Print Friendly, PDF & Email

At first glance, things are always simple.  A passing man looks handsome, upright and strong.  A female shape and the dress, flashes up beautiful.  At the second glance, we smell the liquor on the man’s clothes, or notice the wrinkles on the woman’s face.  The third glance convinces us that this is not such a pretty picture after all.  By now we have gathered the facts a bit more objectively, heard the person speak out, seen them interact, and connected the ‘object’ with appropriate concepts that lead us to a sounder understanding of, in this case, the person.


When we have a leader that we see over and over every working day, they seem to contradict themselves so much that we eventually convince ourselves that they are confused and that it is best to catch them on the right day or just stay out of sight.  That is one view from a staff member.


The view from the boss or leader is quite different.  A boss has to be the people carer, the moral guide, the epitome of patience, selflessness, and compassion.  His or her staff expect this from him or her.  The moment they act out of line with what a leader is espoused to be (as written by the appropriate scribes about this subject) they are immediately judgednegatively.  The judgements then flow of course in statements like ‘he doesn’t care‘; ‘It’s all about the money‘; ‘She doesn’t lead by example‘.

Meanwhile, in the modern confusion, this very boss is required to make the rules and apply them too; and equitably! So, the company policies are made known in the employment contracts and at induction, the boss is responsible for all this of course.  If the boss hasn’t made appropriate rules for everything, you don’t have to do it, assist in fixing the situation, or care about loss that may result.  Your contract simply says that you will be paid.  This part is ok for you. The other rules you try to work around if you need to.  The rule that you must work and not play on Facebook is completely insensitive boss!


Thirdly and finally, this magical boss of yours has to make strategy that leads the company to be both relevant to a changing market that is all jumbled up in a confusion of missing concepts, as well as make it efficient. He has to watch the market, the technology being used by IT, advances in electrical controls, new mechanical advances, etc. When he does not and the value added in the economic process is low, the business fails and the boss is of course the sitting duck once more.


Modern society, as advanced as it claims to be, is happy with the boss proudly and ignorantly climbing onto the sitting duck perch to face these three key challenges of her position that are impossible to resolve as one duck.


A solution?

Could one have three ducks for example?

  • The first looks after the people and their development. This is the caring, sensitive, knowledgeable about human relationships and true inner needs duck.
  • The second makes sure that all rules are made by agreement with all ducklings so that there is buy in by all from the outset. This second duck, that ascends to the duck perch of equality duck, makes sure that not only are the rules made by all, but that they are firstly better known and, secondly, equitably enforced.
  • The final duck perch would be for the economy duck. This duck would need a team that makes sure that economic activity stays relevant and efficient.

The last duck, the economy duck, would have the support of the people caring, and the rule holding and justice ducks.

What’s the difference between the modern unitary sitting duck, and three more differentiated ducks who all work together for the same overall goal?  Well, the current unitary sitting duck scenario breeds confusion, inefficiency, lack of commitment, and unhappiness amongst his ducklings.  It takes one good marksman to pot the duck.  It is not difficult.  With three ducks, each focussed on a different piece of the overall puzzle, the target is more varied, but everyone will know that three ducks are needed to get the wheel turning sustainably so will tend to have constructive comments rather than comments made from their critical intellectual faculties only.  Three ducks might draw the hearts of society into the game.  They might see the validity of each of the roles and that they are all three required to bring a healthy society or business into movement.



Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *