The Prime Minister’s Powerful Better Half Essay
The Prime Minister’s Powerful Better Half
After reading The Prime Minster Powerful Better Half no I would not describe Ho Ching as an influential leader. According to the textbook influence can be defined as “the change in a target agent attitudes, value, beliefs, or behaviors as the result of influence tactics.” In order for you to understand my point of view I must specify what influence tactics are. “Influence tactics refer to one personal actual behaviors designed to change another person’s attitudes, beliefs, values, or behaviors.” In this mini case not once did it express Ho Ching’s abilities to change behaviors of others or her own. Yes, she is the CEO of Temasek but not once was there an example giving about other staff in the company, or in what manner she influenced anything beneficial to the staff.
Meaning the title of CEO doesn’t directly correlate with the influence of others. A CEO can show up to work every day and not communication with the staff in the office. Next, as we learned early in the class a leader is someone who bring positive change. Ho great idea for positive change was the release of Temasek annual reports. As stated in the case “under Ho’s leadership Temasek has decided to publicly disclose its annual report with details of its performance.” This is a positive change which would make Ho’s a leader. But honestly this isn’t very important. The annual report is less important because, in the USA under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) every company annual reports are publicly displayed via the internet.
So I would not view this as a vast achievement. Although this is what the whole mini case is centered on. Ho’s has made it to CEO status but once again this case never points out any way that she has influenced the value of others. Also the one leadership task that she did take on wasn’t enough to convince me that she did something drastic. For the reasons giving above I am not convinced that Ho is an influential leader. Based on the experts from Ho Ching’s speech she used two different tactics to influence the behavior of change not the behavior of others. The behavior of change is the idea of trying something new with different people. The behavior of others is how people act or react to situations.
The two tactics used in the case were rationally persuaded and inspirational appeals. She used these two because they fit well with the situation at hand. Rational persuasion in the textbook is defined as “when an agent uses logical argument or factual evidence to intensify other.” This is what Ho did in her speech. The Ho logical argument was she wanted to publicly disclose Temasek annual reports.” She used the facts of her task in her speech to rational persuade people around her. Although I believe that with her title as the CEO even if the people were not persuaded that this was the best idea, she could put her plan into action without the support of others. Ho’s also used the power of inspirational appeals.
According to the textbook inspirational appeals can be defined as “when they make a request or a proposal designed to arouse enthusiasm or emotions in targets”. Ho used inspirited appeal in her speech a few different times, with the annual report being public as a focus. Viewing of the annual report was her proposal to the people. She made people feel like the annual report was information that they needed to see. As stated at the end of the speech “the outlook in the next decade or two looks very promising indeed”. But Ho’s never consider what if her plan didn’t work in the company’s favor. Yes