OCF

[hanamichi_1989]

It has been a while since I felt enthusiastic about writing here; be it about my life in London or thoughts that I have had. This entry will include a bit of both. Before continuing, I must make the disclaimer that the author does not have any religious affiliations and that the author did not intend to pass any insensitive remarks or discuss any

Comments

food for thought

[daoteng]

Hi zhengyou. Its been a long while since I visited your blog and admittedly, I couldn't catch up with everything you've brought up especially the later parts.

However, I have a few thoughts while reading the first "value".

You argued that "... in the best interest of the organisation that only the top leadership makes the big decisions. To question its validity at every level of management will render any action impossible." While I agree with the latter sentence, I cannot help but ponder upon the first. Whose best interests are you arguing for? The best interests of the leaders themselves? Or the interests of the passive majority? If its the latter, how so is it possible for leaders to be free from various moral hazards and pitfalls if "only the top leadership" are involved in decision making? Is dominated discourse the only form of discussions in an organization?

I know it isn't your main idea here, but you've used it as a given suggests some internalization of it. =)

PS. I am doing a pol sci module now and get very sensitive when reading about arguments on leadership.

Re: food for thought

[daoteng]

eh your main site layout looks like mine! lmao we chose same template and colour, but the orientation is mirrored.

Re: food for thought

[hanamichi_1989]

Generally, if you pledge yourself to a certain cause, the "best interest" would be whatever that is done, directly or indirectly, to fulfil that cause. For example in a military organisation, "national security" is the cause and the position of the leader is to do whatever in that interest. However, the ability of the leader is a separate issue. Which is exactly why I brought up the point that to question the competency or quality of leadership is a counter-productive move.

I venture to guess that what you are actually referring to is society at large; ie political leadership. To my mind there are some differences.

1) Most often in an organisation, we choose not the leader but the organisation itself (for a variety of reasons). Hence you may want to work in a company that is very profit driven as opposed to a company which has fair trade as their top priority. Therefore in a society we don't actually follow the "orders" or "instructions" of the leader as we are the ones who empowered them in the first place (in an ideal democracy we can strip them of their power as easily)

2) Having said that, of course the role of leaders itself is to legislate and govern. Hence we follow the laws made by them and the policies devised. That is the essence of a representative democracy in which we do not have a say in every detail but elect representatives that matches our interests most closely.

Which brings me back to your point. Ideally, our interests are aligned to the leaders' interests (whatever that may be). We have the power to scrutinise before deciding to vote them into power. However, once that is over (ie in comparison, it is as though we have pledged ourselves to a cause, but in this case we have elected a representative) we should limit our involvement in questioning the efficiency or competency of that representative (I would agree that we should not cease to question altogether) and leave those evaluations to an appropriate time when we redetermine who should represent our interests again.

I hope I didn't go completely off in my response. =X

on another note, How have you been? I saw quite a lot of nusco dizi pictures on your fb! Seems fun!

Re: food for thought

[daoteng]

I agree with largely what you've said. However, you've made a big assumption. You've assumed society as a whole is homogenous. It must be noted that the society consists of various classes, and these classes have their own interests, which hardly ever align with the leader's. I am a firm believer of plurality and I believe that in order for the organisation or society to progress, a reconciliation of opinions must be present. One that encompasses everyone's interest. Realistically, it will never happen. However, I am happy to work towards such an ideal. The point I was trying to make is that when the interests of the different groups of people do not align, how is it possible then to define "best interest"?

But you're right. I was thinking of societies when I ask this question. To me, firms are much different. In their relentless pursuit of profits, they could easily sacrifice the human factor. Anyone that is in disagreement with the top leaders may leave. Simple as that. Free market ma.

Yea I've joined nusco. Its been fun. Too bad its too social and there's a lot of commitment problems by individuals. Luckily, my dizi group is really bonded with familiar faces like sinhwee and enoch. Now I believe that the hwachong spirit is within us and it transcends time =)