Discussion: View Thread

Time for me to put my $.02 in....

I feel there's a big difference between managers and leaders. The thing is, an
organization needs BOTH managers and leaders in order to
succeed. I know a lot of people who may be good at one, and not at the
other...if you can find someone who IS good at both, keep them,
develop them, and have them help lead the organization.

"Manager" is a TITLE that is conferred from on high (senior "management"),
usually after some sort of political process, is used in
conversation (e.g. "my manager"), and people attach their ego to.

"Leader" is a term that is applied FROM BELOW, because people WANT to follow the
person due to common interests/values (have you ever
played the game "Follow the Manager"?), usually not used in conversation (have
you ever heard anyone mention their leader?), and usually
has no ego connotation. Oh, yes, we have organizations that play games with the
term as a title. But many times that's all it is...just
games.

Leadership needs to come from throughout the organization...it is NOT something
that comes only with a senior title and perqs. You see it
every day with the informal leader who influences where people will go for
lunch, etc.

To get a better feel for the differences, read Craig Hickman's "Mind of a
Manager, Soul of a Leader"; Lee Bolman and Terry Deal's "Leading
With Soul"; and Tom Peter's "In Pursuit of WOW!"

********************************************************************************
***
George Ferguson Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.
Senior Consultant PO Box 9627 (J1-M1640)
Leadership Education & Development Kansas City, MO 64134-0627
Voice: 816-966-3028
Fax:: 816-966-2750 georgeferguson@hmri.com
********************************************************************************
***

Here is my understanding of these issues:
------------------------

MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP

Leadership theory suffers from a defect--it does not
represent leadership--not as historians define it and
as leaders themselves practice it. . . . [T]he
theorists have not rediscovered the essential
difference between leadership and management and
blindly perpetuate the myth that the two concepts are
interchangeable. For centuries man has endowed
leadership with special meaning. The manager arrived
relatively lately on the scene of human debate and
enterprise. The two ideas were never intended to be
fused. Great leaders were seldom effective
managers.1

Historians, scholars, and other observers have often
distinguished management and leadership. Managers and leaders
play different roles in an organization. Managers sustain and
control organizations; leaders try to change them.2
Organizations also have different needs for those roles at
different levels and at different times in their history.3

Leaders have a vision of how the organization could be
better and can inspire followers to pursue that vision.
Carefully crafted visions contain powerful imagery about the
future.4 Leaders take risks, especially if they perceive high
payoffs from a course of action. They readily use power for
influence, pulling people along instead of using punishment to
coerce people into compliance. Leaders actively seek opposing
views to identify options to a course of action. Because of
their relentless pursuit of a vision, risk-taking behavior, and
desire to use conflict, they often plunge an organization into
chaos while pursuing that vision.

Managers follow the present vision for the organization;
they do not create a new one. They solve problems and try to
bring order to the workplace, while ensuring the commitment of
people to the organization's goals. Managers take fewer risks
than leaders. They use available rewards and sanctions coupled
with their knowledge of human motivation to get predictable
behavior.

The supervisory, management, and executive positions in
organizations can have different requirements for management and
leadership. Some positions require only management. Other
positions require large amounts of leadership and with little
need for management. Still others need a mixture of leadership
and management.

An organization's requirements for management and leadership
will change as the factors affecting the organization change.
Because leaders are important change agents, they play key roles
when the external environment is changing fast. Managers play
key roles in stable external environments. An organization has
little need for a strong change agent if little is changing
around it.

Different organization levels may have different needs for
managers and leaders. Management may be required at the top with
leadership needed at lower levels. Decentralized organizations
are especially likely to have this pattern.

1Jennings, "On Rediscovering the Leader," p. 390.

2Ibid., pp. 390-96.

3House and Aditya, "The Social Scientific Study of Leadership,"
pp. 444-5); J. P. Kotter, "What Leaders Really Do," Harvard
Business Review (1990): 103-11; A. Zaleznik, "The Leadership
Gap," Academy of Management Executive 4 (1990): 7-22.

4J. C. Collins and J. I. Porras, "Building Your Company's
Vision," Harvard Business Review 76 (September-October 1996):
65-77; P. C. Nutt and R. W. Backoff, "Crafting Vision," Journal
of Management Inquiry 6 (1997): 308-28.


----------------------------------------------------------
For materials on film as a teaching resource, go to:

asm.unm.edu, Courses' Data Files, my name, and folder
"filmtchg." You can download the Word documents for
the latest on teaching with film.

Joseph E. Champoux, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
The Robert O. Anderson Schools of Management
The University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
USA
505.277.3237; 505.277.7108 (FAX)
Home office and voice mail: 505.856.6253
E-mail: champoux@unm.edu

May I suggest a possible new (?!) vision on leadership and management?
Leadership is a problem of POLITICS and Management is a problem of
ECONOMICS. Or, otherwise said, Leadership is establishing the ENDS and
Management is concerned with selecting and combining MEANS to attain the
leadership's ENDS. But, the permanently comparison and analysing of ENDS
with/of MEANS is the true field of ETHICS. By this we can demonstrate
ETHICS is both a problem of leadership and management, of politics and
economics.

Liviu Drugus
Health Systems Management Department
Faculty of Medical Bioengineering
University of Medicine and Pharmacy
Iasi, Romania

"Joseph E. Champoux (Joe)" wrote:

> Here is my understanding of these issues:
> ------------------------
>
> MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP
>
> Leadership theory suffers from a defect--it does not
> represent leadership--not as historians define it and
> as leaders themselves practice it. . . . [T]he
> theorists have not rediscovered the essential
> difference between leadership and management and
> blindly perpetuate the myth that the two concepts are
> interchangeable. For centuries man has endowed
> leadership with special meaning. The manager arrived
> relatively lately on the scene of human debate and
> enterprise. The two ideas were never intended to be
> fused. Great leaders were seldom effective
> managers.1
>
> Historians, scholars, and other observers have often
> distinguished management and leadership. Managers and leaders
> play different roles in an organization. Managers sustain and
> control organizations; leaders try to change them.2
> Organizations also have different needs for those roles at
> different levels and at different times in their history.3
>
> Leaders have a vision of how the organization could be
> better and can inspire followers to pursue that vision.
> Carefully crafted visions contain powerful imagery about the
> future.4 Leaders take risks, especially if they perceive high
> payoffs from a course of action. They readily use power for
> influence, pulling people along instead of using punishment to
> coerce people into compliance. Leaders actively seek opposing
> views to identify options to a course of action. Because of
> their relentless pursuit of a vision, risk-taking behavior, and
> desire to use conflict, they often plunge an organization into
> chaos while pursuing that vision.
>
> Managers follow the present vision for the organization;
> they do not create a new one. They solve problems and try to
> bring order to the workplace, while ensuring the commitment of
> people to the organization's goals. Managers take fewer risks
> than leaders. They use available rewards and sanctions coupled
> with their knowledge of human motivation to get predictable
> behavior.
>
> The supervisory, management, and executive positions in
> organizations can have different requirements for management and
> leadership. Some positions require only management. Other
> positions require large amounts of leadership and with little
> need for management. Still others need a mixture of leadership
> and management.
>
> An organization's requirements for management and leadership
> will change as the factors affecting the organization change.
> Because leaders are important change agents, they play key roles
> when the external environment is changing fast. Managers play
> key roles in stable external environments. An organization has
> little need for a strong change agent if little is changing
> around it.
>
> Different organization levels may have different needs for
> managers and leaders. Management may be required at the top with
> leadership needed at lower levels. Decentralized organizations
> are especially likely to have this pattern.
>
> 1Jennings, "On Rediscovering the Leader," p. 390.
>
> 2Ibid., pp. 390-96.
>
> 3House and Aditya, "The Social Scientific Study of Leadership,"
> pp. 444-5); J. P. Kotter, "What Leaders Really Do," Harvard
> Business Review (1990): 103-11; A. Zaleznik, "The Leadership
> Gap," Academy of Management Executive 4 (1990): 7-22.
>
> 4J. C. Collins and J. I. Porras, "Building Your Company's
> Vision," Harvard Business Review 76 (September-October 1996):
> 65-77; P. C. Nutt and R. W. Backoff, "Crafting Vision," Journal
> of Management Inquiry 6 (1997): 308-28.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> For materials on film as a teaching resource, go to:
>
> asm.unm.edu, Courses' Data Files, my name, and folder
> "filmtchg." You can download the Word documents for
> the latest on teaching with film.
>
> Joseph E. Champoux, Ph.D.
> Professor of Management
> The Robert O. Anderson Schools of Management
> The University of New Mexico
> Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
> USA
> 505.277.3237; 505.277.7108 (FAX)
> Home office and voice mail: 505.856.6253
> E-mail: champoux@unm.edu

When I read this, I got a view of a blindfolded woman holding a set of
scales. She was labelled ETHICS (rather than JUSTICE). One side of the
scale read ECONOMICS while the other side read POLITICS.

There's a vision that ought to stick with people!!

Liviu Drugus wrote:
>
> May I suggest a possible new (?!) vision on leadership and management?
> Leadership is a problem of POLITICS and Management is a problem of
> ECONOMICS. Or, otherwise said, Leadership is establishing the ENDS and
> Management is concerned with selecting and combining MEANS to attain the
> leadership's ENDS. But, the permanently comparison and analysing of ENDS
> with/of MEANS is the true field of ETHICS. By this we can demonstrate
> ETHICS is both a problem of leadership and management, of politics and
> economics.
>
> Liviu Drugus
> Health Systems Management Department
> Faculty of Medical Bioengineering
> University of Medicine and Pharmacy
> Iasi, Romania
>
> "Joseph E. Champoux (Joe)" wrote:
>
> > Here is my understanding of these issues:
> > ------------------------
> >
> > MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP
> >
> > Leadership theory suffers from a defect--it does not
> > represent leadership--not as historians define it and
> > as leaders themselves practice it. . . . [T]he
> > theorists have not rediscovered the essential
> > difference between leadership and management and
> > blindly perpetuate the myth that the two concepts are
> > interchangeable. For centuries man has endowed
> > leadership with special meaning. The manager arrived
> > relatively lately on the scene of human debate and
> > enterprise. The two ideas were never intended to be
> > fused. Great leaders were seldom effective
> > managers.1
> >
> > Historians, scholars, and other observers have often
> > distinguished management and leadership. Managers and leaders
> > play different roles in an organization. Managers sustain and
> > control organizations; leaders try to change them.2
> > Organizations also have different needs for those roles at
> > different levels and at different times in their history.3
> >
> > Leaders have a vision of how the organization could be
> > better and can inspire followers to pursue that vision.
> > Carefully crafted visions contain powerful imagery about the
> > future.4 Leaders take risks, especially if they perceive high
> > payoffs from a course of action. They readily use power for
> > influence, pulling people along instead of using punishment to
> > coerce people into compliance. Leaders actively seek opposing
> > views to identify options to a course of action. Because of
> > their relentless pursuit of a vision, risk-taking behavior, and
> > desire to use conflict, they often plunge an organization into
> > chaos while pursuing that vision.
> >
> > Managers follow the present vision for the organization;
> > they do not create a new one. They solve problems and try to
> > bring order to the workplace, while ensuring the commitment of
> > people to the organization's goals. Managers take fewer risks
> > than leaders. They use available rewards and sanctions coupled
> > with their knowledge of human motivation to get predictable
> > behavior.
> >
> > The supervisory, management, and executive positions in
> > organizations can have different requirements for management and
> > leadership. Some positions require only management. Other
> > positions require large amounts of leadership and with little
> > need for management. Still others need a mixture of leadership
> > and management.
> >
> > An organization's requirements for management and leadership
> > will change as the factors affecting the organization change.
> > Because leaders are important change agents, they play key roles
> > when the external environment is changing fast. Managers play
> > key roles in stable external environments. An organization has
> > little need for a strong change agent if little is changing
> > around it.
> >
> > Different organization levels may have different needs for
> > managers and leaders. Management may be required at the top with
> > leadership needed at lower levels. Decentralized organizations
> > are especially likely to have this pattern.
> >
> > 1Jennings, "On Rediscovering the Leader," p. 390.
> >
> > 2Ibid., pp. 390-96.
> >
> > 3House and Aditya, "The Social Scientific Study of Leadership,"
> > pp. 444-5); J. P. Kotter, "What Leaders Really Do," Harvard
> > Business Review (1990): 103-11; A. Zaleznik, "The Leadership
> > Gap," Academy of Management Executive 4 (1990): 7-22.
> >
> > 4J. C. Collins and J. I. Porras, "Building Your Company's
> > Vision," Harvard Business Review 76 (September-October 1996):
> > 65-77; P. C. Nutt and R. W. Backoff, "Crafting Vision," Journal
> > of Management Inquiry 6 (1997): 308-28.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > For materials on film as a teaching resource, go to:
> >
> > asm.unm.edu, Courses' Data Files, my name, and folder
> > "filmtchg." You can download the Word documents for
> > the latest on teaching with film.
> >
> > Joseph E. Champoux, Ph.D.
> > Professor of Management
> > The Robert O. Anderson Schools of Management
> > The University of New Mexico
> > Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
> > USA
> > 505.277.3237; 505.277.7108 (FAX)
> > Home office and voice mail: 505.856.6253
> > E-mail: champoux@unm.edu

--
Dick Montgomery, General Manager
21st Century Co-operative
Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
http://www.chemmgrs.com

I think there's a difference in the relationship with followers, too.
Management is a transaction (i.e., you do the work and I'll pay you.) The
relationship involves an emotional link, of course, as all human
relationships must--it's nature and strength vary widely. But true
leadership is a voluntary association between leader and follower that
hinges on an emotional commitment to each other. It is committed
followers that make someone a leader, not a set of behaviors.

Ruth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth H. Axelrod | Words are, of course,
Organizational Behavior & Development | the most powerful drug
The George Washington University | used by mankind.
2115 G Street, NW, Monroe 403 |
Washington, DC 20052 | Rudyard Kipling
(H/O) 301-593-4938 |
(F) 202-994-4930 |
Mailto: raxelrod@gwu.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, John Naylor wrote:

> Jack Ring's criticism of the rediscovery of leadership as
> the new fix is very fair. He argues that it is but one facet
> of what managers do. Yet the distinction between management
> and leadership may be useful all the same. Managers, of
> course, do both.
>
> In my book (and I mean this literally - Management, London,
> Financial Times Publishing, 1999) leadership is about
> influencing people whereas management covers aspects such as
> planning and so on. As Capowski says, management is from the
> head, leadership from the heart.
>
> The manager as manager is a rational, consulting,
> persistent, tough-minded, analytical, authoritative problem
> solver using position power to achieve things.
> The manager as leader is a passionate, creative, flexible,
> inspiring, innovative visionary using personal power to
> achieve things.
>
> And so on.
>
> John Naylor
> Liverpool Business School
>

It may be of interest of some readers here to pull out an old chestnut on
this topic.

"Managers and Leaders: Are They Different" by Abraham Zaleznik, now
Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School appeared in HBR May-June 1977,
and as an HBR Classic in March-April 1992. Try your local or corporate
library, or contact HBR for a reprint.

best regards,

Tom Campbell
Campbell and Company, Inc.
92 Cedar St.
Scituate, MA 02066 USA
ph: 781 545 3994
fax: 781 545 5506
mailto:tom@campbellandco.com
http://www.campbellandco.com

A learning and communications practice focusing on work/life issues
Helping organizations and individuals succeed in the new workplace

Ruth,
I would like to ask the question then, how committed are you to someone
with whom your basic relationship is founded on being paid to do something?
I am not really emotionally involved with my managers or administration.
Does this type of emotional committment allow the followers to blindly
follow the leader, because of committment or because they can see further
down the road as the change being for the overall good?

I would argue that what make a good leader is someone who can motivate the
followers toward making the necessary committment to the change. A good
leader is someone who can make a follower "believe" in the change.

Jayne Klenner
Ph.D Candidate
Instructional Systems
Project Manager
Engineering Destinations Project
The College of Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Ruth H. Axelrod
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 7:43 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Management vs. leadership
>
>
> I think there's a difference in the relationship with followers, too.
> Management is a transaction (i.e., you do the work and I'll pay you.) The
> relationship involves an emotional link, of course, as all human
> relationships must--it's nature and strength vary widely. But true
> leadership is a voluntary association between leader and follower that
> hinges on an emotional commitment to each other. It is committed
> followers that make someone a leader, not a set of behaviors.
>
> Ruth
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ruth H. Axelrod | Words are, of course,
> Organizational Behavior & Development | the most powerful drug
> The George Washington University | used by mankind.
> 2115 G Street, NW, Monroe 403 |
> Washington, DC 20052 | Rudyard Kipling
> (H/O) 301-593-4938 |
> (F) 202-994-4930 |
> Mailto: raxelrod@gwu.edu |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, John Naylor wrote:
>
> > Jack Ring's criticism of the rediscovery of leadership as
> > the new fix is very fair. He argues that it is but one facet
> > of what managers do. Yet the distinction between management
> > and leadership may be useful all the same. Managers, of
> > course, do both.
> >
> > In my book (and I mean this literally - Management, London,
> > Financial Times Publishing, 1999) leadership is about
> > influencing people whereas management covers aspects such as
> > planning and so on. As Capowski says, management is from the
> > head, leadership from the heart.
> >
> > The manager as manager is a rational, consulting,
> > persistent, tough-minded, analytical, authoritative problem
> > solver using position power to achieve things.
> > The manager as leader is a passionate, creative, flexible,
> > inspiring, innovative visionary using personal power to
> > achieve things.
> >
> > And so on.
> >
> > John Naylor
> > Liverpool Business School
> >
>

Interesting discussion. The debate concerning the similarities and
differences between leadership and management is not a new one. However as
has been correctly pointed out there are differences and there are also
similarities. Having spent 20 years in the Marine Corps I have a more than
intuitive feel for what leadership entails. Having troops "follow" in the
heat of hostile fire certainly requires a great deal of trust and
confidence which can only be obtained by constantly working with people to
develop that trust. It cannot be mandated but must be earned. Perhaps
managers following a "rational performative model" may do the "right"
thing in a prescribed manner yet not invoke the trust needed to lead. It
makes little difference whether people are being led through change
scenarios or into the heat of battle. Trust and a complete knowledge of
one's role in the organization become important factors in understanding
leadership. At least that is my personal view shaped by many years of
experience ( subject to critique of course). Karl Weick correctly points
this out in his article about how organizations fail by telling the story
of the Mann Gulch incident.

In a related manner I like Ring's reference to Machiavelli. I have
developed a course on Organizational Power which begins with gaining an
understanding of Machiavelli's approach and that of Hobbes. Two
interesting foundational thinkers whose work winds its way into current
managerial thought.

Mike Chumer

In a message dated 11/9/99 10:19:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dscott@MEGSINET.NET writes:

<<
It sems to me that you have provided ONE textbook definition. Yes,
leadership and managmentship(?) are not identical, but they do overlap
some. On a de facto basis I would say that leadership is less rigorous, a
broader view, with more discretion for those being "led" but where they
are in subservient positions to those with leaderhip responsibilities.

How does this fit with your views, Tom? Can you live with the above?
Don
>>

Thanks to those who pointed out my grammatical faux pas. My point, however,
transcends semantics. Words tend to drive our paradigms rather than reality.
In my work with entrepreneurial companies, I do not allow for any "blending"
of management and leadership. Our belief that management (it's traditional
definition) can be benevolent and effective is hogwash.

Manage can be either a verb or a noun (management). When it becomes a noun,
it takes on a life of its own and becomes an overhead entity unto itself,
rather than an actionable activity. There is no noun form of "lead" (other
than fishing weights).

Entrepreneurial leaders cannot be managers! My experience is that purging the
word "management" from our lexicon is the only way to focus on leadership and
follow-ship. Again, lead by logical necessity and be a student when ably led.
Manage projects, not people.

Check out our web site for an article I wote on Management vs. Leadership.

Tom Taormina
Managing Partner
Productivity Resources, LLC
PO Box 1126
Virginia City NV 89440
775-847-7929 FAX 775-847-7930
Virtuiso@aol.com
www.ConsultPR.com

tOM:

RIGHT! THERE IS NO "MANAGEMENT". THERE IS "MANAGING"!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Tom Taormina
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 10:51 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Management vs. Leadership
>
>
> In a message dated 11/9/99 10:19:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> dscott@MEGSINET.NET writes:
>
> <<
> It sems to me that you have provided ONE textbook definition. Yes,
> leadership and managmentship(?) are not identical, but they do overlap
> some. On a de facto basis I would say that leadership is less
> rigorous, a
> broader view, with more discretion for those being "led" but where they
> are in subservient positions to those with leaderhip responsibilities.
>
> How does this fit with your views, Tom? Can you live with the above?
> Don
> >>
>
> Thanks to those who pointed out my grammatical faux pas. My
> point, however,
> transcends semantics. Words tend to drive our paradigms rather
> than reality.
> In my work with entrepreneurial companies, I do not allow for any
> "blending"
> of management and leadership. Our belief that management (it's traditional
> definition) can be benevolent and effective is hogwash.
>
> Manage can be either a verb or a noun (management). When it
> becomes a noun,
> it takes on a life of its own and becomes an overhead entity unto itself,
> rather than an actionable activity. There is no noun form of "lead" (other
> than fishing weights).
>
> Entrepreneurial leaders cannot be managers! My experience is that
> purging the
> word "management" from our lexicon is the only way to focus on
> leadership and
> follow-ship. Again, lead by logical necessity and be a student
> when ably led.
> Manage projects, not people.
>
> Check out our web site for an article I wote on Management vs. Leadership.
>
> Tom Taormina
> Managing Partner
> Productivity Resources, LLC
> PO Box 1126
> Virginia City NV 89440
> 775-847-7929 FAX 775-847-7930
> Virtuiso@aol.com
> www.ConsultPR.com
>

Ah, enlightenment. Perhaps stating paradigms at the outset will help the rest of
us to understand the different arguments and properly construct responses. While
I agree that entrepreneurs and managers perform different functions, I believe
both are necessary and that individuals can fill both roles simultaneously,
albeit not without at least some internal conflict.

Tom Taormina wrote:

> In my work with entrepreneurial companies, I do not allow for any "blending"
> of management and leadership. Our belief that management (it's traditional
> definition) can be benevolent and effective is hogwash.
>
> Entrepreneurial leaders cannot be managers! My experience is that purging the
> word "management" from our lexicon is the only way to focus on leadership and
> follow-ship. Again, lead by logical necessity and be a student when ably led.
> Manage projects, not people.
>

I'm presently doing a leadership workshop.
The first question that usually comes up is "Ray, do you
differentiate between leadership and management."
I sigh a bit and think that this might lead to one of those "how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin," type of discussions.
Still, I looked in on what you guys are doing with it. I suspect that
we'll still manage to squeeze a few more angels on ... and arrive at
where we all started.
So, thanks! I think that I'm going to email your discussion to my
group of blooming management philosophers ... I kind of like it's
flavor and maybe I won't have to get into it any further in my
workshop and I can get down to the real issues like how to get them
to surface their real attitudes about working with people and quit
being so incredibly politically correct that they no longer know who
they are or who anyone else is.
Of course, then there's the question of whether the term
"subordinate" is a problem ... sigh!

Ok -so what's the diference between Management and Administraion and why
is it the Master of Business Administration not MBM? - Its a serious point
because there are big cultural differences in the use of the terms between
eg. North America and Europe. As for the substantive points about the
differences between Leadership and Management - these issues have been
debated extensively over a number of years in the field of Education where
the leadership (as opposed to management) of the Principal/Headteacher is
regarded as the key factor in school effectiveness.

John Williams
Sheffield Hallam University
Leadership and Management Unit (LAMU)
Centre for Continuing Profesional Developmen t (CCPD)
College House
36 Collegiate Crescent
Sheffield
S10 2BP
J.N.Williams@shu.ac.uk
International tel: 00 44 114 225 2306
International fax: 00 44 114 2252323

Hi Ruth and Everyone,

I have a question. Does the leader create the emotional attachment, or visa
versa?

Maria de Lourdes

Ruth H. Axelrod wrote:

> I think there's a difference in the relationship with followers, too.
> Management is a transaction (i.e., you do the work and I'll pay you.) The
> relationship involves an emotional link, of course, as all human
> relationships must--it's nature and strength vary widely. But true
> leadership is a voluntary association between leader and follower that
> hinges on an emotional commitment to each other. It is committed
> followers that make someone a leader, not a set of behaviors.
>
> Ruth
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ruth H. Axelrod | Words are, of course,
> Organizational Behavior & Development | the most powerful drug
> The George Washington University | used by mankind.
> 2115 G Street, NW, Monroe 403 |
> Washington, DC 20052 | Rudyard Kipling
> (H/O) 301-593-4938 |
> (F) 202-994-4930 |
> Mailto: raxelrod@gwu.edu |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, John Naylor wrote:
>
> > Jack Ring's criticism of the rediscovery of leadership as
> > the new fix is very fair. He argues that it is but one facet
> > of what managers do. Yet the distinction between management
> > and leadership may be useful all the same. Managers, of
> > course, do both.
> >
> > In my book (and I mean this literally - Management, London,
> > Financial Times Publishing, 1999) leadership is about
> > influencing people whereas management covers aspects such as
> > planning and so on. As Capowski says, management is from the
> > head, leadership from the heart.
> >
> > The manager as manager is a rational, consulting,
> > persistent, tough-minded, analytical, authoritative problem
> > solver using position power to achieve things.
> > The manager as leader is a passionate, creative, flexible,
> > inspiring, innovative visionary using personal power to
> > achieve things.
> >
> > And so on.
> >
> > John Naylor
> > Liverpool Business School
> >

In the words of General Norman Schwartzkof :
You manage organizations, but you lead people!

Maria de Lourdes

Ray Rasmussen wrote:

> I'm presently doing a leadership workshop.
> The first question that usually comes up is "Ray, do you
> differentiate between leadership and management."
> I sigh a bit and think that this might lead to one of those "how many
> angels can dance on the head of a pin," type of discussions.
> Still, I looked in on what you guys are doing with it. I suspect that
> we'll still manage to squeeze a few more angels on ... and arrive at
> where we all started.
> So, thanks! I think that I'm going to email your discussion to my
> group of blooming management philosophers ... I kind of like it's
> flavor and maybe I won't have to get into it any further in my
> workshop and I can get down to the real issues like how to get them
> to surface their real attitudes about working with people and quit
> being so incredibly politically correct that they no longer know who
> they are or who anyone else is.
> Of course, then there's the question of whether the term
> "subordinate" is a problem ... sigh!

I have been following this track for the past few days and have to chime in
with Michael Chumer on the concept of leadership (or is that construct?).
Having spent 20 years in the US Army, with a majority of that time being
assigned in leadership roles, the distinction is clear, to those who have
'walked the walk'. the military carries the distinction down to the job
title, squad leader, platoon leader, and they elevate it to commander at
higher levels, but they still mean leader. I was always taught that managers
mange things, resources, time, money, schedules, etc. and leaders lead
people (I worked for COL Schwartzkof in the late 70's) and that is major
distinction when you get to the "pointy edge of the bayonet" as they say.
Leaders are required to manage resources as are managers, where the
distinction comes into play, and many managers (by title, position, etc)
display strong leader qualities, happens when the leader puts on his or her
coveralls and climes into the workspace with the subordinate and either
provides the subordinate with a vehicle to 'show' the leader his or her job
skills, or the leader shows the subordinate how to make it work or fix what
is broke. The point is, leadership by example, leadership by wandering
around and just communicating with the guys in the trenches, is what
separates leaders from managers. And I don't mean this a put down for
mangers. many don't have responsibility for people in their organization so
there isn't an opportunity to be a leader, but many have folks working for
them and they stay in the office, managing the budget, the schedules, the
operations flow, etc. and when there are problems, they rely on first line
supervisors to tell them, via report, what's broken. In these instances,
leaders would have already been in place to see the problems and discuss the
issue face to face with the FLS, and probably have already been prepared for
the problems because they are there to see what goes on. Its a very touchy
situation to discuss, especially when you move out of the military context
into the corporate world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the
military has all the answers or does it right all the time. I think they do
have a better program for training leaders and that is of necessity because
managers or leaders in the corporate world rarely have to make decisions or
orders that can, and probably will, cause a great many of their followers to
be killed or injured and the responsibility that falls on the shoulders of
the infantry rifle squad leader (Army or Marine), SEAL Team Leader, Air
Force Security Team Leader, or other small organization (unit) leader in the
military is phenomenal and barely understandable to those who have not been
there. because of that, the programs to train and prepare folks for
leadership positions are pretty effective. If you are looking to develop
leader programs or look at the requirements for leaders, the publicly
available literature provided by the military is a great place to start,
then you can put into perspective what has been written by and about great
civilian leaders, and there are some great ones out there, and together, you
can develop a picture of what leadership is and how it differs conceptually
from management.

Dr. Ken Rossi
Asst. Professor of Information Systems
Hawaii Pacific University
Honolulu, HI 95813
(808) 544-1412
kgrossi@worldnet.att.net
kgrossi@hpu.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: Maria de Lourdes Machado <lmachado@IPB.PT>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Management vs. Leadership


> In the words of General Norman Schwartzkof :
> You manage organizations, but you lead people!
>
> Maria de Lourdes
>
> Ray Rasmussen wrote:
>
> > I'm presently doing a leadership workshop.
> > The first question that usually comes up is "Ray, do you
> > differentiate between leadership and management."
> > I sigh a bit and think that this might lead to one of those "how many
> > angels can dance on the head of a pin," type of discussions.
> > Still, I looked in on what you guys are doing with it. I suspect that
> > we'll still manage to squeeze a few more angels on ... and arrive at
> > where we all started.
> > So, thanks! I think that I'm going to email your discussion to my
> > group of blooming management philosophers ... I kind of like it's
> > flavor and maybe I won't have to get into it any further in my
> > workshop and I can get down to the real issues like how to get them
> > to surface their real attitudes about working with people and quit
> > being so incredibly politically correct that they no longer know who
> > they are or who anyone else is.
> > Of course, then there's the question of whether the term
> > "subordinate" is a problem ... sigh!
>

Kenneth Rossi and others are right in separating leadership and
management. Kenneth's reference to the 'end of the bayonet' makes the
point very well.
But he seems to ignore the notion of role. Referring back to Mintzberg,
a person in a management occupies various roles, sometimes at different
times, sometimes simultaneously.
So a Squadron Leader (in the RAF, I don't know if you have them in the
USAAF) flies at the front as figurehead and leader. Yet this person, at
other times and often at the same time, is trainer, spokesperson, high
priest, technician, problem solver, connector, resource allocator and so
on.

[Mintzberg, Henry (1971) 'Managerial work analysis and observation'
Management Science October, B97-110]

John Naylor
Liverpool Business School

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Ray Rasmussen wrote:

> I'm presently doing a leadership workshop.

I am as well. In fact, two of them in parallel.
One with new supervisors, some of whom only act in this capacity some of
the time. The second group are middle managers who are in supervising
capacities all of the time.

Our institution's focus is on the leadership part - the name of the 13
session program is "Leading Work Groups."

I generally liked Fred Nichols' general definitions ;-) (including his
caution that they overlap).

> Management focuses on performance. In general, it is concerned
with work, whether done by people or machines and whether grouped into
tasks, functions or processes.

> Leadership focuses on people. In general, it is concerned with
motivation, commitment, loyalty and politics.

> Governance focuses on power. It is concerned in the main with
policies, rules, regulations, the allocation of authority and so on. In
particular, it is concerned with the limits, exercise and abuse of
authority.

We have chosen to pursue a combination of self-directed learning and
interactive sessions. Each participant completes a couple of hours of
modularized self study materials on the current topic before attending a
weekly 3.5 hour interactive session. This gives them the theoretical base
to start to wrestle with the concepts and applications.

I use a lot of cooperative learning techniques to engage them in
sharing their experience and reflective on it and the experience of
others. By the end of session each participant has at least the outline of
an action plan for their leadership activities in the subject area.

This means that the number of angels on the head of that pin varies with
the participant and how they will be asking the angels to dance.

It is an interesting process.

best regards

alice

*****************************************************************
* Alice Macpherson, TQ, ID phone: (604) 599-2426 vm 9954 *
* Kwantlen University College email: alicemac@kwantlen.bc.ca *
* 12666-72nd Ave, Surrey, BC, Canada, V3W 2M8 *
* "Life Long Learning includes Everyone, All the Time" *
*****************************************************************