The Corporate Fiefdom.

Long ago (in Medieval times), there existed a system of allegiance or loyalty where powers, priveleges and opportunity were granted from the seat of a few "power brokers." These "gifts" or fiefs, as they were called, could be held as "pawns for exploitation" much like promotions in Corporate America. Nothing about this arrangement produced the best results for the masses, only those that seeked to remain in power or that sought to build an empire benefited. As I extrapolate about this system, contrasting it with Corporate America, you'll find similarities between the two that will help illuminate the major flaws in the current leadership model. My objective is to promulgate about the need for change in Corporate leadership.

Our Corporate Leadership strategy can be characterized as "traditional" being operated by traditionalist. A traditionalist in Corporate America is a person(s) that klings to an old way of conducting business, putting into practice these beliefs and molding successors in the mannerisms in an attempt to sustain personal influence which is the primary function of the system. Like a corporation's ability to survive beyond the life expectancy of it's investors, products and personnel, the traditionalist model of leadership aspires to as well; however, unlike the leadership model, corporations require moderate to substantial leadership and philosophical change to remain competitive or to survive. Specifically, as investors seek the perpetuation of investments through the longevity of corporations the adopted form of leadership is not well-suited to provide such, as the very nature of  market competition is to provoke organizations to adapt to changing conditions. A microcosm of this behavior is the self-interest demonstrated by the officers of companies when choosing successors. The prevalent methodology utilized by these "trusted authorities" is to favor those that assimilate or those that present the lowest-level of leadership competition. In a competitive environment and if given the choice, most managers would choose the lesser competition or least threatening credentials to promote. The reason behind such madness is that most managers, manage out of fear and fail to appropriately plan for an exit strategy or stay well past their usefullness.

 When evaluating the strength of a company's leadership it's important to gauge the degree to which managers participate in continued education, advanced training and leadership coaching. What we are experiencing in America today is a lack of participation where foreign counterparts continues to outpace us, possessing advanced degrees and challenging the prevailing conventional philosophy. The challenge to us as leaders is in penetrating this wall of leadership and establishing a credible alternative. So, when you get back to your office, please pay attention to the mannerism of your leadership evaluating them beyond the salient features that define their structures.