Cliffside Holding Company
Briefly, the issue at hand is with respect to the arguments for and against the proposal to send promising young managers to leadership training. There are costs and benefits to the training, but the discussion surrounding the issue veers away from such rational analysis. The purpose of this report will be to critically analyze the issue and the different arguments, in order to help make a decision with respect to the leadership training. Browne and Keeley (2010) have proposed a series of questions that will help to perform this critical analysis in a structured manner.
What are the issues and the conclusions?
At issue here is a yes/no decision about whether to send junior executives to leadership training. The cost is a concern for some, as it will cost about $100,000 outright, and it is estimated that a further $100,000 in lost productivity will also accrue. The nature of leadership is a major subject of the pro/con debate, as well as the issue of financial priorities. Those engaged in the discussion at present are viewing the question of the leadership training as a yes/no issue. There are other potential options, however. The current proposal is just one of many leadership training options. It can be rejected and the company can still pursue leadership training. A compromise version (e.g. fewer junior executives or a shorter course) can be adopted instead of the current proposal. In that sense, the argument for or against this particular training has become a sideshow, where people are debating the nature of leadership as opposed to the different leadership development options that the company is faced with. Many people, it seems, are not even sure of what the issue is here. The issue is how to develop the next generation of leaders. The current discussion is just one element of that, but the proposal may have simply put the cart before the horse, and we need to have a rational discussion about the nature of leadership before even examining the different leadership development options. So the conclusions on the table, the antagonist's "yes" and the author's "no," represent a false dichotomy, which is a common logical fallacy. There is no dichotomy at all, but a multitude of different options. A precursor to deciding about any of those options is to come to some agreement on the nature of leadership and how best to pursue leadership development.
What are the reasons?
The author has concluded that this leadership training is not needed. There are several bases for this claim. The first basis is that the primary proponent of the plan, Ms. Forsythe, "has a personal agenda to discredit me." This has been stated by the author, but the author has not offered any case. The basic elements of a case, including motivation, are lacking in this claim. This claim actually appears to have some other unstated, underlying basis, some conflict between these individuals or insecurity on the part of the author.
The second basis is that the author claims leaders are born, not made. The author offers up several points of evidence for this. The author notes that there is a narrative about leaders being tall. The author notes that there is a trait theory of leadership, and mentions two academic journals that have published articles about it. The author also touches on the fact that the current leaders did not undergo leadership training. This is in support of the idea that leaders are born, which is a restatement of trait theory -- basically that you are either a leader or you are not. Both of these supports are offered for the conclusion that leadership training is a waste of time and money.
Which words or phrases are ambiguous?
There are points of ambiguity in the letter that are worth discussing. One is the phrase " There exists an entire school of leadership theory which holds that leaders have certain traits in common." This is true, but the phrasing tells the reader that there are probably other schools of thought about leadership as well. The author is committing a sin of omission here, only discussing the one school of thought that supports his argument. But most of the words use are, at the very least, poorly defined. The author claims that leadership has been "successful and effective," but without any context those terms of meaningless at worse, and ambiguous at best.
More conceptual ambiguity comes later. "traits as ambition, self-confidence and intelligence"...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now