Bill,

I'm somewhat torn by your reply. On the one hand, I want to thank you for a thoughtful, detailed response which in many cases would be very wise. Each of us should 'bloom where we are planted', and that involves proactively meeting challenges.

On the other hand, we often have discussions on this forum about quality of life. I've been in organizations run like this VP runs his. The key phrase is usually something like "rise to the challenge" or "step up to the plate". In fact, a small group of upper managers make a decisions that they really haven't throught through very well or done the hard work of due-diligence for their shareholders. They often make a lot of money, or lose a lot of money. The way they make money is to surround themselves with people who "step up" and fill in the very large holes that they've left in their "business critical" decisions. This means people who will choose to get on a plane and fly to the new aquisition on short notice to do analysis or at least put in a lot of extra hours, choosing to miss their kid's ball game that week. If their sacrifice for "the team" results in a win, sometimes the VP will choose to credit them with a promotion or bonus. Not always. If the decision results in a loss, sometimes the hammer can fall hard on "the team". The VPs have a funny way of either suriving the hammer, or going elsewhere where they can follow the same practices. Win or lose, sometimes our kids notice that there seems to be a lot of things more important than their ball games.

The key in this article was the mention of a few minutes of silence following the news. The people in that room are afraid. They have not been coached to offer of suggestions even if they might sound silly. Maybe they shouldn't be? Maybe they should boldly offer up a suggestion? I hope that the organization will reward them in some way if they do.

Personally, my decision has been to avoid places that practice this style of leadership. I'm afraid my personal constitution if not up to "swimming with the sharks". I prefer an organization where managers take the time to mentor people and keep them informed of important decisions so that you're not forced to "shoot from the hip" at critical meetings that would not be emergencies if there was better planning on the part of upper management. The organizations that lead this way end up being much stronger and stable.

Of course, organizations run this way are not always as nimble and ready for special opportunaties, so I realise that this is my choice - I'm not being critical of those who choose to stay in the kind of organizations described by this article.