Not a single person who's a leader won't know about this, and also isn't affected by it. To lead is to follow, that's as simple and practical as that. Any leader has a set end goal that they're pursuing, and that on its own render them as followers of sort. What's ought to be clearly put on the lead table is the fact that a leader serves first before they be followed, and won't be any different with you, and if it is with you, to ask yourself why.
Leaders are chosen, and others are there by virtue of their status as incorporators and directors of entities they lead, whilst for many a case of being put in charge of the entities they're a part of. Being an incorporator doesn't automatically make you a shareholder, it ought to be stated expressively from the onset. There must be a first meeting whereof there'll be a draw up of a founding resolution stating in recordal the entity founders and base reasons therefor an entity establishment, its name definition, its corporate colours, its business model, capital sources, where to base it, etc. and in the follow up meeting draft a founding document in the form of articles of incorporation or memorandum of incorporation, to affirm establishment of the entity and its set mandate to its active bearers of note, who'll be tasked with carrying out that particular mandate through guide of that founding document and a policy handbook thenafter developed to house the entity's bylaws. But then again, it's stuff that some went never under during their entity start and streamlining, hence they've got not any policy to follow for guidelines per their mandates.
Then now, what's a mandate? A mandate is an itemized tabular authority given to a representative to act under a collective consent on behalf of either a natural or legal person; a command to timely report back on periodically on its outcomes. In this case, the mandating party are the founders, incorporators or shareholders on behalf of the founded entity, under a guild comprising a board of directors. A leader serves timorously of the binding ramifications attached thereto their set tenure, therefore the primary purpose of a mandate is to instruct the respective representative as a leader to run the entity diligently according to set codes of ethical practice and conduct, and make money that they'll individually split as dividend whilst ringfencing for entity growth campaigns.
A leader with no mandate set for them is there just for self-serving purposes. They need to have a plan and strategy for all of the departments and units of the entity, and where possible, delegate designated personnel for those tasks with the right and authority they have to mandate their subordinates. The mandate is to a leader a legate ticket, and their repute engraved forever long after they vacated the office, so, should ensure they deliver per what's right for their future.
In conclusion: it doesn't matter what you did before your eligibility for carrying out a particular mandate, as long as a leader you know afore what's expected of you to do and be. A mandate has a set of rules pegged to the goals set for your tenure in that position, all tucked into the executive vision of the entity. Be what's rooted in it and do as it's inscribed of you to, as a leader sans any excuse for reasons to do as promised, else, as not the material of worth shouldn't assume responsibility as such, for befitting ones to. Hard as it may sound, it's but in how the take up is in that failed attempt consequential, and that's the just nature of a mandate...dp
No comments:
Post a Comment