March 11, 2009, 3:16 AM PST | Length: 324
Leadership and management are opposing disciplines. Sometimes the demand is for more vision and inspiration from leader, while other times it's for more measurement and control from managers. But the reality is that the two disciplines cannot work apart. This episode of Sanity Savers for IT executives looks at five ways that leadership and management roles complement and depend on each other.
Appelo writes: [...]the management hierarchy is a simple necessity, and that the bulk of the work is done through a social network of leaders and followers. The leadership network is superimposed on the management hierarchy. Communication and inspiration flow through the network. Authorization and restriction flow through the hierarchy. http://www.whatdoyouwantfromthem.com/members/blog_view.asp?id=566624&post=100146
Very nice. http://itrambling.blogspot.com/
This is interesting. Have had this discussion many times with folks over the years. Also, find some of the points to be a little off. Leadership is the ability to motivate folks and get them in a common direction under a common vision. Management has more to do with keeping all the wheels turning. I good quality manager will be detail oriented and drive home handling the trees. Leaders will motivate and rally the troops to take the whole forest (but may not have the detailed plan of how to take each tree at a time). Finding a good person with high levels of skills in both is very difficult. Finding folks with high levels of skill in either is difficult as well. Unfortunately, based on my experience, many folks end up in management positions that have neither leadership or management skills of any significant level. Many end up there as some sort of rewards for working at a company for a long time. This is unfortunate as many good technical people end up being mediocre managers (meaning you lost a stellar technical person and hired a mediocre manager a lose-lose situation).
the first step in fermininzations thearpy is determining what the individuals wants to achieve at what speed and health considerations may play a factor in progress most individuals had to come to the us for complete fermininzations and desired a meidcal programs that would achieve thier goals quickly while maintain ones good health naturally in day to day practice there are many variations on the theme here are looking at the typical regimens that being complete fermininzation the maxiumum in the shortest period of time the fewest undesirable side-aafetc both physical and emotional when looking at the process achieving female attributes such as breast development fulness in the hips softer texture in the skin etc and ridding oneself of male attributes such as excessive muscalar upper body development body pattens hair loss of scalp beard growth etc cross-section showing creation of neo-vagina in space between ureathra bladdder and rectum move this window adjacent of color graphic of compersion resources for paying for transgender surgery ie breast implants job placement iam experincing discrimination support group network group
I think Jason gets off track when he refers to leadership and management as "opposed disciplines" and implies that they are mutually exclusive. In fact, leaders can be managers and managers can be leaders. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. Instead of supporting an argument for the exclusivity, it might be better to recognize leadership and management as functional requirements. It might also be better to recognize that it is more expedient, effective and efficient when leaders can manage, and managers can lead. Imagine a department being managed by a person who cannot lead, or a corporation being lead by a person who cannot manage. Maybe you don't have to imagine because you have experienced the mayhem these handicapped individuals can create. One should be asking how they got into those positions of responsibility in the first place. I suggest that promoting managers that cannot lead, and ascribing to leaders that cannot manage contributes to a great deal of the inefficiency and bloat within organization. Let's not look at these as separate disciplines, but as functional requirements for a single individual who holds a position of greater responsibility. Good management can lead, and good leadership can manage. Separating the two provides mediocre leadership and mediocre management.
I see that many leaders get confused about their role and the role of their managers. Although the leaders are leaders (and should know better??) they conflate the management and the leadership roles: allowing managers to think of themselves as "leaders", and allowing themselves the leaders to think of the managers also as leaders. I must confess that I was confused on this issue for many years and had not made the distinction that leaders lead - and that managers manage, implement, (and provide grounding for??) that which the leader has thought up.
You don't have to be in management to demonstrate leadership. Unfortunately, you don't have to have leadership skills to become a manager.
Surely we should be talking about Managerial Leadership not about Management versus Leadership? In my experience the two are synonymous. Peter Moyes
The analysis was spot on, the caveat being the manager must be competent and buy into the leaders' vision. Too many managers are mireed in the minutae and fail to see the big picture. Or worse cynically dismiss the vision as so much poppycock or pie in the sky thereby sabotaging the whole effort.
The dynamics of management and leadership is a complex topic. These are two different type of qualities that an individual would poses.