Most of the time, one hears the notion that the Fish rots from its head . What this really means, I can not explain but I guess those who originated this idea can explain better.
This saying (the fish rots from its head) has been known for years and to date, it is still relevant. In most cases, this was associated with poor performance of various set-ups, corporates, non-governmental organizations, communities and even families. Whenever a business or a set up was not performing well, the target is mostly that of the Head or Heads. Therefore, the organization or set up is referred to as a body, and its leadership is dubbed as the Fish Head. Therefore, if an action was to be taken to try and heal or quarantine the organization or a set up, the head is most of the time, the first spot to treat. Otherwise, however also say, the buck stops with .... probably the head -- of the fish in this case.
This post is aimed at challenging this notion -- that, yes, the rot of the fish could be at the head, but what about the health of the fish, isn't that in the head too? The health in this case is referred to the performance of the business, set up, organization, corporate, family community and organization. In this case, whenever an organization is healthy or doing well, will the well-being or performance still be associated with the head, or this only applies when the fish head is rotten?
I am saying this because at times, when things go tough, the tendency and a quick one for that that is point the index finger to the rot at or in the fish head. But, when things go well, then the fish body which infact usually does the actual work - as in the workers in operational area or factory - are given the health passport (in this case the performance). The challenging question is however, yes the workers are usually in the factory and doing the work - at all times, including when the fish head is not healthy or healthy....
Why does the fish head has to take the responsibility of the rot and not of its health?
Is the fish head only good enough to be associated with the rot and not with the health (excellent work)?
In my view, if the fish head is the offing for the rot, then it is equally the offing for its health. And choosing only to associate the fish head with the rot, will mean double standard.... equally so, if the body is only good enough for the health (performance) and not for poor health (rot or poor performance) then equally to me, this is double standard and a selective - application of when to allocate health or poor health in the same head or body.
Well, these are basically the author's personal views as an individual member of society - and has nothing to do with any particular person or set up -- the post is aimed at information sharing especially among the youth who might need this - and to stimulate thinking around this aspect.
This saying (the fish rots from its head) has been known for years and to date, it is still relevant. In most cases, this was associated with poor performance of various set-ups, corporates, non-governmental organizations, communities and even families. Whenever a business or a set up was not performing well, the target is mostly that of the Head or Heads. Therefore, the organization or set up is referred to as a body, and its leadership is dubbed as the Fish Head. Therefore, if an action was to be taken to try and heal or quarantine the organization or a set up, the head is most of the time, the first spot to treat. Otherwise, however also say, the buck stops with .... probably the head -- of the fish in this case.
This post is aimed at challenging this notion -- that, yes, the rot of the fish could be at the head, but what about the health of the fish, isn't that in the head too? The health in this case is referred to the performance of the business, set up, organization, corporate, family community and organization. In this case, whenever an organization is healthy or doing well, will the well-being or performance still be associated with the head, or this only applies when the fish head is rotten?
I am saying this because at times, when things go tough, the tendency and a quick one for that that is point the index finger to the rot at or in the fish head. But, when things go well, then the fish body which infact usually does the actual work - as in the workers in operational area or factory - are given the health passport (in this case the performance). The challenging question is however, yes the workers are usually in the factory and doing the work - at all times, including when the fish head is not healthy or healthy....
Why does the fish head has to take the responsibility of the rot and not of its health?
Is the fish head only good enough to be associated with the rot and not with the health (excellent work)?
In my view, if the fish head is the offing for the rot, then it is equally the offing for its health. And choosing only to associate the fish head with the rot, will mean double standard.... equally so, if the body is only good enough for the health (performance) and not for poor health (rot or poor performance) then equally to me, this is double standard and a selective - application of when to allocate health or poor health in the same head or body.
Well, these are basically the author's personal views as an individual member of society - and has nothing to do with any particular person or set up -- the post is aimed at information sharing especially among the youth who might need this - and to stimulate thinking around this aspect.
What a good blog you have here. Please update it more often. This topics is my interest. Thank you. . . cellulite gone review
ReplyDelete