Samarkadian
October 14th, 2003, 09:11 PM
jaihind all warriors
2nd oct was the day who provoked me to rethink over my rebellion disposition. i tried to scan allmost each and every leader of world and came out with this article , this is now before u.
whether effective leadership requires that a leader consistantly follow his/her principles and objective, is a complex issue- one that is tied up in defining effective leadership in the 1st place. in addressing the issue it is helpful toconsider, three distinct forms of leadership;business, political and social - spritiual
In the business realm , effective leadership is generally, atleast in todays corporatee culture,, as that which achieves the goal of profit maximization for a firms shareholders or other owners. many disagree , however , that profit is appropriate measure of business leader's effectiveness. some detractors claim , i.e. that a truly effective business leader must also fulfill additional duties- i.e. not to do intentional harm to their customrs or to the society in which they operate.Other detractors go further- to impose on business leaders an affirmative obligation to yield to popular will, by propetecting consumers ,preserving natural enviornment, promoting educatiopn and otherwise taking steps to help alleviate society's problems.
Whether our most effective business leaders are theones who appease the general populace by contributingto popular social causes depends, of course, on own definition of business sucess.In my observation a business becomes subject to close scrutiny by the media and social activists, business leader will maximize profits in the long term only by taking reasonable steps to to minimiae the social and enviornmental harm, their business cause.Thus the two definitions merge of effective leadership and commitment to principles.
In the political realm the issue is no less com0plex.Defintion of effective political leadership are tied up in the means , a leader uses to wield his/her power and to obtain that in first place.Consider history's most infamous tyrantsand deposts- such as Genghis Khan,Stalin,Mao,and Hitler.No historian would disagreethat these individuals were remarkably great effective leaders, and that each one remains consistently committed to his tyrannical objectives and principles..Ironically, it wasd stubborn adherence to objectives that ultimatly defeated all expect Khan. Thus in short term stubborn adherence to ones objective might serve a political leader's interest in preserving his / her power; yetin long term such behaviours invariably resluts in that leaders downfall-if the principles are not in accord with those of leader's would be followers.
Finally consider social-spritiual leadership.Few would disagrre their ability to inspire others and lift the human spirits,Mahatma Gandhi and Marin Luther King were eminently effective in leading others to effect social change through civil disobedience.It seems to me that this brand of leadership,in order to be effective , inherently requires that leader remainsteadfastly committed tothe principles.WHY???????????
It is commitment to principles that is the basis of thsi brand of leadership.For example , had Gandhi advocated civil disobedience, yet been persuaded by close advisors that an occasional violent protest might be effective in gaining independence,, no doubt result have neen immediate forfeiture of that leadership.Unfortunatly presently we r lacking this brand in our country.Politcs becomes party based instead of issue and development.Our leader enjoying trapeze on issueless issues such as temple.When they r supposed to act in condition of contry's esteem like Kandhar abduction of airlines ,they get perplexed and release the terrorists.In contrast u might not forget action of Russia towards Theater hostage drama. For them country esteem was more important than lifes of few civilians.Any way there must be change , definitly it will be ...
In sum strict adherence to principles and objectives is a prerequiste for effective social-spritiual leadership-both in short term and long term.In contrast political leadership wanes in long term unless the leader ultimatly yields to the willof followers.Finally, when it comes to business,leader must create a balncebetween profit maximization-- the measure of effectiveness ---- andyielding to dertain broader obligations that society is now imposing on them.
here i would like to have suggestions and criticits of this article.i wrote what i feel.
ram ram
Samar
2nd oct was the day who provoked me to rethink over my rebellion disposition. i tried to scan allmost each and every leader of world and came out with this article , this is now before u.
whether effective leadership requires that a leader consistantly follow his/her principles and objective, is a complex issue- one that is tied up in defining effective leadership in the 1st place. in addressing the issue it is helpful toconsider, three distinct forms of leadership;business, political and social - spritiual
In the business realm , effective leadership is generally, atleast in todays corporatee culture,, as that which achieves the goal of profit maximization for a firms shareholders or other owners. many disagree , however , that profit is appropriate measure of business leader's effectiveness. some detractors claim , i.e. that a truly effective business leader must also fulfill additional duties- i.e. not to do intentional harm to their customrs or to the society in which they operate.Other detractors go further- to impose on business leaders an affirmative obligation to yield to popular will, by propetecting consumers ,preserving natural enviornment, promoting educatiopn and otherwise taking steps to help alleviate society's problems.
Whether our most effective business leaders are theones who appease the general populace by contributingto popular social causes depends, of course, on own definition of business sucess.In my observation a business becomes subject to close scrutiny by the media and social activists, business leader will maximize profits in the long term only by taking reasonable steps to to minimiae the social and enviornmental harm, their business cause.Thus the two definitions merge of effective leadership and commitment to principles.
In the political realm the issue is no less com0plex.Defintion of effective political leadership are tied up in the means , a leader uses to wield his/her power and to obtain that in first place.Consider history's most infamous tyrantsand deposts- such as Genghis Khan,Stalin,Mao,and Hitler.No historian would disagreethat these individuals were remarkably great effective leaders, and that each one remains consistently committed to his tyrannical objectives and principles..Ironically, it wasd stubborn adherence to objectives that ultimatly defeated all expect Khan. Thus in short term stubborn adherence to ones objective might serve a political leader's interest in preserving his / her power; yetin long term such behaviours invariably resluts in that leaders downfall-if the principles are not in accord with those of leader's would be followers.
Finally consider social-spritiual leadership.Few would disagrre their ability to inspire others and lift the human spirits,Mahatma Gandhi and Marin Luther King were eminently effective in leading others to effect social change through civil disobedience.It seems to me that this brand of leadership,in order to be effective , inherently requires that leader remainsteadfastly committed tothe principles.WHY???????????
It is commitment to principles that is the basis of thsi brand of leadership.For example , had Gandhi advocated civil disobedience, yet been persuaded by close advisors that an occasional violent protest might be effective in gaining independence,, no doubt result have neen immediate forfeiture of that leadership.Unfortunatly presently we r lacking this brand in our country.Politcs becomes party based instead of issue and development.Our leader enjoying trapeze on issueless issues such as temple.When they r supposed to act in condition of contry's esteem like Kandhar abduction of airlines ,they get perplexed and release the terrorists.In contrast u might not forget action of Russia towards Theater hostage drama. For them country esteem was more important than lifes of few civilians.Any way there must be change , definitly it will be ...
In sum strict adherence to principles and objectives is a prerequiste for effective social-spritiual leadership-both in short term and long term.In contrast political leadership wanes in long term unless the leader ultimatly yields to the willof followers.Finally, when it comes to business,leader must create a balncebetween profit maximization-- the measure of effectiveness ---- andyielding to dertain broader obligations that society is now imposing on them.
here i would like to have suggestions and criticits of this article.i wrote what i feel.
ram ram
Samar