After reading
the article The Harder They Fall by Roderick M. Kramer I was not surprised in
many of the pitfalls of these once successful leaders that fell from grace. In
the article Kramers begins by stating that “in the 1990s, our society seemed to
have a fetish for aggressive chiefs like Enron’s Kenneth Lay, Tyco’s Dennis
Kozlowski, and WorldCom’s Bernard Ebbers” what this shows is the errors of our
ways from the very beginning. At the time we were enabling these ruthless
tactics by empowering negative behaviors and encouraging the winner-takes-all
mindsets as what to strive for to become a master of the universe. Somewhere
along the way it was deemed ethical and acceptable for Americans to be bullied
into cooperating with these leaders because they seem to have it all. These leaders
were examples/role models for future leaders attending business schools all
over the world. Ivy League professors were asking these students to mimic this
behavior, which continued to reinforce the negative behavior, which in return
only fed it.
Somewhere along
the way rule breaking became the norm and it appears it is still the norm as
throughout the article present day leaders find the rule followers as weak. In
the article Kramer identifies that “many players in winner-take-all markets
believe that getting ahead means doing things differently from ordinary
people-for instance, finding a back door to success that others have not been
smart enough to spot”. The idea alone that someone is not smart enough implies
following the rules and paying one’s dues to society by working their way to
the top means they are insufficient and less equip to lead once they reach the
top. I disagree with this because I believe the leaders working from the bottom
to the top usually have better relations and an understanding of what all employees
within the organization are going through and this understanding develops a
more trusting relationship for them to have going forward. No one is happier
when the nice guy finishes last because he is the one everyone helped along the
way to obtain the winner spot. Although this isn’t always true in every
situation I believe the personal skills developed through experiences in many
difficult situations help make a better-rounded individual, which help better
develop them into the leader they will become.
I have come to
the conclusion in life that sometimes ethics are overlooked because someone
might value what another person’s opinion is over their well-being so they will
shy away from doing the right thing in order to remain in good standings with
the other person. Doing the right thing all the time is impossible for many
people because they fail to weigh out the consequences correctly and priorities
are configured depending upon the person’s wants, needs and so on. If someone
has a priority to become successful businesswoman then any situation that could
delay him or her from reaching a level of success will be deemed less important
or a rule could be broken so that they can succeed. In the article Kramers tells the story of a
mother who willingly gave her child up to the father in order to become a
successful businesswoman. These life sacrifices in what he calls “winners-take-all”
people are taking a toll on their consciousness as well as when they reflect
back on what they sacrificed to get where they are. In the article he states, “
Winner-take-all markets creates players who suffer from a winner-wants-all
mindset. These winners elite performers expect everything – but often end up
with nothing”. This couldn’t be more accurate. In any movie I have seen where
there is a successful businessman who sacrifices a family or the girl he loved
to become successful usually ends up alone and lonely; thus the moral of the
story is the sacrifices made were not worth it in the end.
In my life I was
in a relationship with a winner-want-all individual. He was starting his own
business and throughout our 10-year relationship I was always told I was second
to his success. I assumed what he meant was I had to take a back seat while he
worked to start his business and wants he was successful he would be able to
get back to how we were originally. He started the business right after
graduating high school in 2002 and from 2002 until 2008 he treated me like I
was invisible. He expected me to go with him to all of his events and wait
patiently alone while he networked, which I did willingly. He was against me
going to school and any other ideas I had for myself because he was starting to
make a lot of money with no college education, so this meant that all degrees
were useless.
After 5 long
years of being stood up, walked on, talked to like an idiot, and treated with
little appreciation for my dedication to being a supportive fiancé, working a
fulltime job, attend and graduate college and support all of his endeavors I
finally decided it was time for me to go on without him. When I broke off our
engagement he was shocked which almost made me laugh out loud. He begged for my
forgiveness and began buying me some of the lavish gifts he had been buying for
himself, but nothing could fill the lack of respect, love and support I needed
and wanted. Looking back I realized how I was caught up in the lifestyle of success
and how the lavish lifestyle (at the time considered necessities) was only
buying me time to delay the inevitable.
No one wants to be
belittled and disrespected even if someone is buying them lavish gifts and
treating them with a taste of the wanted life. People want to feel empowered,
supported, respected, trust, loyalty and be considered in the overall plan of
whatever the relationship is involved in whether it be a spouse or coworker and
this is what I feel these leaders that failed lacked. They became accustomed to
the lavish life and the sense of entitlement became overwhelming. Suddenly it
was expected for people to go the extra mile and was no loner appreciated. People
turned on these leaders because in this they found justification.
References
Kramer, R. M.
(2003). The Harder They Fall. (cover story). Harvard
Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.
No comments:
Post a Comment