Sunday, March 27, 2011
SHAKE. SHOOK. SHAKEN.
Egypt, the most populous country in the Arab world, erupted in mass protests in January 2011, as the revolution in Tunisia inflamed decades worth of smoldering grievances against the heavy-handed rule of President Hosni Mubarak. After 18 days of angry protests and after losing of the support of the military and the United States, Mr. Mubarak resigned on Feb. 11, ending 30 years of autocratic rule. The citizens of Egypt were successful in getting what they wanted. Change in government, change in management and of course, change in leadership!
Just a few weeks after that, a threat to civil war erupted in Libya. Same with Egypt's case the unrest in Libya is mainly caused by the people's dissatisfaction with their leader. But unlike Mumbarak, Libya's ruler, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, does not show any signs of stepping down and acts on a strong and aggressive show of force to eliminate his opposition. Though it began with a relatively organized core of antigovernment opponents in Benghazi, its spread to the capital of Tripoli was swift and spontaneous. Colonel Qaddafi lashed out with a level of violence unseen in either of the other uprisings, but an inchoate opposition cobbled together the semblance of a transitional government, fielded a makeshift rebel army and portrayed itself to the West and Libyans as an alternative to Colonel Qaddafi's four decades of freakish rule.
And now, even though NATO allied forces are also showing direct aggression towards Qaddafi, taking the side of Libyan opposition, it seems that as of the moment, there's no shaking up the Qaddafi, which is causing further complication.
On top of these, other Arab nations like Bahrain, and Yemen are also being shaken up by political unrest just because a change of leadership is being clamored for.
These are also all too familiar for Filipinos with the series of EDSA revolutions which toppled unwanted leaders.
It only shows how fragile people can become once dissatisfaction towards their leaders has arisen. And it only brings about the idea that chaos occurs when no effective leader is driving the society. Opposition occurs, lawlessness happens and the paramount of it all is when a revolution erupts, which may result to total chaos. This is the total dissolution of the community, which is the worst thing that can happen.
This can also be a common denominator in the corporate world. Sometimes, the subordinates' feelings and opinions towards the change of leadership runs parallel on how society calls for it. But the major difference is that in the corporate world, people's revolt leads to insubordination, and insubordination has always been proven counterproductive. In a democratic society, we elect our leaders, in the corporate world, we don’t elect our bosses.
I guess, we are already lucky right now that corporate management has transformed already from a managerial-autocratic rule into a participative and cooperative leadership. Now, as employees, you think that you are important and you are given the chance to air out your opinions regarding your satisfaction towards the company that you are working for. Nowadays, big corporations are more inclined into keeping and improving their people rather than firing them. And one good strategy in keeping people is making them feel satisfied.
So, it’s going to be a big avalanche when employees altogether started to feel unsatisfied not just because of a sudden mass hysteria but because of a series of undesirable (and not unfortunate) events.
And in most cases, it’s really up to the leaders to manage and contain these kinds of situation. And in cases like this, what the employees need is a LEADER and not really a manager.
A leader who do not have subordinates - at least not when they are leading. That when they want to lead, they have to give up formal authoritarian control, because to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.
Someone who does not tell people what to do, because telling people what to do does not inspire them to follow. It does not inspire creativity and independence.
A leader who needs to appeal to his people, showing how following them will lead to their hearts' desire. Leaders with a stronger charisma find it easier to attract people to their cause. As a part of their persuasion they typically promise transformational benefits, such that their followers will not just receive extrinsic rewards but will somehow become better people.
In a nutshell, I guess the time has passed when people should be considered has half imbeciles that need to be commanded upon all the time. We have all evolved into a thinking men and women, whom based through life and work experience should be able to work together as a team and not as merely pawns. A strong team needs a strong leader. And a strong team can shake things up and make things happen.
Posted by Mulch at 3:48 AM