Discussion: View Thread

Jack Ring

I mostly agree with you but would like you to justify your thoughts that
leadership is part of management.

You say: "I maintain that leadership is a proper subset of managerial
behavior, as is administration. In fact, leadership must be a subset else
the inevitable result of leadership without the other balancing factors of
management appears -- managerless leadership is what generates a cult."

I agree that managerless leadership may generate cult - I call managerless
leadership - visionary leadership - and argue that this type of leadership
may be very dangerous if not constrained by managerial leadership either
because the organization does not have managerial leadership or because the
visionary leader will not accept the advice of managerial leaders.

But back to my first point, would you consider that managing is a subset of
leading and this is why Schwartzkof was a great leader because he was a
leader who understood the necessity of both visionary and managerial
leadership and exercised both at their highest level. A final comment on
balance - if we exercise low visionary and low managerial we have poor
leadership; if we exercise medium visionary and medium managerial we have -
maybe - good leadership but if we exercise both high visionary and high
managerial we have the synergistic combination of visionary and managerial
which I would argue is strategic leadership. The point is that we have
balance all the way along, but we only have strategic leadership when we
have a synergistic combination of both visionary and managerial.

Your thoughts are greatly welcomed,

Glenn


At 10:21 AM 11/11/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>[JR] The most corrosive thing about this Leadership vs. Manager talk is
>that the either-or connotation of "vs." forestalls discovery and hope in
>thousands of human beings.
>

W. Glenn Rowe, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Strategic Management
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, A1B 3X5
709 737 4363
709 739 9148 (H)
709 737 7680 (FAX)

Glen,
I love your views on the interaction between management and
leadership, and how they are most effective when balanced at
their highest extremes. However, I would like to add the
following (and perhaps even get some visionary started on a new
matrix): If you have high visionary but low managerial then you
have someone who is way out in front of the team is responsible
for cleaning up the mess he/she leaves behind. On the other hand,
if you have low visionary and high managerial then you have a
bureaucrat who cares more for systems and processes then for
their maintenance and continued quality improvement.

To me, this is one of the greatest problems with trying to have
one person who is both good leader and good manager.

Having spent 34 years in the Australian Army (just to add another
perspective), Regular and Reserves, it is accepted that there are
those of different ranks with responsibility for either
management or leadership. For example, a Company Commander is
responsible for developing a plan for achieving an objective and
then motivating others to follow when executing the plan.
However, the Company 2IC is responsible for making sure that all
the administration is completed, the stores are requisitioned and
are at the right place at the right time, and that the welfare of
the members is properly looked after. Ditto the Battalion
Commander/2IC, Platoon Commander/2IC and the Section
Commander/2IC.

The problem, as I see it, in private enterprise is that there
isn't a splitting of these responsibilities - that senior
managers are expected to be both leader and manager - and because
of this aren't doing either all that well.

For example, the head of the organisation often gets just as
caught up in industrial issues (especially pay and working
conditions) as he/she does in the strategic or business planning
needs of the group. On the other hand, the head of administration
or personnel is often seen as the leader of a team rather than
the administrator of the organisation and as such is often
ill-prepared for this responsibility.

It is a little like the expert mechanic who is made shop manager
or the top salesperson who is promoted to head the agency. As the
military often shows, without expertise and capability people
will always do what they are best at - whether it is leading or
managing - which is why despite the many thousands of high
ranking officers in the Army, only one was appointed to lead
Desert Storm, or the Bosnian Relief, or East Timor. It is
probably also why Macarthur wasn't as effective a leader as his
press releases led many of us to believe.

Finally, and I know this will open a can of worms, my experience
of the military both before and in the years since Viet Nam
clearly shows that there are some leaders (and followers) who are
absolutely ideal on those occasions when a soldier is needed (ie,
in times of conflict) but, during the many years of peace often
turn out to be an embarrassment. Some call this situational
leadership while others call it functional. Either way it
supports the fact that there is little chance that we are all
going to settle on a definition of the difference between
leadership and management, simply because there are too many
variables to be considered.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Phil Rutherford

Yes, it is done a lot. Universities often have the "C.E.O." or
"Administrative Dean" have responsibility for administration and all
non-curriculum facets, while an "Academic Dean" and the faculty deal with
curriculum.

Don


At 11:05 AM 11/12/99 +1100, you wrote:
>Glen,
>I love your views on the interaction between management and
>leadership, and how they are most effective when balanced at
>their highest extremes. However, I would like to add the
>following (and perhaps even get some visionary started on a new
>matrix): If you have high visionary but low managerial then you
>have someone who is way out in front of the team is responsible
>for cleaning up the mess he/she leaves behind. On the other hand,
>if you have low visionary and high managerial then you have a
>bureaucrat who cares more for systems and processes then for
>their maintenance and continued quality improvement.
>
>To me, this is one of the greatest problems with trying to have
>one person who is both good leader and good manager.
>
>Having spent 34 years in the Australian Army (just to add another
>perspective), Regular and Reserves, it is accepted that there are
>those of different ranks with responsibility for either
>management or leadership. For example, a Company Commander is
>responsible for developing a plan for achieving an objective and
>then motivating others to follow when executing the plan.
>However, the Company 2IC is responsible for making sure that all
>the administration is completed, the stores are requisitioned and
>are at the right place at the right time, and that the welfare of
>the members is properly looked after. Ditto the Battalion
>Commander/2IC, Platoon Commander/2IC and the Section
>Commander/2IC.
>
>The problem, as I see it, in private enterprise is that there
>isn't a splitting of these responsibilities - that senior
>managers are expected to be both leader and manager - and because
>of this aren't doing either all that well.
>
>For example, the head of the organisation often gets just as
>caught up in industrial issues (especially pay and working
>conditions) as he/she does in the strategic or business planning
>needs of the group. On the other hand, the head of administration
>or personnel is often seen as the leader of a team rather than
>the administrator of the organisation and as such is often
>ill-prepared for this responsibility.
>
>It is a little like the expert mechanic who is made shop manager
>or the top salesperson who is promoted to head the agency. As the
>military often shows, without expertise and capability people
>will always do what they are best at - whether it is leading or
>managing - which is why despite the many thousands of high
>ranking officers in the Army, only one was appointed to lead
>Desert Storm, or the Bosnian Relief, or East Timor. It is
>probably also why Macarthur wasn't as effective a leader as his
>press releases led many of us to believe.
>
>Finally, and I know this will open a can of worms, my experience
>of the military both before and in the years since Viet Nam
>clearly shows that there are some leaders (and followers) who are
>absolutely ideal on those occasions when a soldier is needed (ie,
>in times of conflict) but, during the many years of peace often
>turn out to be an embarrassment. Some call this situational
>leadership while others call it functional. Either way it

>supports the fact that there is little chance that we are all
>going to settle on a definition of the difference between
>leadership and management, simply because there are too many
>variables to be considered.
>
>Just a couple of thoughts.
>
>Phil Rutherford
>

unsubscribe broerc4194@uni.edu

> Yes, it is done a lot. Universities often have the "C.E.O." or
> "Administrative Dean" have responsibility for administration and all
> non-curriculum facets, while an "Academic Dean" and the faculty deal with
> curriculum.

> Don


> At 11:05 AM 11/12/99 +1100, you wrote:
> >Glen,
> >I love your views on the interaction between management and
> >leadership, and how they are most effective when balanced at
> >their highest extremes. However, I would like to add the
> >following (and perhaps even get some visionary started on a new
> >matrix): If you have high visionary but low managerial then you
> >have someone who is way out in front of the team is responsible
> >for cleaning up the mess he/she leaves behind. On the other hand,
> >if you have low visionary and high managerial then you have a
> >bureaucrat who cares more for systems and processes then for
> >their maintenance and continued quality improvement.
> >
> >To me, this is one of the greatest problems with trying to have
> >one person who is both good leader and good manager.
> >
> >Having spent 34 years in the Australian Army (just to add another
> >perspective), Regular and Reserves, it is accepted that there are
> >those of different ranks with responsibility for either
> >management or leadership. For example, a Company Commander is
> >responsible for developing a plan for achieving an objective and
> >then motivating others to follow when executing the plan.
> >However, the Company 2IC is responsible for making sure that all
> >the administration is completed, the stores are requisitioned and
> >are at the right place at the right time, and that the welfare of
> >the members is properly looked after. Ditto the Battalion
> >Commander/2IC, Platoon Commander/2IC and the Section
> >Commander/2IC.
> >
> >The problem, as I see it, in private enterprise is that there
> >isn't a splitting of these responsibilities - that senior
> >managers are expected to be both leader and manager - and because
> >of this aren't doing either all that well.
> >
> >For example, the head of the organisation often gets just as
> >caught up in industrial issues (especially pay and working
> >conditions) as he/she does in the strategic or business planning
> >needs of the group. On the other hand, the head of administration
> >or personnel is often seen as the leader of a team rather than
> >the administrator of the organisation and as such is often
> >ill-prepared for this responsibility.
> >
> >It is a little like the expert mechanic who is made shop manager
> >or the top salesperson who is promoted to head the agency. As the
> >military often shows, without expertise and capability people
> >will always do what they are best at - whether it is leading or
> >managing - which is why despite the many thousands of high
> >ranking officers in the Army, only one was appointed to lead
> >Desert Storm, or the Bosnian Relief, or East Timor. It is
> >probably also why Macarthur wasn't as effective a leader as his
> >press releases led many of us to believe.
> >
> >Finally, and I know this will open a can of worms, my experience
> >of the military both before and in the years since Viet Nam
> >clearly shows that there are some leaders (and followers) who are
> >absolutely ideal on those occasions when a soldier is needed (ie,
> >in times of conflict) but, during the many years of peace often
> >turn out to be an embarrassment. Some call this situational
> >leadership while others call it functional. Either way it

> >supports the fact that there is little chance that we are all
> >going to settle on a definition of the difference between
> >leadership and management, simply because there are too many
> >variables to be considered.
> >
> >Just a couple of thoughts.
> >
> >Phil Rutherford
> >