All entries for Tuesday 05 April 2011
April 05, 2011
Asset management is quite broad and there are many aspects needed to be considered. Obviously, none of the companies can focus on every perspective in asset management and also, it is impossible to work on each of the points because of the cost of time and money. Therefore, companies must choose the must crucial parts in their asset management. In the presentation, our role is the consultants and we found that it is a difficult task. One of the main reason is we aren't familiar with the conditions in WaveRiders. We spent a lot of time in identifying what assets WaveRiders could have and trying to search for the potential problems that these assets may generate. Thus, I can understand why some companies don't trust consultant firms. No one can be as familiar as the employees in WaveRiders do in understanding the situations with WaveRiders. If the consultant firms fail to have a clear picture of WaveRiders, it is impossible for them to identify the problems. Take the health and safety management as an example. We don't know exactly what assets WaveRiders has, we don't know what is the most dangerous equipment and material, we don't know what happened before in WaveRiders. Employees in WaveRiders may not be experts at asset management but they know their company better than others. Specialists in consultant firms are good at the asset management but perhaps they have no idea about WaveRiders before they receive the project. So it is hard to say who is better at doing this task.
There are lots of leadership theories and it is hard to select the most suitable ones. For example, the selected theory must be compatible with the environment, the characteristics of leaders as well as the followers. However, it is hard to achieve this condition. A theory may fit the environment but confront with a leader's personality. Also, it is common that a leader has different characteristics with his followers. In addition, it is not easy to define the personalities of the employees because they may have a number of different types of characters. Perhaps one of the three factors has the dominant position among them and has a significant influence on the development of the company. In that case, choosing the theory that is compatible to that factor may make leadership become more effective. Meanwhile, the negative affects of the leadership towards the other factors need to be treated carefully in order to reduce potential problems.
It is possible for the leader to implement more than one kind of leadership theories at one time so as to meet the above requirements. It seems common, but it may cause conflicts either. Two different kinds of theory definitely require different behaviors and skills. It's hard to balance them. When deploying two theories together, it is unavoidable these theories encounter each other and generate conflicts. In our pma, we can select different kinds of leadership theories to the CEO and the director. But I just doubt the collision between them. What's more, will the people feel comfortable even though they are affecting by two totally different leaders.
Yesterday, we did an exercise and during that exercise we did what we used to do before: when we had different opinions towards an issue, we took the idea supported by the majority of people. This seems to be the most popular solution to solve conflicts in discussions. But the ideas may not be the best ones all the time. We didn¡¯t get some good results in some decisions though the decisions had been support by the majority of us or even all of us. The truth is always on the side of few man. Perhaps the sentence is a bit more extreme, but it sounds reasonable. Taking the majority's opinion is helpful to make a fair decision but it may not be an effective method in choosing the best ideas. I didn't see a more effective way to work out this situation. Almost every companies let the top manager to make the final decision or let the board to vote for the options even though no one can guarantee it will generate a good decision.