Maret 2007
Creativity is
measured by several criteria and could be interpreted by many points of view,
but it is absolutely depended on the quality of leadership of the organization.
Leadership is
not a person but a system. People normally equate the term ’leadership’ with
‘the leader’. This is partly the result of the ‘cult of personality’ that has
been gaining ground in our society as a whole, and partly the result of a growing
business hagiography, which over the past decade has lionized. The effect has
been to make us think that they, and they alone, have been the culture-makers,
and that somehow the future of these cultures rests solely in their hands.
People have made
the mistake of over exaggerating the contribution of individual leaders to
change culture. The fact of the matter is that in this area individual leaders,
even those at the pinnacle of an organization, cannot actually lead, and it is
time we stopped pretending that they can. The reasons are hard political ones.
The power of symbolic and situational definition are, and probably always have
been, too diffuse to assume any one person is or can ever be in control of the
cultural process.
We must
therefore concur that there is a growing ‘crisis of leadership’ in society and
organization, where the people at the top have begun to realize that they no
longer have the power to determine opinion or make things happen, at least not
in the way they would like. The existing pluralism within the culture of the
organization conspires to prevent leaders from ‘taking charge and making
change’. They are powerless in the face of the gigantic, enormous, multi-legged
octopus we call culture and perplexed by the whole issue of how to intervene
in, influence or change it.
The problem with
trying to lead to day, at least in the old-fashioned sense of the word, is that
there are just too many unknowns, too many things requiring attention, too many
forces and counter forces pulling in different directions, too many things to
get done and too many different demand on human ingenuity and skill for any one
person to be expected to shoulder on his or her own. Without the help and
support of others, top leaders invariably end up the victim of their
organization culture or to be more specific, the kind of paralyzing vicious
circle of thinking described earlier.
The strategist
feels compelled to call a halt to development because he or she feels the
culture no longer has the potential for delivering what it was originally set
up to achieve. Its limits have been reached. It is seen as having lost its
creative or reproductive capacity; the life has flowed out of it; it is
withering and dying, in danger of being no more than an empty shell. Time and
the natural ageing process have taken their toll. The organization is in
decline, its strategies-in-use is no longer the right instruments for achieving
its objectives, the ‘exhausted soil’ of culture, the cultural symbols being
‘all used up and worn out’ and its tools are ‘blunted’.
Not only has the
culture lost its creativity and vitality, and its ability to touch hearts and
minds, it has also lost its direction: what was once a progressive linearity of
development has become a regressive circularity of development; the ‘virtuous’
circle, with its infinite capacity for generating new combinations of the
cultural material, has become a ‘vicious’ circle, a whirlpool or spiral of
narrowing options and endless repetitions of constantly failing solutions; a
framework of opportunities has become a framework of constraints. The
strategy-in-use has become a straitjacket; the solution has become problem; and
the ‘vision’ has become blind, shortsighted dogma, unable now see the wood for
the trees.
For betterment,
we are in urgent need of a sea change in the way we think about and practice
leadership, and I believe the culture perspective might help us to achieve our
goals. What it does is depersonalize and dissenter the leadership concept, so
that we start to perceive leadership as a cooperative or collective enterprise
spread throughout the organizational network or system, a property of the
system rather than of any single individual. Clearly, there are still
individual leaders participating in, even initiating, the process of change,
but now they are no longer portrayed as omniscient or omnipotent, but as links
in a much bigger chain or ‘network of leadership’, the unit of cultural
production. The culture perspective does not therefore rule out individualism,
but makes it part of a bigger endeavor. From this viewpoint leadership thus
moves from the singular to the plural, from the personal to the systemic, from
a privilege exercised by the few to function exercised by the many. Change
becomes a creative collective effort.
Change is a
highly complex business, difficult to understand, and because of its non-linear
nature almost impossible to deal with systematically, or to write about
convincingly. Certainly, if one’s ambition is to tell it ‘how it really is’ or
was, the result is almost certain to be a story as labyrinthine and
multilayered. Things, as they say, are going to take a whole lot of explaining.
In matters of
culture it is nearly always a case of an ibis, therefore is never far from
one’s mind. Nor can one ever be sure that things will come right in the end.
Working with
changes need a greater tolerance for complexity, however, will reward
investigators with a deep understanding of the phenomena they are studying and
a firmer basis for interpreting the data they collect.
Given a highly
attractive alternative, one might well ask what would induce anyone to read a
book that promises no ‘keys’, no ‘solutions’, no ‘simple secrets’, not even an
eight-point guide to ‘excellence’ or a single two-by-two matrix of strategic
options for change.
The guiding
maxim of philosophy being proposed is that one should meet complexity with
complexity, that is develop a framework sufficiently complex to embrace the
complexity within the subject matter it is seeking to describe, but no so
complex and life-size as to be as confusing as the ‘real thing. Unfortunately,
it is here at the very first stage of conceptualization that one encounters a
major problem: there are apparently no framework like this is available, we
don’t even seem to have a reasonable way, i.e., a conceptual framework, for
thinking about change.
If an institution takes care its
man who work with, by fulfilling their needs, provide them wealthier and
happier condition, the institution will last for decades and hopefully will
last for next generation. Human investment as a part of human development is
the most important in every institution or business organization.
When Jack Welch took over the GE
management, he faced two options, either sold the GE’s assets or terminate the
employers. He said that he rather lost the assets than good and creative
personals. He said if the company will return wealthy, the company are able to
buy any loosing assets, but if the company lost the good people, the company
will have no power to fight against the competitors.
There are several measurement could
be used, i.e. financial audit, management audit, personnel performance
assessment, institutional assessment, etc. It will provide a grade of good
governance through institutional credibility and accountability, effectiveness
and efficiency in operational activities, and the growth of core business.
Since sustainable development study
focuses on the continuation of natural process, it automatically will change
the perspective and one’s point of view. He or she will more concern about the
long-term results rather than short ‘bombastic’ effort. By considering the
better life for next generation, obviously, we have to provide a solid
foundation through a holistic approach which covers an integrated solution for
the future; and for the sake of ethics, norm and morality, we do not dishonor
ourselves with ‘dirty’ thought and activities.
Human life is a journey, it is not
valued by the length of time but by the good things that he or she has done for
surrounding people, the people who care and share with, the people who work
with and help to solve so many problems, the people who have been ignored and
disgraced by a certain condition, and the people who never be appreciated
properly.
Music therapy have proven can make
human spirits more calm, people in highly stress defenedly need music to
recover even the baby before birth, with 6 to 9 month in mother pregnant hear
the clasical or soft music can response to the sound.
This analyze
will put us to the point that we have to take care the eco-system; ‘back to
nature’ is the perfect word to figure out our concern to the sustainability of
environment.
There seven
items should be considered regarding to sustainable environment:
- Reduce
- Reuse
- Recycling
- Environment
consideration
- Life-cycle
costs
- Energy
conservation
- Quality
Analysis support
management is give service to the management for information need internally and
externally. The dynamic change of the envifonment needs to watch and follow
recent situation. The analysis report regularly sent to the management as
reference to the decision. As the logistic of the information the analysis
support management could affect the performance of the organization in the
future, in kind of good analysis give and lead the organization in the right
way
