Bernadine Healy

There is a sea of difference in cosmos a leader and manager of an organization. Each one of the two lineament can fit in a type of organization. But in the case of the rubicund bollocks in the US,public interest, administrative responsibility and about of the recent ethical obligations confronting public administrators in their day to day finding making. Also examine the recent trend in privatizing government functions and appeared to go for not fit at all occupying the presidency.She was a victim of the gear up not for becoming a inflexible, continueionate, too-driven leader, but for not coming a manager of the international inflammation Cross that is largely resistant to swop. It has been state that managers do things even out while leaders, on the other hand, do the right things. Managers are concerned primarily with managing things. Leaders, on the other hand, are ground concern for leading people.Dr. Healys short stint in the ruby-red Cross showed that she was mor e than a leader than a manager of the jumbo relief service organization, whose organisational grandeur, financial resources and manpower are greater than the Philippine military establishment. In fact, she was described as a tough professional who ruffled feathers but made things happen and a change agent for a culture resistant to change.But a midst controversies generated from her tough computer program thrusts, changes and innovations and her strong leadership in the international Red Cross, she had to cave in to pressures even as the powerful board of governors had decided to fire her out. It came to pass that the Red Cross Red is after all a conservative, non unsophisticated organizations with heavy decentralization d witness in its hierarchy, with people and chapters enmeshed in turf wars and to some extent rocked with financial anomalies and a blood traffic that has to be rectified. It was described to exact a militaristic management and a politburo-like board of governo rs.Dr. Healy, who came in too passionate like a saver knight in shining armor, failed these to understand. Moreover, empathy as a vital organisational trait of a leader as espoused by US regular army logistics officer William Pagonis- was evidently lacking in the upmanship and leadership of Dr. Healy. In her step on it to institute dramatic changes in the international Red Cross in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing she failed to factor in the use of empathy in drawing out support of Red Cross organizations under her leadership. As she was already hounded by criticisms right even in Red Cross board of governors, unlike Pagonis, Dr.Healy failed to build up squad work and design a communication structure that could complement the Red Cross chain of command, the reason why her good intents and passions were misunderstood. She failed to approach Red Cross by managing than by leading, and to pursue a long-haul of transformation process. It worth(predicate) to ponder tha t change requires time and processes. In John Kotters vicissitude Process in his book Change or Die, it takes many a(prenominal) processes to transform men and in effect the organization, and many things take aim to be recognized and to make and unmake. On various areas where Dr.Healy was brought down particularly in her evident over zeal to make Red Cross come and take novel pursuits with least shoring up of empathy to the men and women crossways and down the line of the organization, Kotters organizational processes are given a lot rationale*. Changing the behavior of people is the most important dispute for organizations trying to compete in a turbulent world, says John Kotter, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied dozens of organizations in the midst of upheaval The central issue is never strategy, structure, culture, or systems.The core of the guinea pig is always about changing the behavior of people. Those people may be called upon to respond to profound upheavals in marketplace dynamics the rise of a new global competitor, say, or a shift from a set to a deregulated environment or to a corporate reorganization, merger, or main course into a new business. And as individuals, we may want to change our own styles of work how we mentor subordinates, for example, or how we react to criticism. Yet more lots than not, we cant. In relevance to ours, the Philippine Army has to Change or Die if wanted to survive in the high-technological, constantly changing times.There have been more critiques leveled to the Philippine military in its organizational mission, efficacy and those relating organizational stresses and dysfunctions. The current thrusts and posturing of the countrys military for transformation have still a long way to go in so far as hurdling and taking tasks along the generalist processes spelled out. And let it be said now that changing the behavior of men and officers towards a mission an ever-changing times is a daunti ng task of the Philippine Army.