Discussion: View Thread

David J. Lemak <dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU> wrote:

>>... If management is equated with
maintaining the status quo, nearly
every firm I can think of is in
big trouble, because (if you followed
some previous discussion on MBAs) there
just ain't enough leaders to go around!...<<

Why would a leaderless firm be in trouble if nearly every firm
lacked leadership? If nearly all firms are in the same position--
lack of leadership--then no firm has the advantage thus they are
not in trouble. However, the few companies with effective leaders
have a distinct advantage over competing companies that do not.

If 2.5% of companies have effective leaders (that is what I hear
from sources) then there appears to be hope for the other 97.5%.
In other words, the 97.5% will battle for business among themselves
while wondering how it is that the other 2.5% are so successful
never realizing the difference is leadership. After awhile the
companies with leaders may run out of leaders and become part
of the 97.5%.

If leaders were not hard to find, we would not be discussing the
need to create leaders in B-Schools.

A book review from the Managers Book Shelf:
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/bklist.htm)

[THE MANAGERIAL MYSTIQUE, Restoring Leadership
In Business, Dr. A. Zaleznik, Perennial Library,
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1989, 279 pages
in paperback.

This book addresses why managers do what they
do. Dr. Zaleznik describes and illustrates the
differences between managers and leaders. Of
great significance is how managers and leaders
advance in their careers. Managers general do
not take chances and seldom allow themselves
to fail. Leaders on the other hand will try,
fail, and try again while learning from each
mistake.

This one difference helps explain why management
is so reluctant to change, i.e., risk a failure,
--there are too few leaders and too many managers.

Managers enforce rules and procedures whereas the
leaders asks questions like; "What should we be doing?",
"Where are we headed?" and "How do we get there?".
The difference is very important because managers
will ensure that we get to where we are headed
but we may not want to be there when we get there.]

I agree that "there just ain't enough leaders to go around!"

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Bob Gately wrote:

> David J. Lemak <dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU> wrote:
>
> >>... If management is equated with
> maintaining the status quo, nearly
> every firm I can think of is in
> big trouble, because (if you followed
> some previous discussion on MBAs) there
> just ain't enough leaders to go around!...<<
>
> Why would a leaderless firm be in trouble if nearly every firm
> lacked leadership? If nearly all firms are in the same position--
> lack of leadership--then no firm has the advantage thus they are
> not in trouble. However, the few companies with effective leaders
> have a distinct advantage over competing companies that do not.

This assumes that leadership is the only source of competitive advantage.
I think we would all agree that 'leadership' (whatever that it is) is only
one of a myriad of potential sources of competitive advantage.

> If 2.5% of companies have effective leaders (that is what I hear
> from sources) then there appears to be hope for the other 97.5%.
> In other words, the 97.5% will battle for business among themselves
> while wondering how it is that the other 2.5% are so successful
> never realizing the difference is leadership. After awhile the
> companies with leaders may run out of leaders and become part
> of the 97.5%.

What's an "effective leader"? Perot was at EDS but he was a bust at GM.
Same guy, same attributes, same personality. In one context he's a
"leader", in another he's not. I think you're trying to hold something
constant here that is not a constant. You again assume here that
leadership is the sole determining factor of success (something else we
have yet to define). I respectfully disagree.

> If leaders were not hard to find, we would not be discussing the
> need to create leaders in B-Schools.

I see no such need. I think B-schools should provide business knowledge
and hone (what I call) business skills - writing, speaking (in front of a
group) and working effectively in teams. Trying to "create leaders" is
fruitless. If we found that formula, your 2.5% above would quickly swell
to 100% because everyone would teach it!


> A book review from the Managers Book Shelf:
> (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/bklist.htm)
>
> [THE MANAGERIAL MYSTIQUE, Restoring Leadership
> In Business, Dr. A. Zaleznik, Perennial Library,
> Harper & Row, Publishers, 1989, 279 pages
> in paperback.
>
> This book addresses why managers do what they
> do. Dr. Zaleznik describes and illustrates the
> differences between managers and leaders. Of
> great significance is how managers and leaders
> advance in their careers. Managers general do
> not take chances and seldom allow themselves
> to fail. Leaders on the other hand will try,
> fail, and try again while learning from each
> mistake.

And perhaps destroying the company? Jobs at Apple comes to mind (after the
arrival of Scully). The stock market does not reward failure. It wasn't
all that long ago that Donald Burr was still getting 10K a pop to tell how
he messed up People's Express. That may be career advancement, but it
didn't do much for the employees and stockholders. Recall that Burr and PE
was going to be the new model for the airline industry, a great leader,
etc. etc. What happened? Did he lose his leadership skills some where
along the line? If so why?

> This one difference helps explain why management
> is so reluctant to change, i.e., risk a failure,
> --there are too few leaders and too many managers.

So we need more leaders so we have more failures so we learn more?

> Managers enforce rules and procedures whereas the
> leaders asks questions like; "What should we be doing?",
> "Where are we headed?" and "How do we get there?".
> The difference is very important because managers
> will ensure that we get to where we are headed
> but we may not want to be there when we get there.]

But what if they're wrong and this just another mistake to which the
company has to learn from? Sorry, I still think the distinction between
leaders and managers is artificial and certainly without any empirical
support, but darn, it sounds soooo good. But hey, that description also
applies to Maslow's hierarchy of needs and we still teach that in
B-schools!

> I agree that "there just ain't enough leaders to go around!"

Whatever a "leader" is! ;-)

> Bob
>
> +----------------------------+
> | Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
> +----------------------------+-----------------------+
> | GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
> | 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
> | Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
> | http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
> +----------------------------------------------------+
>

(Hello David)

David J. Lemak <dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU> wrote:

>>... This assumes that leadership is the
only source of competitive advantage....<<

No, just a very important one and if a company doesn't have it
they are at a competitive disadvantage to the ones that do have it.

>>... What's an "effective leader"?
Perot was at EDS but he was a bust at GM ...<<

I agree. That is a point I have been trying to make--what
works in one place may fail in another.

>>... Same guy, same attributes, same personality...<<

Yes, but different situations or cultures.

>>... I think you're trying to hold something
constant here that is not a constant...<<

Not at all, the only thing that is constant is change.

>>... You again assume here that
leadership is the sole determining
factor of success (something else we
have yet to define). I respectfully disagree...<<

No, I suggest that whatever leadership is, it is not learned in B-school.

>>... I see no such need...<<

I agree with you, however some people have been talking about
how to create leaders in B-school.

>>... I think B-schools should provide
business knowledge and hone...business skills...<<

I agree again.

>>... Trying to "create leaders" is fruitless...<<

I agree again. Maybe the best we can hope for is to help leaders
build their knowledge and develop skills so they can be more effective.

>>... If we found that formula,
your 2.5% above would quickly swell
to 100% because everyone would teach it!...<<

I agree again. There is no formula, therefore if you want
leaders, hire employees with leadership traits and train
them for the position.

>>... What happened? Did he lose his
leadership skills some where along
the line? If so why? ...<<

Some leaders are poor business people.
B-School can help these people improve.

>>... So we need more leaders so we
have more failures so we learn more? ...<<

No, we need more leaders to help the managers plot the
course. Leaders do not operate in a vacuum nearly as
often much as managers.

>>... the distinction between leaders
and managers is artificial and certainly
without any empirical support, but darn,
it sounds soooo good...<<

Are you saying that a manager in one place may be leader
in another place? I may agree with that, but I do think
leadership and management are not one in the same that
is why we have two words.

>>... But hey, that description also
applies to Maslow's hierarchy of needs
and we still teach that in B-schools! ...<<

Trouble with Maslow may be that managers never know
where their people are in the hierarchy?



Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Bob, some good points here, let me see if I can respond.

On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Bob Gately wrote:

> (Hello David)
>
> David J. Lemak <dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU> wrote:
>
> >>... This assumes that leadership is the
> only source of competitive advantage....<<
>
> No, just a very important one and if a company doesn't have it
> they are at a competitive disadvantage to the ones that do have it.

Again, I have to ask, where's the empirical evidence? Intuitively it makes
sense, but how many of the CEOs in the top 50 of the Fortune 500 are
"leaders"? Intuition is a shakey foundation upon which to build
generalizations and/or prescriptions.

> >>... What's an "effective leader"?
> Perot was at EDS but he was a bust at GM ...<<
>
> I agree. That is a point I have been trying to make--what
> works in one place may fail in another.
>
> >>... Same guy, same attributes, same personality...<<
>
> Yes, but different situations or cultures.
>
> >>... I think you're trying to hold something
> constant here that is not a constant...<<
>
> Not at all, the only thing that is constant is change.

But you're helping make another of my points - if leadership is
everything, then it's nothing.

> >>... You again assume here that
> leadership is the sole determining
> factor of success (something else we
> have yet to define). I respectfully disagree...<<
>
> No, I suggest that whatever leadership is, it is not learned in B-school.
>
> >>... I see no such need...<<
>
> I agree with you, however some people have been talking about
> how to create leaders in B-school.

And that's what prompted me to start in on this discussion at the outset.
And, why I think Dutch is on the right track - put this art-form in the
liberal arts where it belongs, not in social science or B-schools. It's
akin to the drunkards search. A drunk is looking around to find his keys
which he dropped on the street. A passerby offers to help, and inquires
where he had been earlier. The drunk replies "two blocks over". The passer
by asks, so why doesn't he begin the search there. The drunk replies
"because the light is better over here."

> >>... If we found that formula,
> your 2.5% above would quickly swell
> to 100% because everyone would teach it!...<<
>
> I agree again. There is no formula, therefore if you want
> leaders, hire employees with leadership traits and train
> them for the position.

And just what are those traits? Looking for traits leads you to trying to
figure our what Hitler and Martin Luther King had in common. I'm afraid
that the answer to that one is so broad that it is not of much practical
value. Even if you could do what you suggest, given your earlier comment
that the only thing that's constant is change, then that "leader" will
only be effective for a limited amount of time until the situation
changes. Then what do you do? Hire another "leader" with different traits?

> >>... What happened? Did he lose his
> leadership skills some where along
> the line? If so why? ...<<
>
> Some leaders are poor business people.
> B-School can help these people improve.

But what if they turn them into (gasp!) managers?!

> >>... So we need more leaders so we
> have more failures so we learn more? ...<<
>
> No, we need more leaders to help the managers plot the
> course. Leaders do not operate in a vacuum nearly as
> often much as managers.

But what if it's the wrong course? And what makes you think managers
operate in a vacuum? The problem I have with statements like that is that
they are not grounded in any empirical evidence.

> >>... the distinction between leaders
> and managers is artificial and certainly
> without any empirical support, but darn,
> it sounds soooo good...<<
>
> Are you saying that a manager in one place may be leader
> in another place? I may agree with that, but I do think
> leadership and management are not one in the same that
> is why we have two words.

No, but if forced into a distinciton, I'm agreeing with Fayol that
leadership is one (and only one) aspect of managing.

> >>... But hey, that description also
> applies to Maslow's hierarchy of needs
> and we still teach that in B-schools! ...<<
>
> Trouble with Maslow may be that managers never know
> where their people are in the hierarchy?

No, the problem is that they have nothing to draw on (theoretically or
emprically) to help them come to that knowledge.

Enjoyed it as always,
Dave

George,
You make me jealous - we get our fill of salmon up here, but Texas-style
catfish is but a fond memory! More substanive stuff below.
Regards,
Dave

On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, George E. Dodge wrote:

> Dave,
> Perhaps there is both a little leader and manager in those people that
> are responsible for operating firms. My feelings are that 1) there is no
> resolving the debate over the difference between the two; it is a debate
> over definitions and definitions are a matter of apriori agreement. Why
> not call it managerial leadership.

Sure we can do that, but it doesn't help in terms of the key problems of
defintion and construct validity.

2) You can tell alot about a person's
> interests by how they define leadership.

True, and their experiences, education, etc. etc. - all precisely we
cannot define define leadership as a unique construct. So, let's
concentrate on the stuff we can teach, and leave the leadership
stuff to the individual.

About your last sentence above, would you consider those who manage
> defenders (in the Miles and Snow sense) or those 'stuck in the middle' (in
> the Porterian sense) to be managers or leaders?

An insightful analogy, but one I hesitate to tackle, because we start
mixing levels of analysis. As you know, both the Miles and Snow and Porter
typologies are macro concepts, and, I think, you start to lose something
in the translation bringing them down to the individual/group (i.e., micro
level). Still, you may be onto an idea for an AMR piece here!

Tough luck on your B-ball team - I would have enjoyed seeing them in the
big dance. My daughter's alma mater is in there (albeit, a 16 seed) - SW
Texas St.

Regards,
Dave

David J. Lemak <dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU> wrote:

>>... where's the empirical evidence? ...<<

That leadership is important? We either have leadership or
something that passes as leadership. Either way someone
sets the course.

>>... how many of the CEOs in the
top 50 of the Fortune 500 are "leaders"? ...<<

Would have to see their behavior. People who have leadership
positions may or may not be leaders--far too many of them are
managers promoted to their level of incompetence.

>>... Intuition is a shakey foundation
upon which to build generalizations
and/or prescriptions...<<

That is why so many new hires are less than successful employees--
the hiring manager relies on his or intuition, i.e., gut feel.

>>... But you're helping make another
of my points - if leadership is everything,
then it's nothing...<<

No, leadership is determined by the behavior of the person's
followers. If the people do not follow, there is little or no
leadership. Yes, dictators can get people to do what they say,
but that is not leadership.

>>... put this art-form in the liberal
arts where it belongs, not in social
science or B-schools...<<

Not a bad idea.

>>... I'm afraid that the answer to that one is
so broad that it is not of much practical value...<<

Our clients say the same thing at the beginning, but they quickly
grasp the value of hiring people who are predisposed to behave
like a leader--it is the best way to develop leaders.

>>.... Even if you could do what you suggest...<<

Our clients do what I suggest.
,
>>... given your earlier comment that the only
thing that's constant is change, then that "leader"
will only be effective for a limited amount of time
until the situation changes...<<

Not really, we need to identify job applicants who are more likely
to be challenged by change than threatened by change.

>>... But what if they turn them
into (gasp!) managers?! ...<<

Leaders who know how to manage well are still leaders but with
better management skills.

>>... But what if it's the wrong course? ...<<

Everyone can make mistakes, but I suggest that the more we know about
what it is we want to do the less likely we are to set the wrong course.

>>... And what makes you think
managers operate in a vacuum? ...<<

Managers do not operate in a vacuum, but then again, that does not
mean they will behave counter to their personality. Many consultants
and B-School professors seem to believe that knowledge is all that
is needed to change students into managers and leaders--it isn't
nearly enough.

>>... The problem I have with statements
like that is that they are not grounded
in any empirical evidence...<<

I suppose, but after observing the work place for over 30 years I
lean towards behavior as the most important component of leadership.
Without the right behavior the best we can hope to become is an
effective manager.

>>... No, but if forced into a distinction,
I'm agreeing with Fayol that leadership is
one (and only one) aspect of managing...<<

Anointed or appointed into management does not a leader make.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Bob, last round, I promise!

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Bob Gately wrote:

> David J. Lemak <dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU> wrote:
>
> >>... where's the empirical evidence? ...<<
>
> That leadership is important? We either have leadership or
> something that passes as leadership. Either way someone
> sets the course.

No, that leadership is the sole or even the most important attribute of a
firm's success in the marketplace.

> >>... how many of the CEOs in the
> top 50 of the Fortune 500 are "leaders"? ...<<
>
> Would have to see their behavior. People who have leadership
> positions may or may not be leaders--far too many of them are
> managers promoted to their level of incompetence.

If getting to the top 50 is rising to a level of incompetence, sign me up.

> >>... Intuition is a shakey foundation
> upon which to build generalizations
> and/or prescriptions...<<
>
> That is why so many new hires are less than successful employees--
> the hiring manager relies on his or intuition, i.e., gut feel.

But that's precisely how you suggest firms pick their potential "leaders"!

> >>... But you're helping make another
> of my points - if leadership is everything,
> then it's nothing...<<
>
> No, leadership is determined by the behavior of the person's
> followers. If the people do not follow, there is little or no
> leadership. Yes, dictators can get people to do what they say,
> but that is not leadership.

But they follow! So what is the difference between a dictator and leader
if followers follow in both cases? Especially if the dictator (Welsh
at GE comes to mind) is effective?


> >>... I'm afraid that the answer to that one is
> so broad that it is not of much practical value...<<
>
> Our clients say the same thing at the beginning, but they quickly
> grasp the value of hiring people who are predisposed to behave
> like a leader--it is the best way to develop leaders.

If they are already behaving like leaders, what's to develop?

> >>... given your earlier comment that the only
> thing that's constant is change, then that "leader"
> will only be effective for a limited amount of time
> until the situation changes...<<
>
> Not really, we need to identify job applicants who are more likely
> to be challenged by change than threatened by change.

But you said earlier that leaders are only effective in certain
situations (using Perot as but one of many examples). So which is it?
Leaders can lead in any situation, or only in certain situations?

> >>... But what if they turn them
> into (gasp!) managers?! ...<<
>
> Leaders who know how to manage well are still leaders but with
> better management skills.

Meaning, by your earlier defintion of managers, a person without vision,
who can only do routine things.

> >>... But what if it's the wrong course? ...<<
>
> Everyone can make mistakes, but I suggest that the more we know about
> what it is we want to do the less likely we are to set the wrong course.

And that takes knowledge, and that what B-schools are about!

> >>... And what makes you think
> managers operate in a vacuum? ...<<

Sorry, I was just quoting you here.

> Managers do not operate in a vacuum, but then again, that does not
> mean they will behave counter to their personality. Many consultants
> and B-School professors seem to believe that knowledge is all that
> is needed to change students into managers and leaders--it isn't
> nearly enough.

Then what is needed. Experience? ok, I agree to some extent, but then
we're back to the role of intuition, which you have already discounted.
The problem with the school of hard knocks is first you get the test, then
you get the lesson.


> >>... The problem I have with statements
> like that is that they are not grounded
> in any empirical evidence...<<
>
> I suppose, but after observing the work place for over 30 years I
> lean towards behavior as the most important component of leadership.

And many OB types agree - the problem is that they can't agree on what the
appropriate behaviors!

> Without the right behavior the best we can hope to become is an
> effective manager.

And be stuck at the top of the Fortune 500.


> >>... No, but if forced into a distinction,
> I'm agreeing with Fayol that leadership is
> one (and only one) aspect of managing...<<
>
> Anointed or appointed into management does not a leader make.

Anointed or appointed into leadership does not manager make (ask any
second lieutenant)

Regards,
Dave

To Dave and BOB

>>>... No, but if forced into a distinction,
>I'm agreeing with Fayol that leadership is
>one (and only one) aspect of managing...<<
>
>Anointed or appointed into management does not a leader make.
>

The above was part of your conversation recently, I reiterate that we need
to consider that managing is part of leadership NOT that leading is part of
management.

Glenn

W. Glenn Rowe
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
709 737 4363
709 737 7999 (Fax)

ASAC 97 is being held in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada from May 31 to
June 3, 1997. St. John's is the oldest city in North America and is only 8
miles west of Cape Spear, the most easterly point of North America. Come
join us at ASAC 97 and help us celebrate the 500th anniversary of the
arrival of John Cabot to Newfoundland in 1497.

David J. Lemak <dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU> wrote:

>>... No, that leadership is the sole
or even the most important attribute
of a firm's success in the marketplace...<<

I agree since only a few percent of businesses have leaders at the helm.

>>... If getting to the top 50 is rising to
a level of incompetence, sign me up...<<

That is a typical reaction--lets get to the top whether or not
we are well-suited to be at the top and we wonder why so many
businesses are stuck with poor leadership.

Since there are only 50 people at the top of those 50 companies
I think they irrelevant. There are millions of managers in the US
and to hold up 50 positions as a sign of success falls too short.
Where are the other 10,000,000 managers going to go?

>>... But that's precisely how you
suggest firms pick their potential
"leaders"! ...<<

Since you may be unaware of the technology I will only say that you
are incorrect.

>>... But they follow! ...<<

No wonder we are having difficulty discussing leadership--you seem to
confuse coercive actions with voluntary actions. An armed robber
can make us do many things but no one would argue that the armed
robber was exercising leadership.

>>... So what is the difference
between a dictator and leader if
followers follow in both cases? ...<<

According to your definition none, according to my definition there
is a world of difference.

>>... Especially if the dictator
(Welsh at GE comes to mind) is effective? ...<<

I know something about him, but I do not know many who know him
except an MBA classmate who speaks very highly of him. Like I said
above, few companies have leaders at the helm and many people in
positions of leadership are not leaders.

>>... If they are already behaving
like leaders, what's to develop?...<<

How many companies that you know will let a 25 year old lead the
company without first gaining the experience necessary? Leadership
ability does not mean having the specific knowledge nor skill it
only means they are capable of functioning as a leader.

>>... So which is it? Leaders can
lead in any situation, or only in
certain situations? ...<<

It all depends on who is being lead. I may follow Leader A and
not Leader B and you may follow Leader B and not Leader A. The
point is that one size does not fit all.

>>... Meaning, by your earlier definition
of managers, a person without vision,
who can only do routine things...<<

Or someone who does not want to lead or someone who is not able
to lead or someone who enjoys managing and not leading. What is
the problem? Everyone is different;

1 - some people want to lead
2 - some people don't want to lead
3 - some people are capable of leading
4 - some people are incapable of leading
5 - some people are capable of leading but are in category 2.

The most troubling category for me is #1 combined with #4--there are
many non-leaders who want the personal fortune, fame and power that
#3 deserves.

>>... And that takes knowledge,
and that what B-schools are about!...<<

We already agreed on this.

>>... Then what is needed. Experience?
ok, I agree to some extent...<<

What do you mean by some extent?

>>... but then we're back to the
role of intuition, which you have
already discounted...<<

We all have various degrees of intuition. I trust that a CEO with
40 years of experience will have better intuition than a 22 year old
college drop out. Our intuition is based on our life experiences, our
education and our knowledge it isn't a personality trait that
remains unchanged we age.

>>... The problem with the school of
hard knocks is first you get the test,
then you get the lesson...<<

I recommend that employees be educated in the areas for which
they are hired. We seldom learn the best way of doing something
by trial and error. Too many tries and too many errors. We should
learn first from the mistakes of others, then by our mistakes.

>>... And many OB types agree -
the problem is that they can't
agree on what the appropriate behaviors!...<<

It is not that hard--ask the employees and you will quickly learn
what are the appropriate and inappropriate behaviors of their managers.
The trouble is, of course, getting employees to be totally frank. Most
subordinates of ineffective managers do not trust management
sufficiently to risk openness.

>>... And be stuck at the top of the Fortune 500. ..<<

Not too bad I agree, but "stuck" may well be the right word if after
you get there it is not nearly as much fun nor as rewarding as you had
hoped. There are tens of millions of managers so I think using
Fortune 500 companies as a model is not helpful since it applies
to so few people.

>>... Anointed or appointed into leadership
does not manager make (ask any second lieutenant)...<<

So we agree that when we appoint a manager to leadership position
it does not make him a leader and if we appoint a leader to a
management position it does not make him manager. Eureka, then we
agree that managing and leading are two different activities?

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Glenn Rowe <growe@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA> wrote:

>>... managing is part of leadership NOT
that leading is part of management...<<

We can manage without leading, but it is very hard to lead
without managing. That is why B-school is so important to
leaders--it can provide the knowledge and skills necessary
to improve the leaders management skills. Unfortunately,
B-Schools are unlikely to turn a manager into a leader by
imparting knowledge and skills alone.

Bob

Glenn,
Sorry, I'm only quoting Fayol. What's your theoretical underpinning for
the opposite position?
Regards,
Dave

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Glenn Rowe wrote:

> To Dave and BOB
>
> >>>... No, but if forced into a distinction,
> >I'm agreeing with Fayol that leadership is
> >one (and only one) aspect of managing...<<
> >
> >Anointed or appointed into management does not a leader make.
> >
>
> The above was part of your conversation recently, I reiterate that we need
> to consider that managing is part of leadership NOT that leading is part of
> management.
>
> Glenn
>
> W. Glenn Rowe
> Faculty of Business Administration
> Memorial University of Newfoundland
> St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
> 709 737 4363
> 709 737 7999 (Fax)
>
> ASAC 97 is being held in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada from May 31 to
> June 3, 1997. St. John's is the oldest city in North America and is only 8
> miles west of Cape Spear, the most easterly point of North America. Come
> join us at ASAC 97 and help us celebrate the 500th anniversary of the
> arrival of John Cabot to Newfoundland in 1497.
>

David

Don't apologize for quoting Fayol. He has contributed muchly to our
understanding of management theory.

My position is based on the thinking I have done in the past 5 years about
this concept of leadership and why I was so uncomfortable as an undergrad
(68-73), MBA (83-86) and doctoral student(92-96) with the idea of leading
being a part of the broder context of management. In addition, I think
about leadership from the perspective of strategic management. From this
perspective we need to be concerned with the long-term viability of an
organization and the short-term financial survival of the organization.
When we view the CEO/COO positions in a firm, the CEO (the ultimate power
centre in an organization) is responsible for both but spends the majority
of his/her time on the long-term strategic issues while delegating the
managing of the day-to-day to the COO. I view leadership at the top of an
organization as consisting of managerial-type leadership, visionary-type
leadership and strategic leadership. Managerial type leaders concern
themselves exclusively with the day-to day ops while visionary types concern
themselves only with long-term issues. The strategic leaders are a
synergistic combination of the managerial and visionary with the visionary
being more dominant. I believe that many firms are led by the managerial
type because this is what most managers are comfortable with and have been
trained and educated to do. Our business programs on average graduate
specialists who take one course that tries to show how a firm operates as a
whole. Then they go into careers that exacerbate their specialist knowledge
and then eventually they are selected to be the COO and then the CEO and we
expect them to be strategic leaders but their whole career has trained to be
managers. Note that I am speaking of the emphasis that they will use in
making their decisions.

Again, I am basing my thoughts on my own understanding of having had the
privilege of commanding ships in the Canadian Navy and the academic study of
leadership I have been subjected to both from an OB perspective ( the Fayol
perspective) and a strategic perspective. I am more comfortable with the
latter and consider that we may be able to better develop a measurable
construct when we view leadership as subsuming management. The development
of this construct is the research project I would like to pursue over the
next several years if I can stop being the administrator that my strategic
leadership skills have gotten me into being.

Your further thoughts are very much appreciated as I struggle towards an
understanding of this very important concept.

Glenn




At 11:46 AM 3/11/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Glenn,
>Sorry, I'm only quoting Fayol. What's your theoretical underpinning for
>the opposite position?
>Regards,
>Dave
>
>On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Glenn Rowe wrote:
>
>> To Dave and BOB
>>
>> >>>... No, but if forced into a distinction,
>> >I'm agreeing with Fayol that leadership is
>> >one (and only one) aspect of managing...<<
>> >
>> >Anointed or appointed into management does not a leader make.
>> >
>>
>> The above was part of your conversation recently, I reiterate that we need
>> to consider that managing is part of leadership NOT that leading is part of
>> management.
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>> W. Glenn Rowe
>> Faculty of Business Administration
>> Memorial University of Newfoundland
>> St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
>> 709 737 4363
>> 709 737 7999 (Fax)
>>
>> ASAC 97 is being held in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada from May 31 to
>> June 3, 1997. St. John's is the oldest city in North America and is only 8
>> miles west of Cape Spear, the most easterly point of North America. Come
>> join us at ASAC 97 and help us celebrate the 500th anniversary of the
>> arrival of John Cabot to Newfoundland in 1497.
>>
>

W. Glenn Rowe
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
709 737 4363
709 737 7999 (Fax)

ASAC 97 is being held in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada from May 31 to
June 3, 1997. St. John's is the oldest city in North America and is only 8
miles west of Cape Spear, the most easterly point of North America. Come
join us at ASAC 97 and help us celebrate the 500th anniversary of the
arrival of John Cabot to Newfoundland in 1497.

Glenn,
Very well said - you did it much better than I. Again, my main
point is that the lack of construct validity makes 'teaching leadership'
problematic because it lacks the attribute of uniqueness. Any marketing
class will teach the "4 Ps" and any marketing professor knows what that is
and what to expect from students in advanced marketing classes in terms of
background knowledge. OB classes teaching leadership can go off into any
number of directions, all with face validity backed up with only anecdotal
evidence. Given that, why not provide B-students the knowledge and skills
we know they'll need in the workplace, and let them figure what leadership
means to them, individually? Like you, I've both the academic training
and 20 years in the Air Force to help me wrestle with this issue.
Actually, some colleagues of mine at the Air Force Academy wrote a book
titled "Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience" (Hughes, Ginnet
and Curphy, Irwin Publishing) that fits in very nicely with your thoughts
below. You may want to look it over. Thanks for your contribution.
Regards,
Dave


On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Glenn Rowe wrote:

> David
>
> Don't apologize for quoting Fayol. He has contributed muchly to our
> understanding of management theory.
>
> My position is based on the thinking I have done in the past 5 years about
> this concept of leadership and why I was so uncomfortable as an undergrad
> (68-73), MBA (83-86) and doctoral student(92-96) with the idea of leading
> being a part of the broder context of management. In addition, I think
> about leadership from the perspective of strategic management. From this
> perspective we need to be concerned with the long-term viability of an
> organization and the short-term financial survival of the organization.
> When we view the CEO/COO positions in a firm, the CEO (the ultimate power
> centre in an organization) is responsible for both but spends the majority
> of his/her time on the long-term strategic issues while delegating the
> managing of the day-to-day to the COO. I view leadership at the top of an
> organization as consisting of managerial-type leadership, visionary-type
> leadership and strategic leadership. Managerial type leaders concern
> themselves exclusively with the day-to day ops while visionary types concern
> themselves only with long-term issues. The strategic leaders are a
> synergistic combination of the managerial and visionary with the visionary
> being more dominant. I believe that many firms are led by the managerial
> type because this is what most managers are comfortable with and have been
> trained and educated to do. Our business programs on average graduate
> specialists who take one course that tries to show how a firm operates as a
> whole. Then they go into careers that exacerbate their specialist knowledge
> and then eventually they are selected to be the COO and then the CEO and we
> expect them to be strategic leaders but their whole career has trained to be
> managers. Note that I am speaking of the emphasis that they will use in
> making their decisions.
>
> Again, I am basing my thoughts on my own understanding of having had the
> privilege of commanding ships in the Canadian Navy and the academic study of
> leadership I have been subjected to both from an OB perspective ( the Fayol
> perspective) and a strategic perspective. I am more comfortable with the
> latter and consider that we may be able to better develop a measurable
> construct when we view leadership as subsuming management. The development
> of this construct is the research project I would like to pursue over the
> next several years if I can stop being the administrator that my strategic
> leadership skills have gotten me into being.
>
> Your further thoughts are very much appreciated as I struggle towards an
> understanding of this very important concept.
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
> At 11:46 AM 3/11/97 -0800, you wrote:
> >Glenn,
> >Sorry, I'm only quoting Fayol. What's your theoretical underpinning for
> >the opposite position?
> >Regards,
> >Dave
> >
> >On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Glenn Rowe wrote:
> >
> >> To Dave and BOB
> >>
> >> >>>... No, but if forced into a distinction,
> >> >I'm agreeing with Fayol that leadership is
> >> >one (and only one) aspect of managing...<<
> >> >
> >> >Anointed or appointed into management does not a leader make.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The above was part of your conversation recently, I reiterate that we need
> >> to consider that managing is part of leadership NOT that leading is part of
> >> management.
> >>
> >> Glenn
> >>
> >> W. Glenn Rowe
> >> Faculty of Business Administration
> >> Memorial University of Newfoundland
> >> St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
> >> 709 737 4363
> >> 709 737 7999 (Fax)
> >>
> >> ASAC 97 is being held in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada from May 31 to
> >> June 3, 1997. St. John's is the oldest city in North America and is only 8
> >> miles west of Cape Spear, the most easterly point of North America. Come
> >> join us at ASAC 97 and help us celebrate the 500th anniversary of the
> >> arrival of John Cabot to Newfoundland in 1497.
> >>
> >
>
> W. Glenn Rowe
> Faculty of Business Administration
> Memorial University of Newfoundland
> St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
> 709 737 4363
> 709 737 7999 (Fax)
>
> ASAC 97 is being held in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada from May 31 to
> June 3, 1997. St. John's is the oldest city in North America and is only 8
> miles west of Cape Spear, the most easterly point of North America. Come
> join us at ASAC 97 and help us celebrate the 500th anniversary of the
> arrival of John Cabot to Newfoundland in 1497.
>

Bob,
My repy to Glenn's post pretty well sums up my position. While I think
you've made some very good points, you haven't tackled either of the two
critical issues, construct validity and definiton.

Just for fun, let me ask anyone on the list to simply post a defintion of
"leadership". Any takers?

Regards,
Dave

On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Bob Gately wrote:

> David J. Lemak <dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU> wrote:
>
> >>... No, that leadership is the sole
> or even the most important attribute
> of a firm's success in the marketplace...<<
>
> I agree since only a few percent of businesses have leaders at the helm.

But many, many more firms than that are successful. My point above was
that success is determined by many factors of which leadership is but one
(and maybe not even a major one).

> >>... If getting to the top 50 is rising to
> a level of incompetence, sign me up...<<
>
> That is a typical reaction--lets get to the top whether or not
> we are well-suited to be at the top and we wonder why so many
> businesses are stuck with poor leadership.

If one is not well suited to be at the top (whatever that means), how did
one get there? And if firms are stuck with poor leadership but employees
have jobs to provide for their families and the stockholders are
increasing their wealth, what's wrong with being "stuck"?

> Since there are only 50 people at the top of those 50 companies
> I think they irrelevant. There are millions of managers in the US
> and to hold up 50 positions as a sign of success falls too short.
> Where are the other 10,000,000 managers going to go?

Good point! This is precisely the reason that Fayol offers for not
offering profit sharing to top management (not bad thinking for 1916) - it
is impossible to draw a causal link from the actions of top management to
the performance of the firm. Thus, by your own logic, 'leadership' is not
relevant at this level!



> >>... But they follow! ...<<
>
> No wonder we are having difficulty discussing leadership--you seem to
> confuse coercive actions with voluntary actions. An armed robber
> can make us do many things but no one would argue that the armed
> robber was exercising leadership.
>
> >>... So what is the difference
> between a dictator and leader if
> followers follow in both cases? ...<<
>
> According to your definition none, according to my definition there
> is a world of difference.

Guilty as charged - I was just pulling your chain on the notion that
followers were the penultimate measurement of leadership.

> >>... Especially if the dictator
> (Welsh at GE comes to mind) is effective? ...<<
>
> I know something about him, but I do not know many who know him
> except an MBA classmate who speaks very highly of him. Like I said
> above, few companies have leaders at the helm and many people in
> positions of leadership are not leaders.
>

Oops, so not everyone thinks he's a leader - so who's right? Who decides?


> >>... So which is it? Leaders can
> lead in any situation, or only in
> certain situations? ...<<
>
> It all depends on who is being lead. I may follow Leader A and
> not Leader B and you may follow Leader B and not Leader A. The
> point is that one size does not fit all.

But then how can A and B both be leaders? What if 100 people follow A and
10 follow B? A is the better leader? But what if B's group performs
better? This is precisely the kind of inconclusive discussion one is left
with when there is no precise definition of the construct or pheonomon
under examination.

> >>... Meaning, by your earlier definition
> of managers, a person without vision,
> who can only do routine things...<<
>
> Or someone who does not want to lead or someone who is not able
> to lead or someone who enjoys managing and not leading. What is
> the problem? Everyone is different;
>
> 1 - some people want to lead
> 2 - some people don't want to lead
> 3 - some people are capable of leading
> 4 - some people are incapable of leading
> 5 - some people are capable of leading but are in category 2.
>
> The most troubling category for me is #1 combined with #4--there are
> many non-leaders who want the personal fortune, fame and power that
> #3 deserves.

How is it that #3 "deserves" anything? The marketplace will reward those
who succeed based on performance. If someone is capable but doesn't
perform s/he doesn't "deserve" anything. Give me the manager who performs
over the "leader" on the sideline any time.

>
> >>... Then what is needed. Experience?
> ok, I agree to some extent...<<
>
> What do you mean by some extent?

Neither knowledge nor experience is a necessary and sufficient condition
for success. It takes both to be successful over the long term.


> >>... but then we're back to the
> role of intuition, which you have
> already discounted...<<
>
> We all have various degrees of intuition. I trust that a CEO with
> 40 years of experience will have better intuition than a 22 year old
> college drop out. Our intuition is based on our life experiences, our
> education and our knowledge it isn't a personality trait that
> remains unchanged we age.

I agree, but again, I think you're changing your position from what you
said earlier, or I misunderstood you. As they say on Wall Street, if
you've spent years developing your instincts, why not trust them?


> >>... The problem with the school of
> hard knocks is first you get the test,
> then you get the lesson...<<
>
> I recommend that employees be educated in the areas for which
> they are hired. We seldom learn the best way of doing something
> by trial and error. Too many tries and too many errors. We should
> learn first from the mistakes of others, then by our mistakes.

I agree, and that is one big reason we use the case study method in
B-schools.

> >>... And many OB types agree -
> the problem is that they can't
> agree on what the appropriate behaviors!...<<
>
> It is not that hard--ask the employees and you will quickly learn
> what are the appropriate and inappropriate behaviors of their managers.
> The trouble is, of course, getting employees to be totally frank. Most
> subordinates of ineffective managers do not trust management
> sufficiently to risk openness.

Good point, trust is an ongoing problem in modern organizations. Would you
agree that what is appropriate behavior changes over time? This makes the
manager's job that much tougher because the rules keep changing.

> >>... And be stuck at the top of the Fortune 500. ..<<
>
> Not too bad I agree, but "stuck" may well be the right word if after
> you get there it is not nearly as much fun nor as rewarding as you had
> hoped. There are tens of millions of managers so I think using
> Fortune 500 companies as a model is not helpful since it applies
> to so few people.

Not if count employees and shareholders!

> >>... Anointed or appointed into leadership
> does not manager make (ask any second lieutenant)...<<
>
> So we agree that when we appoint a manager to leadership position
> it does not make him a leader and if we appoint a leader to a
> management position it does not make him manager. Eureka, then we
> agree that managing and leading are two different activities?

Sure we can, but I can define management!

Thanks, Bob. In one sense, I think I spent too much time here, but our
conversation has really prompted me to rethink some ideas I haven't
thought long and hard about in some time. I will take this debate to the
classroom as well. I appreciate your sharing your ideas. Good luck.

Dave

Couldn't agree with you more. I guess the fundamental questions that I
struggle with is....Can leaders be developed or are leaders just born that
way? Discouraging that there are so very few people in our organizations
with any real leadership capacity. However, most of our organizations today
don't really encourage or reward leadership behaviors either. True leaders
are often viewed as eccentric in the typical business environment.
Additionally, most organizations still value compliance (regardless of what
they profess) over innovative and creativity.

Nancy

Nancy Probst <NProbst261@AOL.COM> wrote:

>>... Can leaders be developed or
are leaders just born that way? ...<<

Leaders are either born that way or learn the right behavior at a
very early age. Leadership is really about behaviors and those behaviors
must be exhibited all the time not just when the leader wants people to
follow--a common mistake of managers who play the role of leader.

Leadership can be learned, but it cannot be taught. Yes, people who
have leadership traits can be helped to improve their skills. Some
people who have leadership traits are not interested in leading and
still others may not want to work at improving their leadership skills.

Young leaders are hard to find, but easy to ignore if their message is
unpleasant to the older, less wise, non-leader managers.

>>... Discouraging that there are so
very few people in our organizations
with any real leadership capacity...<<

Do we know they don't have the ability or have we so conditioned our
employees not to exhibit leadership since it is not rewarded and
quite often punished?

>>... most of our organizations today
don't really encourage or reward
leadership behaviors either...<<

Most organizations probably lose their best employees, i.e., future
leaders, before the employees turn 30 years old.

>>... True leaders are often viewed as
eccentric in the typical business environment...<<

I tend to think that employees with leadership abilities are seen
as threats by the older, non-leadering managers who do not want to
be moved out of their comfort zone.

>>... most organizations still value
compliance (regardless of what they
profess) over innovative and creativity...<<

Yes, organizations filled with managers quite often value the
status quo very highly. Some of the most non-innovative and
non-creative managers know the leadership talk,
they just cann't walk it.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Can somebody please tell me how to remove my name from the server. It's
very interesting but I don't have time for it now and I haven't been able to
remove myself. HELP!

Bob,
We're really getting much closer to agreeing on this stuff - pretty scary!
Dave

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Bob Gately wrote:

> Hello Dave:
>
> >>... The problem is that folks in
> companies don't like to admit that
> there are insiders and outsiders...<<
>
> Do you mean within the company? If yes, I agree.

Yes, and that's why Graen's stuff isn't all that popular. But
nevertheless, I think it's useful because, in my humble opinion, one
shortcoming of the leadership literature is assuming that all leaders
share the same characteristics - clearly they don't. The beauty of Graen's
model is pointing out that same fallacy with regard to the followers. That
they too are all alike - clearly they are not. But, every leadership model
I've seen assumes they are.


> >>... I don't want to quantify it, I just
> want to define it so I can measure it
> and find out if someone has it, or
> the potential for it...<<
>
> There are certain behaviors that may be common among leaders in
> similar positions. In other words, a leader in a college or
> university setting may be different from a leader in a
> factory setting. The secret is not to develop a one size
> fits all definition of leadership but rather to develop
> a definition that depends on the setting.

I agree. I've been a contingency theorist for a long time. That is why I
focus on teaching a common set of skills - communication, teamwork, etc.
and leave the exact defintion of leadership to the individual.

> >>... People have to be taught to recognize leadership? ...<<
>
> Yes, if a manager does not know what constitutes leadership he is
> free to use whatever methods he can muster to make people do what
> it is we they should be doing.

So what's wrong with that. In fact, might that not be yet another
defintion of "leadership"?

> >>... Even it works? ...<<
>
> If all we care about is people doing as they are told, when they
> are told and in the manner they are told then a dictatorial manner
> may work, however, we really should hire employees who thrive under
> that arrangement.

True, but isn't that precisely what the military does? And don't most of
the well known examples of "leaders" come from the military? On the
civilian side, that is precisely how Ross Perot built EDS into the world
class company that it is today.



> >>... I'm off to Phoenix to watch some baseball ...<<
>
> I hope you have a great time!

Thanks, I did!

Dave

>

David J. Lemak <dlemak@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> wrote:

>>... We're really getting much closer
to agreeing on this stuff - pretty scary!...<<

But are we alone?

>>... one shortcoming of the leadership literature is
assuming that all leaders share the same characteristics
- clearly they don't...<<

That is a common problem throughout the business community. Managers,
not leaders. often behave as if people are the same.

>>... The beauty of Graen's model is pointing out
that same fallacy with regard to the followers...<<

Yes, different people follow different leaders for different reasons.

>>... I focus on teaching a common set of
skills - communication, teamwork, etc. and
leave the exact definition of leadership
to the individual...<<

>>... might that not be yet another
definition of "leadership"? ...<<

Yes, if the situation requires it, but too many of us only behave one
way and if given an inch we will take a mile.

>>... isn't that precisely what the military does? ...<<

I don't think so.

>>... And don't most of the well known examples
of "leaders" come from the military? ...<<

Yes, but that may be due to the universality of the coverage. Not
many us are aware of the leadership activities that occur in out
of the way places or companies. We read what is reported upon.

>>... On the civilian side, that is
precisely how Ross Perot built EDS
into the world class company that it is today...<<

Yes, the situation may well have required his hand, but did he
create the situation that then demanded his actions?

Bob

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Bob Gately wrote:

> David J. Lemak <dlemak@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>... We're really getting much closer
> to agreeing on this stuff - pretty scary!...<<
>
> But are we alone?

I think so - time to solve another of the world's problems?

> >>... one shortcoming of the leadership literature is
> assuming that all leaders share the same characteristics
> - clearly they don't...<<
>
> That is a common problem throughout the business community. Managers,
> not leaders. often behave as if people are the same.

I understand your distinction here, but if what you contend here is true,
then, by definition, all leaders follow a contingency approach, and I
don't see how you can make that case. The whole notion that someone can be
a leader in one context or organization and not be successful in another
is precisely because they behave the same way in both contexts. There are
many, many examples - MacArthur before and after Inchon, Perot at EDS and
GM, Jerry Tarkanian (sp?) at UNLV but failing miserably in the NBA, Iaocca
leaving Ford, but being successful at Chrysler. The list is endless.
Having said that, if your contention is that all leaders SHOULD be
contingency oriented, then I heartily concur.

> >>... isn't that precisely what the military does? ...<<
>
> I don't think so.

Did that for 20 years, trust me, they do that!

> >>... And don't most of the well known examples
> of "leaders" come from the military? ...<<
>
> Yes, but that may be due to the universality of the coverage. Not
> many us are aware of the leadership activities that occur in out
> of the way places or companies. We read what is reported upon.

True, thus the need for systematic, empirical, social science research
which allows to generalize to most situations - none of which can be
accomplished if the theory building and construct validity problems aren't
solved first! (sorry, I couldn't resist - you left a theoretical "hanging
curve ball' out over the center of the conceptual home plate)



> >>... On the civilian side, that is
> precisely how Ross Perot built EDS
> into the world class company that it is today...<<
>
> Yes, the situation may well have required his hand, but did he
> create the situation that then demanded his actions?

You've stated a tautology - nothing I can do with that.

Regards and ready for opening day (I'll be at Fenway next month)
Dave