> They’re the ones that aren’t afraid whatsoever to rock the boat or do what they think is right, and are actually able to drive change.
I think a great deal of their ability to drive change is because they know the right things to say to the right people. I.e. they have some diplomatic skills.
Because while they might be able to afford to lose their job, they certainly won't drive any change if they actually do lose their job.
I have never seen an engineering project fail because of poor "relationship skills" - definitions pending.
Diplomacy helps, but mostly it is about being open about problems and about pushing that info up the chain of responsibility. If you need diplomacy for this point, you already have a severe problem here.
Otherwise the head will also fumble. I have been in expensive meetings talking a lot about parking space organization. This always happens if there is nothing interesting related to the business to talk about. Stuff gets off-topic quickly.
That said, change and disruption has a positive connotation in the business of today. But it isn't always positive.
> Diplomacy helps, but mostly it is about being open about problems and about pushing that info up the chain of responsibility.
Then, in my eyes at least, you're talking about either relatively minor things, or things which already fall in the bailiwick of the leader. I'm just a line person with no one under me who could last a max two months without a job but I have no problem communicating problems up the chain. I'm probably naive, but I'd think most other people wouldn't have such problems either. If they do have problems this seems like an organizational issue that even the leaders SteveNuts mentions in the GP wouldn't be able to change.
I think a great deal of their ability to drive change is because they know the right things to say to the right people. I.e. they have some diplomatic skills.
Because while they might be able to afford to lose their job, they certainly won't drive any change if they actually do lose their job.