The title Skate fast over thin ice demystifies the common held beliefs and myths of leadership, perception and attribution. This it clearly posits in its introduction and subsequent chapters go to strengthen this assertion. Leadership is based on a hierarchical system that often limits subordinates creativity and industry. This is because the subordinates must ask for their senior's advice. The subordinates also engage in a perpetual set or usual thinking.
Taking of a different approach is undermined. Consequently this put managers at a higher pedestal than their subordinates. Also subordinates do not get a chance to demonstrate their superior abilities. Thus it is prudent and wise for a person to climb up high the professional ladder and in the least time possible or lest he may be rendered dysfunctional and caught in a rut. Therefore an organization is best suited for those who can take up advantageous positions and fast. Similarly for managers perception is everything for you also need to be perceived as being in control.
There are various similarities in these stories. It is clear that individual brilliance, acumen and talent is not everything in an organization, there lies other factors that influence an individual success story. These factors are not based on individual performance or capacity. Thus the ideals often learned in school are kept aside in the real world. Instead an individual's connectedness and family background come in handy. It is not what an individual knows but rather who he knows. Similarly an outspoken and eloquent employee has a higher chance of success than a laid back and technical individual. These ideas are all in contrast with the traditional or ideal workforce as we know it.
Admittance in the men's hut seems to have its own rituals and criteria for one to become a member. This to me sounds skeptic because despite the prestige and by virtue of these positions that its members hold it does not reflect a taskforce of the brilliant and talented managers they are. It portrays a clique of high ranking members of an organization who appear to be in recess or holiday. These are not a portrayal of leaders who lead by example. They are reluctant in their duties and seem as if they are out to waste time.
People tend to think that personal success in an organization is based on individual talent and brilliance. This is true to say the least but other factors come in handy .Descent from a wealthy and well connected family is of more importance for one to climb o the highest echelons of any organization. Good fortune is comparable to good judgment and thus substitutes of the talent and brilliance. Most people think that by your works shall ye be known. It is ironical in the sense that the most technical and talented individuals do not bear the fruits of their labour. Instead their capacity and brilliance is overlooked by a hierarchy that is not concerned with merit and performance but rather at uplifting one of their own up the professional ladder.
In the Million Dollar misunderstanding the management is required to meet its objective. These objectives are the organizations driving force and its success or failure is judged by attainment of this objectives. This is what people think should be used as determinant .However this treatment of management is cynical in that one works under a lean budget and those who do the evaluation are the ones who call the shots yet all the work took place at the management level.