with reference to a specified Zimbabwean organization as a case, analyse the notion that 21st century managers prioritise personal gains ahead of stakeholders interest
Answers
In slower moving and less complex business environments the old hierarchical model that depended mostly on only a few people at the top for leadership simply doesn't work anymore. In today's more volatile, uncertain and ambiguous business battlefield, decentralized controls and leadership through networks of people at all levels is imperative for success.
One person - or a few people - simply don't have the time or resources to sift through mounds of data about their company performance, industry, economic environment or competitors. Nor do they have the time to disseminate the right data to the right people in real time. Organizations move too quickly for that model to be effective.
In a recent article, I wrote about the fundamental difference between leadership and management as it relates to today's organizations facing the need for significant change. So what does leadership and management look like in the successful, growing and innovative 21st century organization? One easy correlation I can draw is from experiencing the leaner structures we had in the Navy SEAL teams. When you think military, most would picture an extremely bureaucratic command and control environment, which of course does still exist in today's armed forces. In some cases it's absolutely necessary. But in special operations, the pace at which we must move, learn and even change moves far too quickly for a traditional hierarchy.
The Naval Special Warfare community, where regular military rank of course exists, is still a much flatter organization. Senior leaders do the leading, while most of the important managerial tasks are delegated to the lower ranks. Junior team members are empowered with great deals of responsibility and the autonomy to make decisions. Is it always perfect? Of course not. But with a culture founded on trust and extreme levels of accountability, this teamwork mechanism works very well.
The same applies to today's business organizations. Especially in highly competitive environments. My previous company was a digital marketing agency. As the company grew rapidly, the industry continued to change due to technological advancements and the competitive landscape broadened, we knew our structures would have to evolve as well.
In some of the most successful start-ups and even large organizations that have evolved, you can visibly see greater levels of delegation and decision making at all levels. Leaders focus on guiding and communicating the vision, leading large client projects and finding new ways to develop their staff. Managers are taking on more leadership responsibilities and pass increasing amounts of responsibility to junior employees.
first of all you have to know that the 21st century manager is highly innovative technologically and other charactersitics which they posess. This is an analysis question whereby we have to analyse how the decisions for instance being implemented by the manager will end up to his own benefit rather than those of the stakeholders thus you have to know the types of stakeholders associated with the type of organisation you will be referring to so you have to point out one decision which a manager can take that will end up benefiting him instead of the stakeholders. i will give an example lets say the manager will implement a decision of mechanising the whole organisation that tea at break will be served by robot machines thus it will be a big boost towards saving costs of employing ancillary staff e.g the chefs in the organisaton thus profit maximising from less expenditure of salaries and wages and the personal gain of the manager comes in when he will have achieved his self-esteem needs of implementing useful tactics as well as during the payment of salaries if the organisation makes huge profits coz of the cut costs of paying the ancillary staff the manager tend to get more bonus as they would record it it as bumper harvest year whereas going to the other side the workers amomg themselves wll be highly demotivated as they will be retrenched and also the owners as the other stakeholder will also fear that their company will gain a bad reputation of retrenching workers.Refering to zimbabwean cases you can use PSMAS, ZIFA,AIR ZIM as your case i will provide you with links which you can use to find the stories
http://www.myzimbabwe.co.zw/news/856-cuthbert-dube-in-fresh-scandal-bribes-board-members-with-expensive-cars.html
http://www.pindula.co.zw/Cuthbert_Dube
http://www.herald.co.zw/how-airzim-millions-were-looted/
https://www.theindependent.co.zw/2014/01/31/govt-fingered-obscene-salaries/
http://www.herald.co.zw/cuthbert-dube-grossed-us6-4m-per-year/
http://www.sport24.co.za/soccer/scandal-hits-zimbabwe-soccer-20110714
https://www.newsday.co.zw/2012/11/22/nepotism-corruption-claims-take-limelight-in-rushwaya-trial/
https://www.zimeye.net/henrietta-rushwaya-arrested/
http://www.chronicle.co.zw/zifa-workers-loot-23k/
https://www.thestandard.co.zw/2016/09/19/nafaz-ghost-haunts-zifa/
https://www.dailynews.co.zw/articles/2016/07/08/zifa-in-crucial-indaba
http://www.reuters.com/article/zimbabwe-court-idUSL5N0X731A20150410
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Zimbabwe
http://nehandaradio.com/2014/01/27/air-zimbabwe-bosses-looted-us11-million/
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-14361-Air+Zimbabwe+boss+held+over+$9m+fraud/news.aspx
Hope it was a hint. good to be discussing with you
Warm regards Colley Mastermind!