`
Ans) Leadership is directly associated with culture of an organization, in fact leadership emerge out of the culture of any organization. In an any organization leadership quality follows if it resides in the culture of that organization from the starting or being continued form years. There are certain advantages that the culture of any organization possess which directly bring in back the leadership skills. But before we get into the relation between the two it is necessary to understand what is included in culture and how leadership is a part of it. CULTURE: The practices, beliefs, values, ethics of any organization together formulates culture . These include the way people in that organization works cumulativ cu mulatively. ely. If the leadership quality is there in an organization culture than automatically it will be displayed at each and every step but b ut for an a n organization where leadership is not included in culture than it will be new practice for that particular firm. CONCLUSION: The above discussion concludes that leadership is t he result of the culture of any organization. or ganization.
In June 1999, Goldman¶s Management Committee had selected a diverse, experienced group to form the Leadership Development Advisory Committee. Their official charter was to ³assess the future training and development needs of Goldman Sachs, with particular focus on the need for a more systematic and effective approach to developing managing directors (MDs).´ After six months of brainstorming, discussions with Goldman Sachs colleagues, interviewing experts, and benchmarking best practices, the Committee was scheduled to outline its plan for the Management. Major inferences that came out explaining the degree of extent of the leadership are: 1) Goldman Sachs managers learned how to lead by apprenticeship, by working closely with other senior leaders within the firm. 2) Throughout the 1980s and well into the 1990s, professional development happened almost entirely on the job.
`
3) Learning and Professional Development (LPD) arm of Goldman¶s human resource function-the Human Capital Management Division-most development was handled informally and decentralized across business units. 4) Most business units also offered their own orientation programs for analysts and associates. Such training typically lasted for about a month, though in some areas formal training went on for an additional three months to prepare new hires for the unique demands of their new jobs. Most of these courses emphasized specific skills and product knowledge particularly germane to their businesses. (e.g., sessions on negotiating or on the likely impact of impending regulatory changes). Some business units organized their own culture-building events and conferences as well. During this period, the firm seldom undertook formal leadership training, outside of a few limited-scale programs created during the 1990s by the divisional human resources groups for the unique training requirements of individual business units. For example, investment banking offered several Business Unit Leaders Summits for its senior leaders, and created additional courses I performance delivery, review delivery, and ongoing technical skills training. By the late 1990s, the divisional HR units had grown to the point that the various division-oriented training efforts reached more employees than firm wide-programs.
`
Ans2) Yes the growth of Goldman Sach was primarily because of its leadership development. 1) Goldman Sachs also stressed the importance of leadership. Everyone, no matter how junior, was expected to lead. 2) Goldman Sachs managers learned how to lead by apprenticeship, by working closely with other senior leaders within the firm. 3) The firm seldom undertook formal leadership training, outside of a few Limited - scale programs created during the 1990s by the divisional human resources groups for the unique training requirements of individual business units. Apart from the above discussed points there are many other reasons which Contributed towards the growth of Goldman Sach . 1) An interesting blend of confidence and commitment to excellence, and an inbred insecurity that drives people to keep working and producing long after they need to. 2) Small leadership teams increased representation and ownership, and the extra leadership opportunities helped retain top players. 3) ³Virtually all of the leaders of the firm spend a big part of their time in execution, in meetings with clients, working on specific fields. 4) Having co-heads allows each to play an active business role and still have capacity to handle core management tasks.´ At a more junior level, coheadships supported the development and transfer of skills. 5) Acc to John Rogers: Our bankers travel on the same planes as our competitors. We stay in the same hotels. In a lot of cases we have the same clients as our competition. So when it comes down to it, it is a combination of execution and culture that makes the difference between us and other firms.
`
6) Behavior is shaped by it. People who think culture is just a bunch of bacteria in yogurt set a tone that strips values from a company. That¶s why our c ulture is necessary²it¶s the glue that binds us together. We hold onto the values, symbols and rituals that have guided us for years, and anything new that we add to the culture always supports what already exists.
CONCLUSION:
So, from all of the above discussion we can hereby conclude that apart from the leadership activities the other reasons like CULTURE, BEHAVIOR, WORK SEGREGATION acc to the individuals, RESPONSIBILITES SHARING led to the growth of GOLDMAN SACH.
