Discussion: View Thread

As a "manager" my $ .02:

Management is a _function_ and Henri Fayol was right, as far as he went.
Engineering is a _function_. Functions have components and require
certain skills to perform.

To perform the function of management - leadership, communication,
reasoning, problem solving, planning, team building, etc. are _skills_ that
are learned and must be applied to perform the function. Obviously the
best managers have the best overall skills set, or have a paticular skill
set for their job/company. What one manager may lack in leadership, they
may make up for in strategic vision for the industry or product line.

A manager does not have to have the design skills of an engineer to be
successful, yet an engineer needs many of the skills of a manager, e.g.
leadership, teambuilding, communication, etc. to also be successful. If
Leadership were not a skill in support of a function, then a great leader
would also be a great engineer!

It is interesting to note that the perception of the military as being
"directive" in nature is back in vogue. Reminds me of Harry Truman's
remark about Eisenhower... Ike will say "Do this and Do that" and no one in
this city will pay him any attention... Mr Truman was dead wrong. The
military is the ultimate in team building and Generals have to be masters
at using their staffs to get things done. Yes, when you are under attack
directing in its rawest form is the norm, but the team goals are well
understood, and overarching.

BTW, the military has expanded Henri Fayol's components to five, (I don't
have my War College texts handy so I can't list them...)

IMHO, the best _leadership_ training I have had over my 30+ years with
government, the military, and industry is the Boy Scouts of America Wood
Badge training.


Enough food for discussion for one post.


Kenneth B. Hawks
RL/C3AA
525 Brooks Road
Rome NY 13441-4505
hawksk@rl.af.mil

A few rough thoughts........

In the word management, we find MANAGE. So a manager needs to manage (or
plan, organize, direct,control, coordinate.....) A manager enables what
the leader has envisioned to happen, he answers "how" But what does a
manager manage ?

In the word leadership, we see the word LEAD, as in "Follow me ". I once
picked up an interesting quote, I don;t remember who from, to describe
what a leader might say : " Follow me, I'll be right behind you".

A leader inspires, motivates, influences, serves as a catalyst to make
things happen. The manager plans and organizes for it to happen.

Maybe what the manager manages is what the leader sees.

So the leader is the what ? why ?
And the manager is how ?

I see this as 2 separate skills. One person may be both a leader and a
manager. Or may not. One does not imply the other.



My 2 cents !


Ania Szpakowski
e-mail : szpak@cam.org

I generally classify managers as performing three functions in an
organization.

Front-line managers manage either people or product.

Mid-level managers manage processes.

Upper-management manages ideas and concepts.


As I progress from top to bottom notice that I began with the concrete and
progressed to the abstract.

I believe that leaders and managers deal with ideas at all levels, yet
when a manager moves into the realm of managing ideas one of their sole
functions, they are on the verge of becoming a leader.

______________________
Great Optimism,

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

Dear Dutch et. al.,

Some of the fairly well acknowledged "leaders?" in the field of performance
systems
(formerly human resource development) assert the notion of a horizontal
"leadership"
and team work style vs.the old vertical layering of management.

Two experts in this field (for the time being) are
Geary Rummler and Alan Brache. Their contention is that traditional
vertical "silos" aka management "trees"
of split functions such as accounting, manufacturing,
technical, etc. are inefficient, anti-stakeholder, and counterproductive.
They propose that the process is the "leader.'
All former domains should be involved with the input to the output of
a product.

For more information see their book:
Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organizational
Chart.

Not my $.02 -> their's ;-/ As with all "experts" I wonder how this works
in "real-life" organizations...

> I believe that leaders and managers deal with ideas at all levels, yet
> when a manager moves into the realm of managing ideas one of their sole
> functions, they are on the verge of becoming a leader.

--
Best Regards,

Pat Gantt pagantt@worldnet.att.net Pat@HomeMail.com
The University of Tennessee M.S. Human Resource Development
Electronic Performance Instructor Information Source Locator (ISL)

I guess I wasn't clear. =


If we had reversed the terms 'management' and 'leadership' when we first st=
arted teaching this =

stuff NOTHING WOULD HAVE CHANGED, THE WORLD WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT.

There are certain things necessary to "blank" a company - we need to be abl=
e to organize, to =

plan, to control, to motivate, and to choose the right goals/direction (Fay=
ol lumped the latter two =

together and call it leadership) In order to do these things we also have t=
o be able to =

communicate effectively, understand basic quantitative processes and how u=
se them, etc.

Now, if we want to sum all of this up and call it leadership, management, o=
r bananas, it won't =

make any difference.

Yes, managers at different levels have different mixes of things to do, but=
the components of =

those mixes do not change, only the relative portions do. So low level mana=
gers spend less =

time thinking of the future than upper level managers. But they have to do =
it at least enough to =

understand why they are doing all those other things. And the better low le=
vel managers will =

impress upper level managers by their ability to deal with those abstract i=
ssues just as much as =

by their ability to do all those other things.

One last item - don't remember who said it (during this discussion) but I a=
gree that the chapter =

on communications is about the most important one in the principles text - =
all those other things =

that managers (oops, bananas) need to know and do they learn by,or do by, =
communicating.

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

Further to the above discussions, heated sometimes.
Here are my observations and perceptions of Leadership vis-a-vis management.

It is very obvious that they can be only ONE leader in every situation.
Be it a small team, the Japanese call them kaizen team or small group activity.
Reason being, if there is more than one leader, the project will be at friction.
Where are the team members going to look for direction.
History tells us that only when the Leader is strong, can he conquer and
spread the
news of fearlessness in the likes of Genghis Kan, Julius Caesar, Shih Huang Ti.
Those days, these leaders do not have the benefits of management gurus in
the likes
of Henri Fayol, Peter Drucker etc. etc.
But they rule and commanded vast empires and under terrible climatic terrains.
And thery rule for decades at a time ... and until their time is up.

The same Leadership priciples can only apply in my opinion if the Leader also
owns the company of organisation. If he has 100% controlling interest in the
organisation then and only then can he exert 100% leadership and give 100%
directives be it good or bad.Again falling back to history, if it is bad,
you will not get
to hear or read of him the following year.
But because in today's situation, the leaders are elected by board of directors,
they are being directed to direct.So their leadership capability is
controlled and in most
cases I think survival is at the back of their minds, they are more concern
with
"Will I be around next year" rather than to exert their true leadership
qualities.

On the other hand, Management of People, Leadership qualities is only one of the
item.Over here it is Leadership By Example, or what the children used to sing:-
"Monkey see and monkey do".

Regards.
Brian Chan
PS:Charlie this is my second posting, hope my posting is accepted this time.