To the great delight of those who have read The Adventures of Don Quixote, or who have seen the great musical, The Man of La Mancha, the adventures that Don Quixote met were actually misadventures, in equal measure improbable and amusing. The most famous of these has passed indelibly – even unnoticed – into the vernacular: his penchant for tilting at windmills. . .
Remember that American political catchphrase? Sounds quite stirring – a call to action. But quite apart from the controversial question of what action, there is another: what purpose?
Many years ago, while walking down a hallway in a well-known and highly regarded organization that I was visiting, I unexpectedly observed this scene: Some way ahead of me was a junior manager, looking authoritative and in control of events. It seemed to me that it was such as these, so imbued with confidence and competence, who produced the international respect in which this outfit was held. How did they create them?
A big problem with the concept of the stakeholder is that it is so elastic. The general idea is that a person or group that may not actually be a shareholder in a corporation is nevertheless intimately and directly affected by the activities of the corporation. This term was initially used to encompasses rather obvious members extending from shareholders themselves to employees and communities. But the theoretical foundation of the concept is intended to justify the exercise of power over an organization by groups that had not been anticipated by traditional legal and regulatory methods, and in ways that had been viewed as restricted to owners. And in public reaction to an environment of apparently widespread corporate corruption and scandal, topped off with a blithely detached culture of extraordinary compensation for senior executives, the idea has found traction. . .
Management observers have much to say about the personal characteristics of managers. This is often parlayed into discussions of the importance of communication – specifically, listening skills – and relationship building. The ability to build support behind specific initiatives and, more generally, to generate personal and organizational loyalty receives much attention, and it is well-deserved. It seems sometimes, though, to add up to an awful lot of pressure on us to be the hero to all of our constituencies . . .
Just over a month ago, we prefaced the current series on the implications of certainty and blind faith with a reference to a bit buried in an item from The Economist about the nominally employee-friendly policies of the CEO of SAS; here it is again: “The purpose of treating his employees well is to succeed in business.” That, ladies and gentlemen, is what you do, and what you should resolve to do better every day of this and every year. . .
Have you ever gotten the impression that you were supposed to comprehend what was happening at a meeting you were attending, but something just wasn’t fitting in? You understand the language, the procedures, even the faddishly sensitive approach to the issues. But there seems to be an undercurrent moving powerfully right under the surface, and driven by more primal instincts than the conversation there professes, which is giving the actual motive force to the shaping of events. What does it mean?
Or:
Jim Stroup's Business card:
Come visit the Managing Leadership
Managing Leadership® is a registered trademark of the author
Bad Behavior has blocked 907 access attempts in the last 7 days.
