Dear Carter, I meant to imply that you deserved the title of "Professor"
because you knew what you were professing. Gouldner wrote about the myth
of the value free Minotaur many years ago. His point was that academics
bring their values to their research, whether or not they recognized or
acknowledged them. Claerly, I bring my values to these posts. What is
important is that both I and the reader be aware of this so that both of us
are cognizant of inherent biases implicit in any of my posts.
Best, Kim
11:18 AM 4/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Kim Boal states:
>Dear Carter, Lou Pondy once said that until you knew what you were
>willing
>to profess, you did not deserve the title of Professor. I guess you
>qualify.
>
>Carter replies:
>Ouch! I'm not sure how to take that. I thought my message did imply what
>I was "professing". I'll try be more clear in the following. I think
>"leading" and "managing" are highly integrated.
>
>I view the basics of leading as creating (or playing a strong role in)
>creating vision and overall goals, communicating the vision and goals,
>and motivating and guiding others to follow the vision and goals. I'll
>qualify that there are all sorts of associated competencies, e.g.,
>mentoring, coaching, facilitating, delegating, etc. And there are all
>sorts of leadership styles that carry out these basics in different
>ways. And there are all sorts of ways at looking at the dynamics of the
>leading/follower relationship, e.g., one can't be a leader without
>having followers, etc.
>
>I profess that "leading" (in an organization) is one of the major,
>overall functions of management, along with planning, organizing and
>controlling (that last word gets a bad rap lately, in part, because of
>how the word sounds). I recognize that my view is rather traditional.
>However, after 20 years as a practicing leader and manager (I'm not a
>Professor) and after my doctoral research on leadership, I still come to
>the conclusion that leading and managing are highly integrated.
>
>I don't think that (in general) someone can be a truly effective
>organizational leader without competencies in planning, organizing and
>controlling (there's that word again). The problem of Founder's Syndrome
>is very good evidence of that (see
>http://www.mapnp.org/library/misc/founders.htm). I don't think that
>someone can be an effective manager (planner, organizer and controller)
>without skills in visioning, communicating, influencing, motivating,
>etc.
>
>I think the view (myth?) that "leading" is quite separate from
>"managing" is a result, at least in part, from the large amount of
>recent management literature that a) focuses on leadership, b) focuses
>only on executive-level leadership, and c) ignores the necessary
>operational aspects of converting (often very grand) visions to reality.
>I think this literature also spawns the illusion that leadership occurs
>only at the executive levels of management.
>
>In fact, some of the most enlightening experiences I've had about
>leadership has come from experiencing and and learning from first- and
>middle-levels of management. First-level supervisors often show
>tremendous leadership. I hope that management literature and studies
>focus more on this someday.
>
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu