Analysis of an Issue:
“Success in almost any field depends more on energy and drive than it does on intelligence. This explains why we have so many foolish leaders.”Analysis:
The success of any leader is judged by his team performance. Although his own intelligence plays an important role, but its the energy and drive of leader which is a the most important factor for success. In world history, there has been numerous leaders with outstanding courage to continue, energy to perform and will to success was important without excellent academic records.
Leaders key responsibility include to motivate team to achieve good results. This does not ask for specific knowledge of field. It is rightly said that for being a successful leader, one needn’t to know, how everything works, instead one should know how to deal with the person how knows about the work. Moreover, skill gap factor is nullified by the diversity of team members with gamut of expertise in different fields. Hence, any such skill gap identified can be rectified by incorporating a suitable team member.
Success records reflect that many of our successful leaders were not outstanding at education. Like Abraham Lincoln, who has failed 8 times in Presidential elections, has suffered mental illness for 1 year, and was one of the successful Presidents in the history of America. If a leader knows the skills of his teammates, has the energy to drive to charge his team members, then anything can be achieved by a coherent team under able leadership.
There have been numerous examples where change in leadership has immensely effected the departments. The sole reason being the energy, enthusiasm and drive to take the challenge. For example, Railway department of India was suffering huge losses, but the balance sheet has been overturned by a boy from village named Mr.Lalu Prasad Yadav and for the first time, the railway department clocked profit.
Although some may argue that intelligence is important and without which, the team may go haywire. But this is eliminated by the good leadership styles and wide expertise of team. A team is more powerful than a single person as it has several areas of strength, and hence any such decision will have minimal chances of failures. Leadership is not dictating, but to accept the others suggestions at times and lead the team for the results. Analysis of an Argument:
The following appeared as a part of an article in a magazine devoted to archeological conservation.
“In a recent survey in Melsville, there has been a twenty per cent increase in the number of residents who watch shows on archeological conservation than was the case four years ago. Authorities have noticed a similar increase in the visit to the conservation sites and historical monuments that abound the town and its outskirts, in the said four years. If the town authorities want to increase the number of visitors to conservation sites and monuments, they should try to make sure that the local television channels telecast more shows on conservation.”
The author concludes that increase in number of visitors to archeological sites is solely attributed to number of residents watching shows on archeological conservation is based on certain assumptions for which there are no evidences. The argument is flawed in several aspects and can be strengthened if the author could have provided certain details.
First, the assumption that increased number of residents watching archeoligical programmes is a reflection of increased interest is severely biased. There can be several factors affecting the number of viewers on television watching certain programmes. One cannot eliminate the possibility of the overall growth of population in the town. There are bright chances that in four years, an industrial setup has increased the population and hence the number of archeological programme viewers has increased. Even to worsen the situation, the number of archeological site visitors per town resident may have decreased.
Second, the increase to the archeological sites might have been caused by the closure of other entertainment facilities in the town. Since the people didn’t had any other option for entertainment hence their visits to remaining options available increased. The chances of going for outing or picnic purpose to archeological site cannot be neglected. If that may be the case, then focusing on increasing programmes will not have any effect over site visitors.
Third, the data comparison is flawed. The present archeological site visitor’s data has been compared with site visitors of four year ago. This aberrant comparison is not justified. A comparison with previous year data would have been better and would have supported the argument.
However, there are serious flaws in the argument construction, but the argument could have been substantially strengthened if other details would have been included. If a data reflecting comparison of archeological site visitors per resident of town is provided, we can be sure that actually the interest among people has increased. Details of other activities like active people participation in archeological quizzes, programmes would have filled the loops holes. This would reflect the genuine increased interest among mass and hence this could increased
"The way to succeed is to double your error rate."
"Most people who succeed in the face of seemingly impossible conditions are people who simply don't know how to quit."