Discussion: View Thread

Dear List,

I have been monitoring the Leadership thread while trying to
juggle a million things, so I appologize if I missed some
conversation and am way out in left field.

I don't want to oversimplify things but I see a big difference
between management and leadership at a fundamental level. I don't
deny that some skill is required and that some people are
predisposed to leading, but I don't think it is a big
mystery...locked in people's chromozones or genes.

I think that Managers are most concerned about maintaining
structure and making certain that things happen as they are
supposed to happen. Therefore, I agree with Dutch that managers
are mostly involved in problem solving (when things DON'T happen
as planned), but I also see them spending a lot of time working on
procedures and policies to keep things in place and in working to
develop the skills in their staff and employee's necessary to
MAINTAIN STATUS QUO. SO, however you want to look at it...I think
a manager works to PUSH, to CONTROL, to MAINTAIN and to DEVELOP
all within the BOX that has been determined to be the RIGHT WAY.

I think a true leader has all of the skills and functions of the
Manager above, but what makes them stand out is their VISION of
the future. After all....who can lead without a place to lead us
to?

Leaders have a good grip on what it takes to manage current
processes and systems but they also realize that in order to get
ahead...they have to come out of that box to some degree to
promote change, growth and development. I cannot imagine a good
leader in a field where s/he has no idea of what the future might
bring and the impact it will have on his/her organization.

So, the fundamental difference as I see it: managers maintain,
leaders promote change. How could these seemingly dynamically
opposed functions be performed by the same person?

If I promote nothing but change I put a kind of stress on my
system that is likely to cause it to collapse. SO I need to
promote change...stabilize that change (to make sure everyone has
caught up and can control the outcomes), then promote more change.
The cycle that I create is MANAGE, LEAD, MANAGE, LEAD...or
Maintain, Change (grow), Maintain, Change....for others this is
SDCA-PDCA-SDCA-PDCA....

I think this takes a LEADER.

This is also why in LEADERSHIP organizations..the vision of the
company or corporation is so important...it allows MANGERS to see
where the company is headed and to LEAD to that vision, while
MANAGING to make certain that any change brought into the
organization is understood, repeatable, beneficial and can be
maintained.

A model that I like to use (hope it translates well to your
computer) is below, with Leadership happening in the fourth
quadrant where maintaining status quo and leading change occur in
a balance:

CHANGE

- +
M
A
I - REACTIVE HIGH RISK
N TO EXTERNAL REACTIVE TO INTERNAL
T
A
I + PROACTIVE PROACTIVE GROWTH
N STAGNANT (LEADERSHIP)

Thanks for listening,
RICK CORCORAN
Continuous Improvement Mgr (Kaizen)
corcoranre@excelinc.com

RICK CORCORAN write:

>> If I promote nothing but change I put a kind of stress on my
>> system that is likely to cause it to collapse. SO I need to
>> promote change...stabilize that change (to make sure everyone has
>> caught up and can control the outcomes), then promote more change.
>> The cycle that I create is MANAGE, LEAD, MANAGE, LEAD

Sounds like a bit of a rough ride to me - your team will come in
eash day wondering "is this a change or a stability day today?"

By combining the two, however, a manager/leader can focus
on stability through growth: continuous change towards his/her own
vision of where the team is going.

I believe that each level of management needs its own VISION, and that
the vision which motivates a team is often not just that of the
company but rather that of its own leader/manager.
There are two points I would like to make:

1) There is no reason for assuming that "vision" is something that only
occurs ar corporate level - any manager should have a vision for were
the team is going: so many decisions (resource requests,
work practices) which depend upon setting strategic goals "for the team".

2) Even corporate vision is not the sole prerogative of "the top level".
Indeed many of the changes in managment style have been predicated
on the idea that all staff have a valuable (valued?) contribution.

Bottom line: a team is best motivated by the vision and leadership
of their direct line manager - and the manager is also motivated
by the belief that he/she can make a difference.

Gerard M Blair, Senior Lecturer, The Department of Electrical Engineering,
The University of Edinburgh, EH9 3JL, Scotland, UK
Email: gerard@ee.ed.ac.uk - Home page: http://www.ee.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/

Rick Corcoran--
Hello. I found your post very interesting and informing on many
levels. Thank you.
Do you see the role that you occupy in your organization, that of
Continuous Improvement Manager, as one of management vs. leadership, and
why? It seems to me that you would have to be a little of both if
continuous improvement is to be accomplished--and that your role may be
that of a "boundary spanner."

How do you see it?

I admit up front that I tend to agree with the opinions that have
been expressed along the lines of saying that management and leadership are
intertwined along a very long continuum of possibilities, essentially--but
I accept that not everyone else agrees with that--and that is to be
expected because organizational cultures and climates differ so widely from
one industry niche to another. So be it.
Also, speaking as an educator, now, part of the conflict may be due
to the fact that I think it is my job to assist all of my students in
trying to become leaders. Where they go from there is not in my control.
My evaluation criteria is more democratic than that which is likely to be
found in a corporate setting, but that idea/thought leads me to ask you
another queston: Do you think that there should be any major differences
between how "managers" are educated vs. how "leaders" are educated? And,
of course, why?
Please know that I appreciate and respect your experience. I also
think that it is crucial for educators to have these kinds of discussions
with industry professionals because we need "relevance" between education
and industry so that our students can be prepared to succeed.

Michele Grottola
ABD, Cornell University

I have been lurking for a while and observing this thread. In the Navy we
have an interminable discussion about the relative merits of leadership vs
management. In the military world it seems to be assumed that leadership
is the dominant side. Due to this management skills sometimes gets the
short end of the stick. Then those of us who must make things happen
despite the "leadership" must apply management to get the job done. I
submit that both leadership and management skill is needed in the ideal
manager and neither is superior to the other.

Mark Miller

I'd like to respond a little more esoterically to the dialogue about
management versus leadership. I too would hope that effective managers would
possess both management and leadership skills and be able to use both
situationally. In the real world however, I sadly don't see this happening.
Leadership has never been defined in many organizations and current managers
were chosen for their perceived abilitities to manage in the traditional
sense. Even worse, many were just chosen because of their technical
expertise in their fields and don't even possess strong managerial skills.

However, the point I wanted to make is that if you survey the staff that work
for managers and then survey the staff who work for an individual with
obvious leadership skill, you will find some real differences in job
satisfaction and performance. People who have the benefit of working for an
effective leader often are way ahead of the pack. I have observed this again
and again in my practice.

Nancy Probst
Director, OD, North Broward Hospital District

NProbst261@AOL.COM wrote:

> . . .However, the point I wanted to make is that if you survey the staff =
that work
> for managers and then survey the staff who work for an individual with
> obvious leadership skill, you will find some real differences in job
> satisfaction and performance. People who have the benefit of working for=
an
> effective leader often are way ahead of the pack. I have observed this a=
gain
> and again in my practice.


Nancy, I think this is the crux of this debate. Let me suggest that the com=
parison =

you are making is NOT between managers and leaders but rather between
good and bad managers.

Managing is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do precisely because one=
=

of the ingredients, namely leadership, requires something of a =

mind-set/personality IN ADDITION to all the mechanical things we can
teach about dealing with people. It is the reason why there are so few =

really good managers, and why there are so many poorly run organizations.

We can illustrate the difference between Theory X and Theory Y, we can poin=
t
to all the studies suggesting that better treatment leads to better
performance (but not proving, at least not in any literature I've seen - =

unfortunately), we can dwell on Herschberg's two factor theory - but we =

can't teach someone to truly care for others, to believe in their =

individuality and uniqueness, and to be willing to give up authority
so that those under him or her can grow.

As you can see, I'm getting ready for opening class. Sorry.

Laurie P.




-- =

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/ - - - - - - - - =
- - - - -