> > On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, David J. Lemak wrote:
> " . . . I understand what you're trying to get to here, but I still think
it's an
> artificial distinction. If what G&S say is true, then the entire body of
> knowledge we call strategic management has no validity . . .
> If management is equated with maintaining the status quo, nearly every
> firm I can think of is in big trouble, because . . . there just ain't
enough leaders to go >around! . . ."
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. 2) You can tell alot about a person's
interests by how they define leadership.
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?
George Dodge
Texas Tech
Lubbock, Texas
PS. The Abelenians do not go to Buffalo Gap on weekends for catfish; they
come to Lubbock to enjoy the scenery and breathtaking vistas. Lubbockites
go to Buffalo Gap.