Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  On LEADERSHIP vs. MGT - Reply

    Posted 01-21-1997 06:51
    Gerard Blair,

    Regarding LEAD, MANAGE, LEAD, MANAGE:

    I don't think you and I are too far off in disagreement. I don't
    necessarily see LEAD, MANAGE, LEAD, MANAGE as something that I
    must do solely and separately from one day to another or on
    alternate days with all of my tasks...I don't see it as process
    steps but more as a HELIX, where we might be working on either
    changing something or working to make sure that it operates
    correctly. I might be working to make improvements in say our
    billing process...but I might also be working to make sure
    everyone is following procedures in our Hiring process because the
    former is ready to be improved upon and moved up a notch and the
    latter has been suffering where employee's are not using it
    correctly or as designed so it is unpredictable. I certainly
    don't think I would want to be working to make big changes to
    something that I don't understand.

    There is a fine line between maintaining and improving. I still
    think it is dangerous to go too far in either direction. If you
    maintain you don't grow and stay competitive, if you grow too fast
    all of your support collapses and your processes become
    unpredictable. Trying to improve something before you fully
    understand why it is not working is like trying to fit roller
    skates on a Camel before you know how the camel travels and the
    terrain where it will be walking....a waste of time.

    Regarding VISION:
    I agree that each department needs a VISION...but you didn't
    mention whether or not that vision is tied into the Corporate
    vision. As a manager I will take the Corporate vision and work
    with my department to determine how that vision translates for us
    and can work to establish a vision for our department. IF I work
    with my department to create a vision totally isolated or
    segregated from the rest of the Corporation then I am only
    perpetuating SMOKE STACKS and ISOLATED DEPARTMENTS that have no
    linkage with each other and serve to hurt the progress of the
    Corporation instead of enable it. Where this happens there is
    little to no linkage between departments and the failure to the
    customer is where the ball is dropped. In companies like
    this...you might find an excellent customer service department,
    but a lousy shipping department...the corporation doesn't exist on
    its individual functions..but how it functions as a whole. If I
    go to the store and the shelves are empty because the ordering
    department didn't get their act together...I leave..even if
    Personnel had the nicest, friendliest, most efficient cashiers on
    the job at the time.

    Corporations (Senior Management), I believe, are responsible for
    establishing the WHAT...(vision) based on Market, Investors, and
    Customer needs. The rest of the Corporation is responsible for
    establishing the HOW (processes) for accomplishing the vision. If
    all aspects of the Corporation is focussed on WHAT then I think a
    Company divided will fall...It is like a multi head creature
    trying to go in 5 directions at once. The corporation is the HEAD
    and the rest of the body needs to start working to move in the
    direction the head is pointing.

    Nearly everyone wants to invest in his or her own job and add
    value to it by contributing...I believe that employees can be
    strongly motivated when a Company provides a clear vision and then
    leaves it up to the individual departments to design the process.
    I think it adds no value for a department to decide that it will
    go off in a totally different direction than that of the
    Corporation. I hope you see a linkage.

    Thanks for listening (reading),
    Rick Corcoran
    Continuous Improvement Mgr.
    Internal Kaizen Consultant
    Excel Industries

    Internet:"corcoranre@excelinc.com"


  • 2.  On LEADERSHIP vs. MGT - Reply

    Posted 01-21-1997 11:21
    Michele,

    Thank you for your interest in one of my previous threads on
    management and for triggering me to consider my own role through
    your questions.

    You asked:"Do you think that there should be any major differences
    in between how managers are educated vs. how leaders are
    educated?"

    Short response: I don't think there will many job openings for
    managers who can't assume the leadership role when needed...so I
    think we need Leaders who can manage more than we need just
    managers or just leaders.

    The why:
    In the 1960's some Japanese came to the US to visit a General
    Motors plant. They were impressed by the size of the facility,
    the size of the workforce, the volume of production and the
    utilization of equipment....for one of the worlds largest, most
    successful Corporations.

    Some of the same Japanese business men came back to visit the same
    GM facility in the 1980's and they were again surprised...but this
    time in how little the place had changed in 20 years. This tells
    me that GM did a great job of 'managing', but not so much of a
    good job 'leading'.

    GM, through their success, had believed that they had found the
    ONE FORMULA that would work for them forever...this happens all of
    the time from SWISS WATCH Makers, TELEVISION SET Makers, even
    those old 8 track tapes...

    In these companies, those who maintained the status quo were
    promoted and rewarded. All senior executives had to do was to
    look at the numbers (results) to see who was performing the 'one
    right way'. Those who tried to introduce change were seen as
    trying to rock the boat in an environment that coined the
    phrase:"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". These trouble makers
    often found themselves out of a job.

    When GM finally woke up and realized that the 'one right way' was
    no longer working because the rest of the world had not stood
    still for 20 years, ie. Customer needs had changed, the economy
    (record inflation) had changed, environment (energy crisis) had
    changed, etc., they quickly had to break out of the mold. The
    auto industry especially went through some pretty major upheavals
    during this time...quickly trying to catch up with the competitors
    who had been changing steadily during that same 20 year period.

    Corporations were not prepared for the magnitude of change
    required of them in the 80's...and they often found that their
    terrific managers, who were able to successfully maintain the
    status quo on the perfect formula...made some lousy leaders in
    change. Those who had virtually no leadership skills basically
    tried to Manage Change...using the only skill they had ever
    learned....I call these Hatchet men.

    So to answer your question more directly...I think corporations
    will continue to feel the affects of the 80's for another 20 years
    as they play catch-up....basically because a lot of corporations
    are still trying to manage change instead of lead change. The
    only certain thing about the near future, as far as what I can
    tell, is that change is going to be the norm.

    Also, as we become more global...they demands to perform in half
    the time with half the cost around the world will further
    challenge companies that hope to survive the next ten years.

    Those students coming out of the universities with only management
    skill will be able to find jobs because maintaining will always be
    a need...but those who want the good jobs will be leaders who can
    manage.

    Someone much smarter than me [and I am sorry that I don't know the
    author's name] once wrote:

    " He who knows HOW, will always have a job;
    He who knows WHAT will always be his boss!"

    I interpret this as he who manages will always have a job...but
    the true value is in he who can lead those managers...

    For myself, in my current position...Thanks for asking. I had not
    thought much about what I consider myself, manager or leader,
    until you asked me.

    In my position I feel that I must be both. I must lead- which to
    me means to create challenges, motivate, nurture and inspire-
    people to change for the better and to be more competitive in
    todays market. My goal is to get them to take one step closer to
    the ideal. Then I must manage - help them understand how they got
    there, why it was important and what it means- while in my head I
    am planning to take them that next step to the level one up!

    Thanks so much for the inspiration,

    DISCLAIMER: Of course these are my thoughts and do not necessarily
    reflect the opinion of where I work...but give me time and they
    will.

    Rick Corcoran
    Continuous Improvement Manager(ha) and leader(?)
    Excel Industries


  • 3.  On LEADERSHIP vs. MGT - Reply

    Posted 01-21-1997 22:01
    I'm puzzled by the amount of discussion on what is an artificial distinctio=
    n. In the early part of the =

    century, Henri Fayol characterized management as consisting of four compone=
    nt parts:
    planning
    organizing
    leading
    controlling



    To my knowledge, virtually every intro to management text follows this taxo=
    nomy. In my own =

    experience teaching, (20 yrs) there has been significant development of res=
    earch and evidence =

    in each of these areas, and the occasional "hot" topic, but the basic compo=
    nents have remained =

    unchanged.

    To try to distinguish between managing and leading is missing the point. T=
    his is simply a matter =

    of definition, and it would seem that to philosophize aboutwhich is more im=
    portant is doing our =

    students a disservice. It shouldn't be for them to choose which of these co=
    mponents they like =

    or feel more comfortable with. A firm needs them all to be done well.

    There are good managers who do things well, and there are poor managers who=
    do not. Firms =

    that are well managed have managers who do things well, all four of them. F=
    irms that fail, often =

    do so because their managers do not do all things well.

    -- =

    Dr. George L. Pamental - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rhode Island College=

    Associate Professor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Providence, RI 029=
    08
    Dep=B9t. of Management - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Phone: 401.456.8760
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://192.133.12.49/pamental/ - - - - - - - - =
    - - - - -


  • 4.  On LEADERSHIP vs. MGT - Reply

    Posted 01-22-1997 03:23
    Dear List,

    If Mark and George are responding to me regarding the need to have
    BOTH Leadership skills and Management skills, you will find no
    argument here. I felt that was what I was saying.

    However, in response to George..It might be true that both
    leadership and management have been taught to students for 20
    years, I don't see a lot of evidence in the work environment that
    it was being practiced, until within the last ten years. Control,
    problem solve and maintain in a 'manage for results' environment
    has led to a crisis in the US as major large corporations have
    been going out of business. I think if you look at the Fortune
    500 companies over the last 15 years you will see a major loss of
    companies on the list and for those who have survived I think you
    will see some major changes in the behavior of their management
    style.

    If you look at Business weeks BEST IN PRACTICE plants you will see
    that all of the winners or the recognition awards have admitted
    that they have dramatically changed HOW they manage, within the
    last ten years, and that they constantly struggle to find leaders
    of change.

    Had the auto industry really been a leader in the field why were
    the Japanese so successful in going from almost no automotive
    manufacturing to becoming World Dominant? Where were the leaders
    then? And why did Dr. Edward Deming spin his wheels trying to get
    major corporations to change only to be ignored until the early
    eighties, when all hell broke loose and companies began to admitt
    they were in trouble with competition and the market place?

    Why did we loose almost all of our light manufacturing in this
    county, such as televisions, vcr's, camera's, etc? Where were our
    leaders then? Were they monitoring customer needs and the
    activities of their competition? I think they were either set in
    their ways and internally focussed, or didn't have the skill to
    LEAD corporations into the 80's.

    And I ask this next question with sincerity...Communication is so
    important in a change organization...what are universities doing
    to teach 'leaders' and 'managers' how to communicate effectively
    with the work force? Every company that I have been involved in
    has had to take their management through some kind of 'soft
    skills' communication training. I have sat in meeting with major
    corporations that can't get decisions made and support from their
    work force to get things done. I have seen more and more violent
    reactions from Unions and in people walking into manufacturing
    environments with a rifle to solve their problems.

    And only you in the higher education field can answer this, I
    honestly don't know...What are you doing in your own departments
    to work together to make education better, to eliminate waste and
    to cut cost? Are you leading or managing? Are your employees
    meeting on regular basis to look at education and the needs of the
    Customer? Who do you see as the customer?...the student or
    businesses that hire? If you see it as the businesses that hire,
    what have you done to find out what companies are doing and what
    they need in applicants coming right out of college?


    And in response to Mark, we can apply any term to a person
    correctly or incorrectly...if the military defines a leader as a
    person who controls and the management were the ones that enabled
    change...then I think we are just applying the terms differently.

    Thanks for listening (reading),
    Rick Corcoran


  • 5.  On LEADERSHIP vs. MGT - Reply

    Posted 01-22-1997 07:34
    Re Rick Corcoran's response to Michele,

    I think Rick's comments are right on point, and I plan to share his comments
    with my organizational behaviour students at Saint Mary's University in
    Halifax (with his permission of course!).

    >Short response: I don't think there will many job openings for
    >managers who can't assume the leadership role when needed...so I
    >think we need Leaders who can manage more than we need just
    >managers or just leaders.
    >
    >The why:
    >In the 1960's some Japanese came to the US to visit a General
    >Motors plant. They were impressed by the size of the facility,
    >the size of the workforce, the volume of production and the
    >utilization of equipment....for one of the worlds largest, most
    >successful Corporations.
    >
    >Some of the same Japanese business men came back to visit the same
    >GM facility in the 1980's and they were again surprised...but this
    >time in how little the place had changed in 20 years. This tells
    >me that GM did a great job of 'managing', but not so much of a
    >good job 'leading'.
    >
    >GM, through their success, had believed that they had found the
    >ONE FORMULA that would work for them forever...this happens all of
    >the time from SWISS WATCH Makers, TELEVISION SET Makers, even
    >those old 8 track tapes...
    >
    >In these companies, those who maintained the status quo were
    >promoted and rewarded. All senior executives had to do was to
    >look at the numbers (results) to see who was performing the 'one
    >right way'. Those who tried to introduce change were seen as
    >trying to rock the boat in an environment that coined the
    >phrase:"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". These trouble makers
    >often found themselves out of a job.
    >
    >When GM finally woke up and realized that the 'one right way' was
    >no longer working because the rest of the world had not stood
    >still for 20 years, ie. Customer needs had changed, the economy
    >(record inflation) had changed, environment (energy crisis) had
    >changed, etc., they quickly had to break out of the mold. The
    >auto industry especially went through some pretty major upheavals
    >during this time...quickly trying to catch up with the competitors
    >who had been changing steadily during that same 20 year period.
    >
    >Corporations were not prepared for the magnitude of change
    >required of them in the 80's...and they often found that their
    >terrific managers, who were able to successfully maintain the
    >status quo on the perfect formula...made some lousy leaders in
    >change. Those who had virtually no leadership skills basically
    >tried to Manage Change...using the only skill they had ever
    >learned....I call these Hatchet men.
    >
    >So to answer your question more directly...I think corporations
    >will continue to feel the affects of the 80's for another 20 years
    >as they play catch-up....basically because a lot of corporations
    >are still trying to manage change instead of lead change. The
    >only certain thing about the near future, as far as what I can
    >tell, is that change is going to be the norm.
    >
    >Also, as we become more global...they demands to perform in half
    >the time with half the cost around the world will further
    >challenge companies that hope to survive the next ten years.
    >
    >Those students coming out of the universities with only management
    >skill will be able to find jobs because maintaining will always be
    >a need...but those who want the good jobs will be leaders who can
    >manage.
    >
    >Someone much smarter than me [and I am sorry that I don't know the
    >author's name] once wrote:
    >
    >" He who knows HOW, will always have a job;
    >He who knows WHAT will always be his boss!"
    >
    >I interpret this as he who manages will always have a job...but
    >the true value is in he who can lead those managers...

    >In my position I feel that I must be both. I must lead- which to
    >me means to create challenges, motivate, nurture and inspire-
    >people to change for the better and to be more competitive in
    >todays market. My goal is to get them to take one step closer to
    >the ideal. Then I must manage - help them understand how they got
    >there, why it was important and what it means- while in my head I
    >am planning to take them that next step to the level one up!

    Amery Boyer
    5688 North Street
    HALIFAX NS B3K 1N4
    Tel: 429-9217
    Fax: 429-9217
    e-mail: amery@fox.nstn.ca
    homepage: http://fox.nstn.ca/~amery


  • 6.  On LEADERSHIP vs. MGT - Reply

    Posted 01-22-1997 09:13
    On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, George L. Pamental wrote:

    > I'm puzzled by the amount of discussion on what is an artificial
    > distinction. In the early part of the century, Henri Fayol characterized
    > management as consisting of four component parts:
    > planning
    > organizing
    > leading
    > controlling

    What better way to legitimize the new science of management than to try to
    encompass the messy art of leadership than by reversing the significance
    and placing management as a major premise while leadership acts as a minor
    premise?

    How different the world might look if Henri had characterized it as
    leadership consists of four component parts:

    planning
    organinzing
    managing
    controlling


    ______________________
    Great Optimism,

    Dutch Driver
    Dept. of Communication
    McMurry University
    Abilene, TX
    ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu