe that conflicts have an inherent power to push an organization beyond mundane boundaries. It is so, because conflicts challenge complacency, and in effect engender solutions, and solutions in return enhance progress. The overall process leads to an organizational sustainability.
Sustainability, however, relies heavily on resolute minds. Resolute leaders never vacillate between thoughts; it is because they are aplomb and visionary philosophers. You may ponder about the deep chasm between leaders and politicians. As many pundits expound, leaders are byproduct of their own hunches, intuitions, visions, experiences or practical knowledge, whereas politicians are side effect of a bad leadership practice and negative social environments.
You always remember that to be a leader costs nothing except the realization of human purpose. There is no such thing as being a leader in one time and a politician in another time. A leader lives as a leader and dies as a leader. What if I put it this way: a leader is like a thermometer who reads the hotness and coldness of organizational contexts, whereas a politician is a temperature of capricious social atmosphere. In other words, a leader can read politicians, but politicians cannot read a leader. For a better understanding of this concept, I invite you to read about natural or servant leaders. There are plenty of books about it.
We may take a small case for embellishment. Suppose two executives from the same company with the same position and resources witnessed an incident of two employees engaging in an altercation about running a plan and the budget it incurs. Two of the employees had the same mindset and adhere to the same principle in translating the plan into fruitful success, yet their approach is somehow different. They acted autonomously and came up with different strategies, but not sure about which strategy is cost effective in terms of time, energy or resources. One employee says this, and the other says that; proving one another wrong. At a certain point, they felt a sense of boxing match: pointing a finger, shouting at one another and banging tables, chairs or walls. The impact of their contentious argument or warlike spirit affected the rest of the co-workers negatively particularly those who involved directly in the issue.
Eventually, the two executives who had been watching the incidence, called their employees for a possible resolution. One executive leaned towards and endorsed one employee and belittled the other, whereas the other executive engaged the staff into a hot discussion with other invitees to brainstorm and share ideas among one another. On top of that she accentuated that conflict is a symptom of growth, and that it is not a personal matter, but rather an organizational impetus. After that, every member of the discussion opened up mentally and put great deal of time for finding out a common ground or best strategy. Ideas generated in a great scale and converged tremendously for a common purpose. Seen this happening, the first executive resisted significantly, and became acrimonious. In effect, the healthful group discussion for a promising resolution was bifurcated into two opposing groups. He took advantage of the situation and used it for his own end.
Improperly handled problems or situations are hosts of predators. These are the same executives in the same company, but their intentions are diametrically opposite. One could be called a demagogue. A demagogue is someone who exploits situations for a personal promotion in any form. We are divided into nations and confined into ideologies because of our own leaders. Psychologically, they make us feel insecure, weak, unprotected or abandoned. That is the greatest strategy ever to manipulate humanity in the struggle of power.
Whatsoever, only true leaders understand the underlying cause of conflicts. Conflicts are challenges. It is true that a child should undergo a continuous falling and rising up before actual walking or running. If the child is afraid of falling or remain crawling, his whole life would be crippled. At this crucial moment, his parents assume a great responsibility and spend a chunk of time with him for guidance. The same story is true with organizations. If leaders are afraid of change or using situations for their own personal advantage, we will be crippled and remain stupid as we are now. The worst is when they victimize innocent people who lack a sense of intellectuality. You may wonder about soldiers who sacrificed their lives, but finally when it is too late they realize that they have wasted their precious time for false leaders, which has nothing to do with national defense or security.
Which side would you take, the demagogue or the genuine leader? Whatever you choose, there is great repercussions which lasts forever, either good or bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Informations From: Article copyright