A Quote by Miroslav Lajcak

U.N. employees, including senior leadership, should be selected based on merit and competence while continuing endeavors to achieve gender parity and geographical balance.
History will not judge our endeavors--and a government cannot be selected--merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.
I have no fears that on a purely merit basis, we will have an embarrassment of riches from which to choose in order to reach gender parity.
Government employees move up the ladder through educational credentials rather than merit. People are given jobs and promotions based on seniority, race and gender rather than ability or talent. Such a system often overlooks the deserving and rewards the incompetent. There is no payoff for achievement.
I do think that we need more of a balance between merit-based and familial-based immigration.
Most important, [research on affirmative action] has completely failed to show that affirmative action ever closes the academic gap between minorities and whites. And failing in this, affirmative action also fails to help blacks achieve true equality with whites - the ultimate measure of which is parity in skills and individual competence. Without this underlying parity there can never be true equality in employment, income levels, rates of home ownership, educational achievement and the rest.
In my experience and observation, senior appointments are rarely based entirely on merit.
No senior politician can expect to have work-life balance. I'm afraid there are some jobs for which work-life balance inevitably goes out the window. If you want work-life balance you just have to accept that you can't be a senior member of a government, or for that matter a senior member of an opposition.
I have participated as a leader in many organizations where the leadership culture was just mean - ugly, where competitiveness, and destructive relationships stymied progress. There should be healthy tension and candid debate, but leadership teams need to practice communication, relationship building, emotional intelligence, and be aligned around common purpose to achieve organizational success. Senior leaders, chief executive officers, others need to ensure they are fostering the right environment for leadership otherwise all of that ugliness will trickle through the organization.
Ever since Israel has been a nation the United States has provided the leadership. Every president down to the ages has done this in a fairly balanced way, including George Bush senior, Gerald Ford, and others including myself and Bill Clinton.
We need to reexamine and reassess the purpose of the corporation, and go back to the idea that senior leadership has responsibilities not just to shareholders but also to customers and employees.
A well-run organization turns over 10% of their organizations, including senior leadership. I don't have the heart to do that.
Too many talk about a company's leadership, referring to the senior most executives in the organization. They are just that: senior executives. Leadership doesn't automatically happen when you reach a certain pay grade. Hopefully you find it there, but there are no guarantees.
U.S. is a merit-based society... There is no glass ceiling if you have good performance track record and leadership skills.
Industry suffers from the managerial dogma that for the sake of stability and continuity, the company should be independent of the competence of individual employees.
I sort of throw away the definitions of gender - that boys are 'supposed' to wear blue and girls are 'supposed' to wear pink - and those gender roles and gender presentations. I do it on my own terms rather than based on what other people say I should do.
In the workplace, employees should be judged on their merit and hard work and not on aspects that are irrelevant to their performance.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!