Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 55
  • Published : April 16, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Napoleon once said: Every French soldier carries a marshal's baton in his knapsack. It means the soldier who doesn't want to be a general is not a good soldier. But how to be a qualified general, what skills he has to master to be a general, he didn’t state clearly. However, in the last, with in the famous battle of Waterloo, after suffering a defeat that would end his military career, he was exiled to the island of St. Helena and kept prisoner till his death on 5 May 1821, supposedly by stomach cancer, but suspected by many as death by poisoning. His career was ended, but the controversies and lessons he brought were never creased. Was he a good leader in army? If so, why he would fail, what were the differences between leadership and management? These are the puzzles I want to solve from the four sessions of leadership course. From the course; I learn that leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes. It involves several elements, like, influence, followers, shared purpose, change, personal responsibility and integrity, intention. Here, we have to pay attention to the word “influence”, it means that the relationship among people is not passive; however, also inherent in this definition is the concept that influence is multidirectional and noncoercive. So from this point of view, Napoleon was a good leader in terms of making people follow him. He was a brilliant military leader in that he knew how to win battles, and the human psychology that leads to military and political success. But to become a good leader, it is far not enough to only master the power of influence. Napoleon was still not perfect, but in the world who is perfect? In the past, I was easily confused with “management” and “leadership”. As management can be defined as the attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling organizational resources. So under this situation, both leadership and management are concerned with providing direction for the organization. After taking the leadership course, I found the differences. Management focuses on establishing detailed plans and schedules, then allocating resources to accomplish the plan. Leadership calls for creating a compelling vision of the future and developing farsighted strategies for producing the changes needed to achieve the vision. Whereas management calls for keeping an eye on the horizon and the long-term future. Back to Napoleon, he was no leader at all in terms of having any clear, unifying vision of a greater good he was trying to achieve. He was simply a power-hungry egomaniac. Thus, once conquered he did not care about a place or its people except in terms of their capacity to help him win more battles. He inherited from the French Revolution a certain set of values about this 'greater good' and the rights of man and so on, but did not really believe in them and threw them aside whenever they were inconvenient. That is the reason why he would fail. There once a piece of news reported, over a recent two- year period, financial services companies laid off 400,000 employees in the United States, with nearly 150,000 of those being let go in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone, when the economic crisis hit its peak. It proves again the saying that “the only thing remains unchanged in the world is change itself”. So in an ever changing time, though, the pace of change has increased dramatically, presenting significant challenges for companies trying to keep pace with shifts in the external environment. It’s in this sense that my company PSBC perform so well, which I think mainly contributed to these key issues. Hierarchical, functional structure. (PSBC’s)

| Business 1 | Business 2| Business 3|
Private Banking| Team1| Team2| Team3|
tracking img