Discuss the pros and cons of the speech that Bob Galvin used to stimulate change in the Motorola case. Do you think his approach was ultimately successful? Why or why not? (10 marks)

Exhibit 1 Speech by Bob Galvin on Leadership I would like to share with you a special selective view of leadership. It finds its expres- sion in a series of paradoxes. We know so much about leadership, yet we know too little. We can define it in general. but find it hard to particularize. We recognize it when obvious, but it is not always obvious why. We practice leadership, which implies we are still preparing for the real thing. It is neither necessary to impress on you an elaborate definition of leadership nor is this an appropriate time to characterize its many styles. Let it suffice that we acknowl edge that no leader is worthy of the title absent creative and judgmental intelligence. courage, heart, spirit, integrity, and vision applied to the accomplishment of a purpose ful result through the efforts of followers and the leader. Rather, I elect to share with you leadership. some observations on a further series of paradoxes that reveal themselves as we analyze Module 2 Changing the Game (from Vision to Adaptation) 123 When one is vested with the role of the leader, he inherits more freedom. The power of leadership endows him with rights to a greater range of self-determination of his own destiny. It is he who may determine the what or the how and the when or the where of important events. Yet, as with all rights, there is a commensurate, balancing group of responsibilities that impose upon his freedom. The leader cannot avoid the act of determining the what or the who or the where. He cannot avoid being prepared to make these determinations. He cannot avoid being prepared to make these termina- tions. He cannot avoid seeing to their implementation. He cannot avoid living with the consequences of his decision on others and the demands these consequences impose on him. Only time will prove the merit of his stewardship. Because he is driven to pass this test of time, he will be obliged often to serve others more than himself. This obligation will more and more circumscribe his destiny. So those who assume true leadership will wonder from time to time if the apparent freedom of the leader adds a greater measure of independence, or whether the dependence of others on him restricts his own freedom. For one to lead implies that others follow. But, is the leader a breed apart, or is he, rather, the better follower? Leadership casts the leader in many such roles: . Observer-of the work his associates perform. . Sensor-of attitudes, feelings, and trends. . Listener-to ideas, suggestions, and complaints. . Student-of advisors, inside and out of his situation. . Product of experience-both his and others'. . Mimic-of other leaders who have earned his respect. Is he not the better follower, as he learns more quickly and surely from the past, selects the correct advice and trends, chooses the simpler work patterns and combines the best of other leaders? Is it not good leadership to know when not to follow an aimless path? The paradox again: To lead well presumes the ability to follow smartly. Because a leader is human and fallible, his leadership is in one sense finite- constrained by mortality and human imperfections. In another sense, the leader's influ- ence is almost limitless. He can spread hope, lend courage, kindle confidence, impart knowledge, give heart, instill spirit, elevate standards, display vision, set direction, and call for action today and each tomorrow. The frequency with which one can perform these leadership functions seems without measure. His effectiveness and personal re- sources, rather than attenuateng with use, amplify as he reuses and extends his skills. Like the tree whose shadow falls where the tree is not, the consequence of the lead- er's act radiates beyond his fondest perception. Again, we see the paradox of the leader-a finite person with an apparent infinite influence. continuedExhibit 1 continued A leader is decisive-is called on to make many critical choices, and can thrive on the power and attention of that decision-making role. Yet, the leader of leaders moves progressively away from that role. Yes, he or she can be decisive and command as required. Yet that leader's prime responsibility is not to decide or direct, but to create and maintain an evocative situ- ation, stimulating an atmosphere of objective participation, keeping the goal in sight, recognizing valid consensus, inviting unequivocal recommendation, and finally vesting increasingly in others the privilege to learn through their own decisions. A wiser man puts it thus: We measure the effectiveness of the true leader, not in terms of the leadership he exercises, but in terms of the leadership he evokes; not in terms of his power over others but in terms of the power he releases in others; not in terms of the goals he sets and the directions he gives, but in terms of the plans of action others work out for themselves with his help; not in terms of decisions made, events completed and the inevitable success and growth that follow from such released energy, but in terms of growth in competence, sense of responsibility and in personal satisfactions among many participants. Under this kind of leadership it may not always be clear at any given moment just who is leading. Nor is this important. What is important is that others are learning to lead well. The complement to that paradox is that the growth that such leadership stimulates generates an ever-growing institution and an ever-increasing number of critical choices, more than enough of which fall squarely back on the shoulders of the leader who trained and willingly shared decision-making with others. And there are others which, if not paradoxes, at least are incongruityHave we not witnessed some who have claimed leadership yet never fully achieved it? Have we not observed others who have shunned leadership only to have it thrust upon them? Each of us here is at once part leader and part follower as we play our roles in life. Fortunately, there is a spark of leadership quality in many men and women, and, most fortunately, the flame of future leadership burns brightly in many who matriculate here. It is this wellspring from which we will draw and which gives us confidence for the continued advance of society. On this day, you may feel a sense of relief that you have borne your final test. Walter Lippman, for one, would not long have let you cherish this illusion. He once observed: The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind in others the conviction and will to carry on. This, for a few of the best of you here who would be leaders, may be the most per- sonal paradox and crucial test of all