1. The writer describes what he thinks are the ways Asian societies and Western societies relate to authority / leaders. Do you think Singapore’s society resembles Asian societies or Western societies when it comes to relating to authority / leaders? Justify your answer.
As a whole, the Singapore society is mostly that of a conformist one when we discuss about authority and leadership. However, the desire to be led may not be necessarily true. In my opinion, it is the fear of the superior that is responsible for the unquestioning allegiance, loyalty and total obedience that Singaporean workers usually have in them. In the workplace, it is the fear of offending the boss that restricts the initiative on the worker’s part. From another point of view, it is about keeping the rice bowl and winning the bread.
However, when it comes to leadership, especially in the political sense of the word, Singaporeans are again mostly compliant to the superior’s views and orders. Does this not sound like a totalitarian state? Indeed, Singapore’s political structure can be argued to be that of a dictatorship-a one party state. Though there are minor and insignificant microbial opposition parties in parliament which seem to make the PAP stand out, their political clout is diminished to a minute fraction of their potential reachable capacity. Hence, this group of people, though at times non-compliant, represent an insignificant muted portion of society. The rest of the sheep stock is only happy to follow where the shepherd leads them to as long as the pasture is guaranteed. So what if beyond the pasture lays greener pastures? The people can only hope that the shepherd would bring them there another day. For now, there is plenty for everyone. Be it a Western or Asian society, Singapore’s society resembles that of one under a dictatorship. And of course, dictators are found where ever they may roam. Just that Singapore has been lucky thus far.
2. Harvard professor Ronald Heifetz suggests that leadership should be separated from official rank and appointment. He proposes that leadership be thought of as an activity that authority figures exercise only some of the time. Do you agree with this proposal? Justify your answer. I agree with his proposal largely. Though the mindset of the superior-subordinate relationship must be radically altered in order for the success to occur, benefits are to be reaped over time. Indeed, his view that any team member can exercise leadership is coincidentally synonymous with the ministry of education’s values, that every student is a leader. That is why all schools have various programmes which inculcate and bring out the various degrees of leadership amongst the student population. However, his point about informal authority being earned is not explained, and currently it seems not that appealing, as one can wonder how it will be earned, and the consequences of everyone earning that. On the overall, I do agree that authority figures should exercise leadership only occasionally. However, at times when the subordinates do not obey crucial decisions whose effects would be felt throughout, the authority will have to step in and remove all given liberties.
-7:56 PM-
IDIOT.