I need help in understanding two questions:
DeWit and Meyer, who wrote the book, "Strategy Synthesis", present the argument that developing skills in working with paradoxes is essential for strategists. Can someone help me analyze the forces that exist which lead members of an organization to rely on one approach vs. another in dealing with tensions.
1. How are the models of leadership which have been discussed consistent or inconsistent with this argument?
2. How might leaders who develop their own and other's skills in working with parodoxes?
The statement given by Bob de Wit and Ron Meyer that developing skills in working with paradoxes is essential for the strategies, explains that it is necessary for the strategist to become logical and provide solutions based on logical statements. There are various models of leadership given by the various business analysts (Wit & Meyer, 2005). Almost all kinds of models are followed the statement of Bob de Wit and Ron Meyer. All the leadership models are based on the two concepts behavioral integrity and leadership consistency.
For instance, the charismatic leadership model is based on the personality of leader, who has the ability to convince the followers and guide them on the basis of the consistent and logical arguments (McKenna, 2000). Another leadership model is the transformational model that also leads the logical behavior of the leader. The constancy in the performance of the leaders is essential to lead their ethical and honest ...
DeWit & Meyer 'Strategy Synthesis' as it relates to models of leadership is examined.