To some extent this debate on "leadership" vs. "management" raises a
universal question, one that is mostly subjective and, therefore, virtually
impossible to reach complete agreement on -- and that is the question of
"boundary." We've seen boundary questions applied to lots of other
management topics and concepts, such as organization development (e.g.,
what is OD? how is OD different from management development?),
entrepreneurship (e.g., what is an entrepreneur? how is entrepreneurship
different from small business?), and organizational behavior (e.g., what is
OB? how is OB different from I/O psychology and HRM?), to mention just a
few. I recall that Bob Kahn (Michigan) once said of OD, "The more I do it,
the less I understand it" because of it's "fuzzy" boundary. Consequently,
we find dozens of conflicting definitions of OD in the literature. Same
for "leadership" and "management" (and also "supervision").
Still the best statement I've ever read on boundary questions was written
by Bill Starbuck, in his chapter on "Organizations and Their Environments"
in the original HANDBOOK OF INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY,
edited by Marv Dunnette. Starbuck's chapter attempts to distinguish
between an organization and its environment by using a clever metaphor of
being in an airplane that's flying into a cloud. From a distance,
passengers on the airplane can see the cloud ahead and say that they are
clearly "outside" the cloud; and as the plane flies through the cloud there
is some point where the passengers can clearly say that they are "inside"
the cloud. But as they both enter and leave the cloud, as they are within
the hazy boundary of the cloud, it is difficult for any of them to say
precisely where they are, because they are simultaneously within and
outside the cloud -- or, stated differently, they are neither fully within
nor fully outside the cloud. Starbuck then goes on to say that
organizations are like clouds, such that some people (e.g., sales reps)
will function primarily at the organization's boundary and are, therefore,
in "boundary spanning" positions. For example, we might all agree that
Bill Gates is clearly within the boundary of Microsoft, but where would we
place, say, Bill Clinton or Bill Scott or the Buffalo Bills into that
picture? Would we all place them outside that boundary and, therefore,
within Microsoft's environment?
The point that Starbuck makes and that is relevant to this discussion of
"leadership" vs. "management" is that boundaries are inevitably imprecise,
such that at the boundary of any two concepts it is difficult to say where
we are. To the followers of the Ohio State Leadership Studies,
"leadership" has to do with a particular "style" of behavior that can be
learned. But to contingency theoriests (e.g., Fiedler, Graen), these
"leadership" patterns depend upon situational variables. But to others
(e.g., Bennis, Drucker), "leadership" is distinctly different from
"management" and it cannot be taught.
For me personally, I like the distinction Steve Kerr made some years ago,
when he said "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a
duck, then it's a duck." Thus, by this way of thinking (and as Forrest
Gump might phrase it), "leadership is as leadership does." Those people
who do what any one of us takes as the defining characteristics of
"leadership" would be "leaders." Same for "management" and "managers."
Best,
Larry Pate
University of Wisconsin-Madison
At 09:18 AM 4/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Michael Schwartz wrote:
>
>> It is said that the difference between the leader and the dreamer is
>> that
>> when the leader looks behind him/her people are following.
>
>The Devil is making me beat this long suffering horse. You set me up
>this completely, I have to say something!
>
>John Kenneth Galbraith once said (paraphrasing slightly), that the most
>successful politician was the one who waited quietly by the side of the
>street, and then jumped out just in front of the parade as it was coming
>along, so that he could lead the crowd, which ever way it was going.
>
>The 'he' in there is a sign of the contemporary time.
>
>Is such a person, who finds the parade to 'lead,' a leader?
>
>Some individuals express a personality which makes people glad to
>follow, glad to take high or low level direction. They map for us a
>vision we can sign on to. A vision of a future we think is worth
>current sacrifice. A vision containing inducements that we like well
>enough to make ourselves motivated. We feel good doing things we might
>not otherwise appreciate, because we link them with the inducements. We
>willingly shovel out behind the cows so we can have the evening off at
>the barn dance.
>
>Sometimes we discover the vision doesn't come. Sometimes we find their
>vision is not what we heard. Or even that the vision is not all we
>thought it would be. Yet even this old cynic still hungers for a vision
>he can adopt, for a dreamer of substance.
>
>The discussion on this thread has pushed 'management' into
>administration (dismissable, bad), and elevated 'good' management to
>leadership (noteworthy, laudable). An artificial, subjectively
>perceptual based dichotomy if I ever heard one.
>
>Let's see if we can get some terms back to something more than one
>person can agree on. Robert Persig, in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
>Maintenance, said that "Quality" could not be defined. (he later did
>make a good try, but the early development is applicable here). Thus,
>he could point to examples only.
>
>If we are to find a sound expression of 'leadership' and
>'administration' within 'management,' then let's compile a mess of
>examples of each, then see what common items sit within most of them.
>That's how rigor is done, gang. The few people I would call leaders
>have not achieved national notice, so it would appear that one would
>have to dig deeply to find such people across the USA (if I may be so
>parochial). Tom Peters got a book and career out of searching for
>excellence. Perhaps one of you can do the same by looking for
>leadership. I don't have the assured income base from which to work.
>
>Jay
>--
>Jay Warner
>Principal Scientist
>Warner Consulting, Inc.
>4444 North Green Bay Road
>Racine, WI 53404-1216
>USA
>
>Ph: (414) 634-9100
>FAX: (414) 681-1133
>email:
quality@a2q.com
>web:
http://www.a2q.com
>
>Power to the data!
>