sner could not agree on important issues and had to part. The Disney Company’s interests suffered immensely as a result that gave a financial jolt to the entire organization.

Now we come to the point where a team has to be chosen very carefully, so that each principal’s energies are not in conflict with the other. Business experience alone will not do. A person may succeed in building up a huge organization under certain political and economic conditions but may utterly fail, should the circumstances change. Hence we conclude that circumstances alter cases. Here we are talking about the chemistry of all individuals involved. The outer environment affects the inner conditions. Whatever influences the mass, has a direct impact upon the individuals.

Since circumstances are in a

When we want to hire people for a corporation or non profit organization, we follow certain rules and look for appropriate qualifications and expertise so that we succeed in our aims: the investors get their money’s worth in form of financial success and enhanced prestige of the principals involved.

An organization represents the interests of many people: the sponsors and the consumers. Any flaws in a corporation’s organizational capacity and management can prove financially disastrous as in the case of the Enron Corporation. Here we must not lose sight of the public image. Big giants like IBM, General Motors, General Electric and Disney spend millions to keep their image positive in the public eye.

But in different situations we have to apply different rules to reach our goals. In a non-profit organization like the United Nations where the social welfare and political interests of all the member nations (under 200) are involved, totally different criteria are used in hiring people.

In a business organization like a Fortune 500 company the main aim will be to enhance the public image of the company, thereby generating more public support that will translate into money.

In a domestic political organization like the Republican or Democratic National Committee there are political interests that take precedence over all other issues.

Let us go back to the UN and see what happens when people are hired that don’t fit in the setup. There are two facets to this. One is the personal philosophy of the person, the other is the organizational Charter. If there were a conflict between the two, the hired person will have a very hard time adjusting his or her personal philosophy to that of the organization. Such a situation may lead to lower productivity and an internal conflict between the self-image and the value system of that staff member.

This observation of the complexities faced by world organizations is quite unique but the question arises how we resolve such a dilemma where the political aims of a member nation are totally opposed to the philosophy of the Organization as a whole.

What can be done when a person does not fit in the set up because of personal preferences or differing values? There are certain options:

Try to find another department in the Organization where conditions may be more suitable or suggest ways to the person concerned to become more flexible or accommodating, so that the work environment improves for the whole department.

It must be emphasized here that a conflict of principles between two department chiefs could prove disastrous for the aims and ambitions of the entire organization. Some very big businesses have folded for lack of understanding or communication between two big wigs. A square peg in a round hole just does not quite fit.

When the people at the helm of a corporation are in disagreement as far as future strategies of the development and financial future of the organization are concerned, the energies, instead of being used creatively, are neutralized. This can lead to a rift and eventual losses for the organization. A case in point, Mr. Ovitz and Mr. Eisner could not agree on important issues and had to part. The Disney Company’s interests suffered immensely as a result that gave a financial jolt to the entire organization.

Now we come to the point where a team has to be chosen very carefully, so that each principal’s energies are not in conflict with the other. Business experience alone will not do. A person may succeed in building up a huge organization under certain political and economic conditions but may utterly fail, should the circumstances change. Hence we conclude that circumstances alter cases. Here we are talking about the chemistry of all individuals involved. The outer environment affects the inner conditions. Whatever influences the mass, has a direct impact upon the individuals.

Since circumstances are in a

s. In a non-profit organization like the United Nations where the social welfare and political interests of all the member nations (under 200) are involved, totally different criteria are used in hiring people.

In a business organization like a Fortune 500 company the main aim will be to enhance the public image of the company, thereby generating more public support that will translate into money.

In a domestic political organization like the Republican or Democratic National Committee there are political interests that take precedence over all other issues.

Let us go back to the UN and see what happens when people are hired that don’t fit in the setup. There are two facets to this. One is the personal philosophy of the person, the other is the organizational Charter. If there were a conflict between the two, the hired person will have a very hard time adjusting his or her personal philosophy to that of the organization. Such a situation may lead to lower productivity and an internal conflict between the self-image and the value system of that staff member.

This observation of the complexities faced by world organizations is quite unique but the question arises how we resolve such a dilemma where the political aims of a member nation are totally opposed to the philosophy of the Organization as a whole.

What can be done when a person does not fit in the set up because of personal preferences or differing values? There are certain options:

Try to find another department in the Organization where conditions may be more suitable or suggest ways to the person concerned to become more flexible or accommodating, so that the work environment improves for the whole department.

It must be emphasized here that a conflict of principles between two department chiefs could prove disastrous for the aims and ambitions of the entire organization. Some very big businesses have folded for lack of understanding or communication between two big wigs. A square peg in a round hole just does not quite fit.

When the people at the helm of a corporation are in disagreement as far as future strategies of the development and financial future of the organization are concerned, the energies, instead of being used creatively, are neutralized. This can lead to a rift and eventual losses for the organization. A case in point, Mr. Ovitz and Mr. Eisner could not agree on important issues and had to part. The Disney Company’s interests suffered immensely as a result that gave a financial jolt to the entire organization.

Now we come to the point where a team has to be chosen very carefully, so that each principal’s energies are not in conflict with the other. Business experience alone will not do. A person may succeed in building up a huge organization under certain political and economic conditions but may utterly fail, should the circumstances change. Hence we conclude that circumstances alter cases. Here we are talking about the chemistry of all individuals involved. The outer environment affects the inner conditions. Whatever influences the mass, has a direct impact upon the individuals.

Since circumstances are in a

there were a conflict between the two, the hired person will have a very hard time adjusting his or her personal philosophy to that of the organization. Such a situation may lead to lower productivity and an internal conflict between the self-image and the value system of that staff member.

This observation of the complexities faced by world organizations is quite unique but the question arises how we resolve such a dilemma where the political aims of a member nation are totally opposed to the philosophy of the Organization as a whole.

What can be done when a person does not fit in the set up because of personal preferences or differing values? There are certain options:

Try to find another department in the Organization where conditions may be more suitable or suggest ways to the person concerned to become more flexible or accommodating, so that the work environment improves for the whole department.

It must be emphasized here that a conflict of principles between two department chiefs could prove disastrous for the aims and ambitions of the entire organization. Some very big businesses have folded for lack of understanding or communication between two big wigs. A square peg in a round hole just does not quite fit.

When the people at the helm of a corporation are in disagreement as far as future strategies of the development and financial future of the organization are concerned, the energies, instead of being used creatively, are neutralized. This can lead to a rift and eventual losses for the organization. A case in point, Mr. Ovitz and Mr. Eisner could not agree on important issues and had to part. The Disney Company’s interests suffered immensely as a result that gave a financial jolt to the entire organization.

Now we come to the point where a team has to be chosen very carefully, so that each principal’s energies are not in conflict with the other. Business experience alone will not do. A person may succeed in building up a huge organization under certain political and economic conditions but may utterly fail, should the circumstances change. Hence we conclude that circumstances alter cases. Here we are talking about the chemistry of all individuals involved. The outer environment affects the inner conditions. Whatever influences the mass, has a direct impact upon the individuals.

Since circumstances are in a

to the person concerned to become more flexible or accommodating, so that the work environment improves for the whole department.

It must be emphasized here that a conflict of principles between two department chiefs could prove disastrous for the aims and ambitions of the entire organization. Some very big businesses have folded for lack of understanding or communication between two big wigs. A square peg in a round hole just does not quite fit.

When the people at the helm of a corporation are in disagreement as far as future strategies of the development and financial future of the organization are concerned, the energies, instead of being used creatively, are neutralized. This can lead to a rift and eventual losses for the organization. A case in point, Mr. Ovitz and Mr. Eisner could not agree on important issues and had to part. The Disney Company’s interests suffered immensely as a result that gave a financial jolt to the entire organization.

Now we come to the point where a team has to be chosen very carefully, so that each principal’s energies are not in conflict with the other. Business experience alone will not do. A person may succeed in building up a huge organization under certain political and economic conditions but may utterly fail, should the circumstances change. Hence we conclude that circumstances alter cases. Here we are talking about the chemistry of all individuals involved. The outer environment affects the inner conditions. Whatever influences the mass, has a direct impact upon the individuals.

Since circumstances are in a

sner could not agree on important issues and had to part. The Disney Company’s interests suffered immensely as a result that gave a financial jolt to the entire organization.

Now we come to the point where a team has to be chosen very carefully, so that each principal’s energies are not in conflict with the other. Business experience alone will not do. A person may succeed in building up a huge organization under certain political and economic conditions but may utterly fail, should the circumstances change. Hence we conclude that circumstances alter cases. Here we are talking about the chemistry of all individuals involved. The outer environment affects the inner conditions. Whatever influences the mass, has a direct impact upon the individuals.

Since circumstances are in a state of flux all the time economically and politically on a global level, we must adjust business practices, keeping those changes in mind at home. And those who are adamant not to adjust to outsourcing the American jobs to the Far East will soon be in serious financial straits.

What I found most fascinating in my researches was the changes and development of people at certain stages of life. Here the issue seems to be the outer conditions putting pressure on a person to change and adjust or perish. Since we constantly age, the faculties of the brain do not always keep pace with changing times. We keep on adding experience but the reflexes do not improve. A business must keep on competing with others, keep costs down, survive and make a profit. Even as employees are aging fast, a business must remain young in order to grow and catch up with the fast-changing economic and political environment or fold.

This will force a young company to retire those who cannot perform the way they used to five year ago. We must make some people unhappy to keep the shareholders happy and maintain the company’s image at the same time.

The profit margin, because of cheap labor in the Far East, is enormous. This gives us a chance to grow and show huge profits to the investors. But we may have to compromise the quality of the product.

Finally, if you are the chief of an organization, you must keep track of the fast-changing economic scene globally and the consumers’ needs at home to keep your head above water and still show profit to your shareholders or you will not remain at the top too long. The Secretary-General of the United Nations must try to find a balance in addressing the conflicting issues, needs and concerns of all its Member States, including its most powerful member, the United States. Keeping everybody happy without compromising any principles is a difficult task.