Authority that can not command respect by leadership dynamic or credentials or expertise often shifts to authoritarianism out of a "fear of being found out"
Where abilities are lacking, insecurities evident in relationships to that, and the complexities of the organizational function too difficult to cope with,
the leader often will resort to authoritarian postures in order to save what he can.
Because for him to admit to limitations or incapacities for "corporate' problems is but to contradict the image.
The shape of an organization is a direct result of the administrative weaknesss or strengths that were brought into it,
GOD will not perfect that which has been ignored, especially when the cure is readily accessible at the local business college.
On top of that of course is the already defined authoritarian syndrome which becomes more and more rigid as the ability to cope with corporation complexities becomes less and less.
Weakness of rank and fine can be worked out and perfected but only as there is capable leadership knowledge enough and self-experiential enough to detect them.
In an organization if you ask people how the company values them, most workers will comment along this general line:
"It's a job." or "i don't think I'm really that important".
All of which says that they have learned to accommodate themselves to their "value" as set by the company, or director, either directly or indirectly, which is that they are merely piece workers hung together on restrictive codes.
If mediocrity is to be explained at all it has to stem from the empty "value system" of taboos and internal behavioral circumspections.
An organization whose "value system" spins around negatives will find the group spitting into the the wind rather than with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment