In one of the series that I watched, the emperor enlisted the help of a great military strategist to withstand the impending onslaught of the enemy on their territories.
The great military strategist, feigning sickness, instead suggested somebody else for the role.
The emperor finally consented and the great military strategist retreated to his village.
The next day, the son of the great military strategist went to the river banks to find his father who was fishing at that time.
His son enquired why did he refuse to take up the offer.
His father revealed that the offer was to be the field general being in charge of defending against the enemy attack.
However, he has to report to the primary general, whose rivalry was well known, who happened to be the emperor’s nephew.
To the great military strategist, if he was successful to repel the advance of the enemy troops, the primary general would get all the credit and leave none to him.
If he failed against the enemy, he would be blamed and then executed.
Either way, he would lose and nothing to gain.
So the job would bring him no future.
In today s world, sometimes a hiring is done locally for the person to look after the local market.
If he has a good and protective boss who is ambitious and hungry to move up the corporate ladder, he would most likely have a bright future if he executed his duties well and manage his boss expectation since if his boss is promoted further he would most likely have a chance to fill his boss previous position.
Therefore riding on the right horse is important for corporate ambition.
Yet if the position is filled because his boss just want to find somebody to blame knowing the fact that the local companies performance was going to be disastrous then he would be the scapegoat if everything went wrong.
However if he managed to turn around the fortunes of the local company then the boss would claim credit by stating that he was the one who made the excellent hire.
Sometimes it was important to show results at the right time.
Showing results at the wrong time sometimes only would bring disastrous outcome.
There are many occasions when the results of the companies nosedived, many possible reasons would be given.
That would include floundering economy, disadvantageous exchange rate situation and uncompetitive pricing.
However wouldn’t it be sensible to state that the task of the top level managers also included anticipating change and how to prepare for the worst possible scenario?
If the economy were expected to be bad then it was only logical that certain areas of the business would suffer a sharp drop of revenue significantly.
The question would be what would be the area of the business that might take advantage of the weak economy.
It would always be about finding the best possible opportunities in the worse possible situations.
It was always about blaming someone or something for the weak results .
It was never about what could have been done in anticipation of the situation
And no one would blame themselves.
For the moment they take responsibility, they would most likely suffer the axe.
Therefore there were times that decision were made collectively so that if something went wrong there would be no specific person to be blamed.
Without daring to take responsibilities, it would only spell a possible mediocre performance.
This time the blame game could revolve around so much that nobody would single handedly be blamed for the source of the problem.
How then could the company achieve accelerated profits and expansions?
Only wishful thinking.
I suppose.Sent from my iPhone
The great military strategist, feigning sickness, instead suggested somebody else for the role.
The emperor finally consented and the great military strategist retreated to his village.
The next day, the son of the great military strategist went to the river banks to find his father who was fishing at that time.
His son enquired why did he refuse to take up the offer.
His father revealed that the offer was to be the field general being in charge of defending against the enemy attack.
However, he has to report to the primary general, whose rivalry was well known, who happened to be the emperor’s nephew.
To the great military strategist, if he was successful to repel the advance of the enemy troops, the primary general would get all the credit and leave none to him.
If he failed against the enemy, he would be blamed and then executed.
Either way, he would lose and nothing to gain.
So the job would bring him no future.
In today s world, sometimes a hiring is done locally for the person to look after the local market.
If he has a good and protective boss who is ambitious and hungry to move up the corporate ladder, he would most likely have a bright future if he executed his duties well and manage his boss expectation since if his boss is promoted further he would most likely have a chance to fill his boss previous position.
Therefore riding on the right horse is important for corporate ambition.
Yet if the position is filled because his boss just want to find somebody to blame knowing the fact that the local companies performance was going to be disastrous then he would be the scapegoat if everything went wrong.
However if he managed to turn around the fortunes of the local company then the boss would claim credit by stating that he was the one who made the excellent hire.
Sometimes it was important to show results at the right time.
Showing results at the wrong time sometimes only would bring disastrous outcome.
There are many occasions when the results of the companies nosedived, many possible reasons would be given.
That would include floundering economy, disadvantageous exchange rate situation and uncompetitive pricing.
However wouldn’t it be sensible to state that the task of the top level managers also included anticipating change and how to prepare for the worst possible scenario?
If the economy were expected to be bad then it was only logical that certain areas of the business would suffer a sharp drop of revenue significantly.
The question would be what would be the area of the business that might take advantage of the weak economy.
It would always be about finding the best possible opportunities in the worse possible situations.
It was always about blaming someone or something for the weak results .
It was never about what could have been done in anticipation of the situation
And no one would blame themselves.
For the moment they take responsibility, they would most likely suffer the axe.
Therefore there were times that decision were made collectively so that if something went wrong there would be no specific person to be blamed.
Without daring to take responsibilities, it would only spell a possible mediocre performance.
This time the blame game could revolve around so much that nobody would single handedly be blamed for the source of the problem.
How then could the company achieve accelerated profits and expansions?
Only wishful thinking.
I suppose.Sent from my iPhone