Discussion: View Thread

-=> On 01/23/97 23:14, George L Pamental wrote Frank Bell <=-

GLP> If we had reversed the terms 'management' and 'leadership' when we
GLP> first starte d teaching this
GLP> stuff NOTHING WOULD HAVE CHANGED, THE WORLD WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT.

Well said. Too much effort in our field is wasted in semantic games.
We once did an exercise in a leadership program contrasting the "old"
concept of managing with the "new" concept of leading, and it always
struck me as so much hot air. It could just as easily been "bad"
management or leadership vs. "good" management or leadership
(needless to say I didn't write this piece [grin]). (Of course, the
"new" concept of leadership was at least as new as Moses.)

Ultimately, it was a sales piece and nothing more: something to help
the participants get receptive to the course content without telling
them that "everything you know is wrong" and without attacking the
role models they had when they were coming up on the railroad
(mostly autocratic leaders).

The issue here really isn't the label--it's the behavior.


Frank Bell internet: frank.bell@nonamebbs.com
frank.bell@royal.com
Fidonet: Frank Bell@1:150/160



... .neercs eht fo edis gnorw no era uoY
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, FRANK BELL wrote:

> -=> On 01/23/97 23:14, George L Pamental wrote Frank Bell <=-
>
> GLP> If we had reversed the terms 'management' and 'leadership' when we
> GLP> first starte d teaching this
> GLP> stuff NOTHING WOULD HAVE CHANGED, THE WORLD WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT.
>
> Well said. Too much effort in our field is wasted in semantic games.
> We once did an exercise in a leadership program contrasting the "old"
> concept of managing with the "new" concept of leading, and it always
> struck me as so much hot air. It could just as easily been "bad"
> management or leadership vs. "good" management or leadership
> (needless to say I didn't write this piece [grin]). (Of course, the
> "new" concept of leadership was at least as new as Moses.)

If a scientist sets out to get alcohol from corn or potatoes the end
product is likely to be different. One will give you moonshine the other
vodka. A different intial premise will get a different conclusion. If
you start with leadership and place management under it the result would
have been different. Unfortunately, I cannot prove a negative, but if I
were present a hundred years ago, I would have done my darnedest to
discredit a theory that placed management over leadership.

I think it is too easy to dismiss this as a semantic difference. Business
may not appreciate the difference but those of us who do and then attempt
to tease out the distinctive characteristics of a leader or manager are
then marginalized as semanticists by those who are unwilling to understand
the necessity for this process.

Business continually howls about a lack of leadership, yet when someone
trys to clear up the picture they howl about semantical word games and
esoteric and arcane methods.

I'll admit that I do not understand the intracacies of GAP accounting or
cost-benefit analysis, but I will bet that there are some semantics being
played with the column headings of the spreadsheet.

One discipline's semantic's are another's vital details.

______________________
Great Optimism,

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

-=> On 01/25/97 08:04, Dutch Driver wrote Frank Bell <=-

DD> @TO :frank.bell
DD> N #FROM :ddriver@CS1.MCM.EDU (Reply-To: )
DD> N @UMSGID :<Pine.LNX.3.95.970125074408.9100B-100000@cs1.mcm.edu>
DD> N On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, FRANK BELL wrote:

> -=> On 01/23/97 23:14, George L Pamental wrote Frank Bell <=-

DD> I think it is too easy to dismiss this as a semantic difference.
DD> Business may not appreciate the difference but those of us who do and

Business I think truly appreciates the difference, if I may presume
to speak for the commercial world ;>.

Words and what they mean are crucial to our discourse. It is not
lightly that I suggested that much of this discussion seemed to be
over semantic differences.

I agree that there are qualities that differentiate leaders from
followers, visonaries from sticks-in-the-mud, seers from
implementers. That seems to be pretty much accepted. What concerns
me is the tremendous stream of words that have been traded about what
is a leader vs. what is a managers. A says "this is a leader." B
says "I think that can equally be called a manager." C says "the
concept of leader includes manager." D says, "the concept of manager
subsumes leader."

IMO, the issue is further muddied by lack of an accepted, universal
definition of "manager," let alone of "leader" (other than basic
dictionary stuff of "one who ...."). So I see great discussions of the
differences between two concepts in which the two concepts being
discussed are as yet undefined (in the sense of having definitions
agreed to by the participants in the discussion, let along by others
outside of the culture of this mailing list). If we cannot define
the particulars, we certainly can't establish the differences between
them.

I suggest that we call them "Fred" and "Ralph" so we can approach the
definitions without extra baggage. And then focus on the
characteristics or behaviors that Fred and Ralph show. After there's
agreement there, we can argue over labels.

And, you know what, we won't reach agreement there either.
Organizational effectiveness, whether the organization is HMI (Huge
Multinational Incorporated) or Joe's Deli, represents a complex
interplay of the organization's environment, including macro-level
factors such as national and local economies, socio-economical
relationships, and the like; micro-level factors such as the
preferences and behaviors of individual customers (or market
segments, if you prefer); internal organizational dynamics and
relationships, including the background and proclivities of staff,
geography, resources; the age of the organization and the like.

The very qualities that made Stephen Jobs an excellent leader for a
young Apple seem to have made him the wrong leader for a mature (or
at least adolescent) Apple. Henry Ford was truly a visionary, a man
ahead of his time, a great industrial leader. Would he be as
effective today? Who knows, because, even though we might ascribe to
him the same *character* traits as he had at the turn of they
century, we can't know how he would *behave* in an industrial
environment that has changed greatly from the one he knew (though it
might be fun to guess).

DD> Business continually howls about a lack of leadership, yet when
DD> someone trys to clear up the picture they howl about semantical word
DD> games and esoteric and arcane methods.

Moi? (grin)

DD> or cost-benefit analysis, but I will bet that there are some semantics
DD> being played with the column headings of the spreadsheet.

Probably not semantics. Just plain old deception (G).


Frank Bell internet: frank.bell@nonamebbs.com
frank.bell@royal.com
Fidonet: Frank Bell@1:150/160



... Buyer:Fill up my hard drive. Salesmen:You Want Windows!
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30