September 24th,
2008
Does being a leader make
you invulnerable to the throes of criticism?
Our society has been conditioned
to put unwritten confidence in those who hold leadership positions,
whether it be the Prime Minister, President of a company or your supervisor.
Each role comes with a degree of so-called authenticated authority by
default, yet if we look at it in greater detail, does it automatically
suggest they are, by right,
Those who appear to be smarter,
or stronger in a specific trade or skill tend to take on the helm. But
are they always in the right? Are their visions or actions always justifiable
due to the virtue of their positions?
It begs the question as
to why we cherish these people and protect them with such an adamancy
without ever stepping back to truly question, or to allow the questioning
of, their decisions, virtues and visions. If someone does, heaven forbid
the leader be put on the spot or their position questioned!
A recent article in the
HR Professional, the HRPA's regular publication distributed
to its membership, indicated within a study of respondents who participated
in a "Happy Hour" get-together with colleagues that roughly
8% said a bad comment about a colleague or member of management when
slightly tipsy or present during the social gathering.
The significance here is
the seemingly apparent emphasis on the sacredness of management. The
imposed shock value allocated to the fact that someone said a bad comment
towards management shows the utter taboo when engaged in such an activity.
Yet what makes management
immune to comments of criticism? Why can they not be the target of comments
that would otherwise be reserved for colleagues or those of the regular
rabble who inhabit our society?
Those who hold management
positions should not be held in such high regard without an analysis
from those who they supposedly "govern." The idea here is
to bring the concept of management down to a level that lets it be somewhat
vulnerable and fragile like a regular run-of-the-mill role occupancy.
It brings to the surface
the essential alignment of classic human resource management within
the organization - that towards management when it should be
aligned as a mediator, or bridge builder, between staff and management
as a whole.
So why, then, does human
resources continue to lean more towards management in general? Should
it not stand up and allow greater communication between staff and management,
especially if true feelings are repressed during non-intoxicated states
of mind (where the soul truly conceals its genuine sentiments) and are
exposed in those awkward moments as demonstrated by HR Professional.
Human resources as a whole
needs to mediate an environment that doesn't suppress feelings or hold
management in too high of a regard - this prevents progress from happening
and in fact holds it back instead.
Instead of getting into
a tissy whenever someone questions management or points out a flaw in
their overall governance, take a moment to analyze it from the perspective
of the person who engages - or holds management to their word. The more
you listen intently while holding no prejudice will help build respect
and fortify the allegiance of those who you are chosen to lead.
It is part of human society
which calls for leaders - much to the chagrin of those who decide to
live life under a solitary fashion and choose self-sufficiency as their
reason for being.
But that doesn't exclude
those in leadership positions from being invulnerable to criticism.
In fact, they should be more prone to criticism given the fact that
they are responsible for the lives of those whom they lead. If they
are inept at doing so, is it not fair to point this out so as to not
cause further harm to the general masses?
Home
| About | Return
to Anecdote-A-Day Main Page | Smart
Communication Amplifying Modules
