Leaders are people who lead. Often through showing exemplary acts or making good decisions for the group or organisation to move forward towards their objectives (Are you referring to me? - Ed)
Regular change in top management is good in that it allows for fresh blood and new ideas, and a way for the middle and junior management to move up. But sometimes, change is not for the better as one often hopes for (This is starting to sound like an Obama critique - Ed).
It's been more than a month from the incident and we're still dealing with the fall-out that arose from it. It is now that our "enthusiasm" for the new management becomes strained and, I dare say, degenerated into discontent and even contemptuous. Reason being that instead of observing and correcting the rot, we have been continuously tasked to paper over the cracks and put up a grand show to say that all is well in the organisation.
Yes, so all is good here. Nothing to fix within so now we're suppose to fix elsewhere. So now we're expected to be holding the hands of industry players who come in purely for profit and not keen to contribute to the industry? It is a well-known fact that agriculture is a risky venture at the mercy of economic and natural factors so when something goes wrong, we're responsible for it? And why are we going to have to be responsible for incompetant businessmen out to make a quick buck when they clearly know nuts about this industry? I don't recall getting a share of the profits when the going was good for them.
It can be so frustrating when senior management goes along with it, wanting to appear generous (whatever). Maybe you can't blame the rookie Chief since the chief is new and more or less knows nuts about our work anyway. Maybe we shouldn't be blaming the in-coming cronies who know nuts about this as well. As long as we all do our bit to put up a good show for the public, they get their obscene pay raise. Guess who's stuck with all the dirty work?
The writer is not a fan of idiots, nor is he tolerant of stupidity. Throw in incompetance to see his reaction.
No comments:
Post a Comment