The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Thursday, May 3, 2018

MSNBC's Maddow: Trump Administration Departures






Image result for turnoverIn March 2008, The Financial Post published an article about leadership: Company suffers when leaders abuse power. 

Authors Jennifer Newman and Darryl Grigg wrote a short and concise piece about corporate abuse or power and the deleterious effects of leadership failures and how the organization suffers. The following excerpt directly relates to the central focus of this post: organization turnover (highlighted text via The Pardu).
Leaders who use their power appropriately can motivate staff, inspire loyalty and commitment and push employees to aspire to greater achievement. In contrast, leaders who abuse their power bring down morale, create turnover, incur grievances and cost the company money in lost productivity. A third dynamic — leaders who avoid the use of the power they are entrusted with — can create confusion, anxiety and a sense of helplessness in staff.
While the March 2008 article related to the corporation, I suggest after many years in human resources management key points in the article also related to organizations on a universal basis.  

Question. Would you consider the federal (or state governments) forms of organizations? Don't bother to seek to dilute the question with constructs based on bias against the question. The question is straight-forward. Is a government a form of organization? The only answer is yes. If you thought to parse an answer, you should question your motive.   

Healthy organizations leverage a few competitive advantages against organizations which experience less success. The list is long but I offer a few:  
Competent leadership  
Great products or services 
Effective strategic planning and focus 
Stable turnover
Critical cash reserves 
               Excellent Customer Service
While each competitive advantage on our short list is critical to organization success they as a synergistic grouping will fail stockholders, employees, and customers if either advantage isn't leveraged towards goals and the good of the organization.  

The two major missions of the corporation are to maintain itself a viable business and return a profit (even the nonprofit).  Let's take those two missions to the realm of government or desired good government. 

Could our short list also apply to government?  Is good government attainable and sustainable if any of our short-list is absent everyday operations?  The question is rhetorical. 

Let's consider one very basic foundation in the list: "Turnover".  Notice we are skipping past "Effective Leadership".  Have you considered the turnover in the Trump Administration since January 20, 2017? After 16 months, how about a visit with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and her exemplary research and production team for an update on Trump's turnover. 



Do you see the root reality of Trumpism?  It has no basis required for effectiveness. Notice in this piece no references to dishonesty, lying manipulation and possible collusion with a foreign adversary to win an election.  We have offered a deep look at turnover as a contrasting reality to effective organizational performance.

Questions.  

Have you ever known turnover in government like we are seeing from, Trump?  

Is it possible to stretch our imagination to think in terms of Trump as an effective leader? 

The bottom line consideration. 

Are we living during a time of healthy federal governance? 

No comments :

Post a Comment