Leadership is synonymous with the success of a company. Although we tend to think of management to be a reason critical to the well-being of the company, I believe it’s not only just another cause like environment, politics or competition but the life line of a company.
With an exquisite management body, even the smallest of all companies can show up as a major competitor given the right time and instruments to work with. This in a way resolves the dilemma the question puts forth as well.
A crisis arises for various factors ranging from management inefficiency to market closure, however, in business there is always an alternate. A crisis if handled properly can work in the advantage of a firm and not a threat to it. It is rather the prompt decision-making of the management that can save the firms from the ironies of fate.
Nevertheless, a management can only do if its being led by the right person. A wonderfully competent CEO might put the company is to financial stress where a moderate employee turned CEO can turn it upside down. Fact of the matter is, not all companies need a high-flying flamboyant CEO, nor does it want a very simple and straight one.
Leadership defines where you are heading for, but if the leadership is flawed a company is about to stumble. We all make mistakes, but as long as we take them as lessons and merge them as future lessons, its well worth it.
If the leadership has run the company successfully over the years it’s completely absurd to change it upside down, cause the experience cannot be overrun by ability. Business is all about the right move at the right hour, and a well-groomed management knows a stitch in time saves nine, so sticking to the old and trusting them with the challenge is a better solution than switching to a new leadership.
What do you say? Voice your opinion…