`

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 cumulatively.
If the leadership quality is there in an organization culture than automatically it
will be displayed at each and every step but for an 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 the result of the
culture of any organization.

In June 1999, Goldmans Management Committee had selected a diverse,

experienced group to form the Leadership Development Advisory Committee.
Their official charter was to
assess 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 Goldmans 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) Virtually 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. Thats why our culture is
necessaryits 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.