領導政治組織: 成員,總責,職責,過失,和資歷 / Political Leadership: Choice of team members, Accountability, Responsibility, Blame, & Competencies

領導人的能力: 選擇適当的工作團成員,承擔總領導人責任,盡忠職守,歸咎過錯,獎罰分明,要擁有勝任領導人的資歷,要有實際經驗和行動,不只是空口說白話。

(12月9日補寫)

+++++++++++++++++++++

In his Dec 3, 2008 blog article entitled “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton” (http://mindnecessity.blogspot.com/2008/12/secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-cnn.html), Inner Space touched on the subject of political leadership and what it entails. Here are my two bits worth of opinion posted on his site:

Space: Here are my comments re: "... 管理學還有兩個理論..."

The choice of employees depends very much on the boss' line of business.

Senior executives of an organization will likely want "smart" employees (read: innovative and strategic thinkers) to deal with high risk, high uncertainty types of business.

On the other hand, operational managers will probably prefer employees who are reliable and independent to carry out prescribed tasks of a more low risk and routine nature.

In terms of accountability, there is no doubt the person at the top is always accountable and responsible for success/failure of an organization, even though he/she might not be the one to be blamed directly. As an illustration, here is a case in point in distinguishing “responsibility” vs “blame”: It is now said that USA President Bush's executive decision to start the Iraq war was based on less-than-accurate intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction in that country. So, as far as the intelligence gathering work is concerned, he is responsible, but CIA is to blame.

Finally, a less experienced and younger boss should have no problem leading a multi-discipline team of older and more seasoned subordinates as long as he/she has the mandate and authority (as in the case of the newly elected USA President) and, more importantly, the competencies to fulfill his/her roles and responsibilities as chief executive. (Note: All executive positions would/should have an established competency profile).