英语论文网

found themselves in a situation facing choices. Every day offered new opportunities for people to make decisions that determined whether they would contribute to the common goal of sharing knowledge or not. There were of course limits and constraints as to what they could do. But in the final analysis, what they did was the result of their own decisions as much as the context. Different people acted differently. For some, the lack of managerial clarity was a reason to hold back, doing nothing until the signals were less ambiguous. They would commit to sharing their knowledge only when they had clear directives, adequate resources, and clear unified support from those in charge.

For some, the scene was an invitation to set aside institutional goals and pursue individual interests. Some set out to build systems and approaches that they thought might nurture their own careers or promote their units but were barely compatible with the overall institutional goal. And yet there were also many people who were inspired to overcome the mixed signals and the dysfunctional management scene.
They saw the opportunity to forge ahead with the common objective of building robust institutional arrangements for sharing knowledge aimed at relieving global poverty. These people opted to unite toward implementing a goal that they saw as right. They ignored the difficulties and persisted in contributing to the collectivity.

Of all the staff involved in knowledge sharing at the World Bank, many rose to the occasion. They chose the difficult road of committing themselves to the common goal of making knowledge sharing a reality. Yet as these leaders emerged, few of them were thinking of themselves as being in any way heroic, or even exercising leadership. They saw themselves as trying to resolve the crises of the day as best they could, doing what was necessary to get the job done.

These people accepted the ambiguity and the chaos and the turmoil in which they found themselves and created their own meaning. These people had a fundamentally different attitude from those who did not contribute or who resisted. They focused less on what the organization would do for them and more on what they could contribute to the mission. Their response consisted not merely in talk but in right action and right conduct. They took responsibility to find the answer to problems confronting them and set out to fulfill the tasks it set for them as individuals.

Rather than wait for leadership from above, they themselves became leaders. Lacking hierarchical authority, they created their own moral authority. Having been inspired to pursue a common goal of sharing knowledge with the world, they set out to inspire others to work together toward that goal. The period from 1996 to 2000 in the World Bank was thus quite remarkable for the change that took place. In the space of four years, a strategic shift had been catalyzed in one of the world’s most changeresistant organizations so that it had become a leader in a new field. How could such a transformation have taken place? What were the elements of leadership that enabled such a change to take place? Why were so many people inspired to become champions when the obstacles to success were so huge?

Could what was learned here be applied to leadership challenges that others might be facing both inside organizations and beyond? 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。