Nov
25

Is leadership more than management? Or is just an aspiration?

Filed Under (GainMore Advantage, Leadership, articles) by johnkenworthy on 25-11-2009

There is a debate we need to address, and that is the distinction between leadership and management.

Chris Mabey suggests that seperating the qualities of leaders and managers is traced back to Zaleznick (1977). Kotter (1990) reinforced this distinction, that:
good management brings order, consistency and quality to otherwise chaotic organisations
Contrasting this with leadership which is preparing the organisation for change and helping employees cope with the struggle of changing it.

But now

  • Organisations are ‘de-layered’ – the defined functions of “management” are less absolute and a manager’s power base of influence has had to shift from positional power to personal.
  • The traditional theories (theory X etc) and frameworks are seen to be lacking and more emergent leadership rather than prescribed.
  • Management and leadership has been greatly studies form a western, male perspective – this is changing
    • The split may simply be part of the aspirational values attached to leadership over management. Though it appears that effective and successful leaders, according to our research demonstrate five competency areas that go beyond ‘management’. They:
    1. Use the exchange principle
    2. Take responsibility
    3. Earn the right to lead
    4. Communicate a shared vision
    5. Show flexibility in their leadership

    Mapping the ‘traditional’ managerial competencies shows how ‘agile’ leaders go beyond the expected managerial standards:

    agile_leadership
    Is there a difference bewteen leadership and management?
    Is it just aspirational?
    Or is there something important that is missing here?
    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
    May
    18

    From good to great to grim (reaper)

    Filed Under (Attitude and Alignment, Leadership, Talent, Vision, articles) by johnkenworthy on 18-05-2009
    3D Team Leadership Arrow Concept
    Image by lumaxart via Flickr

    In How the Mighty Fall, Jim Collins makes a case for why the fall of previously great companies does not negate prior research:

    The principles in Good to Great were derived primarily from studying specific periods in history when the good-to-great companies showed a substantial transformation into an era of superior performance that lasted fifteen years. The research did not attempt to predict which companies would remain great after their fifteen-year run. Indeed, as this work shows, even the mightiest of companies can self-destruct.

    Leading Blog: A Leadership Blog @ LeadershipNow: Confusing Principles and Approaches.

    This should serve as a reminder, less that leadership research and the desire to stand by principles of good practice but there are three stages in the lives of leaders.

    Great leaders and great companies begin as risk takers – they will push the boundaries and challenge the status quo. When the ‘fire in the belly’ is diminished and we rest on our laurels, we be come care takers os our business. This is especially true of any business or leader whose praises are sung from the pages of books, magazines, television or even movies. Soon follows the third stage of course, the role of under taker.

    The day you or your business is identified as an example of excellence – be it a quote in a book, the cover of a magazine or a TV appearance is the day you need to sit up and take notice, forge ahead, learn from the past success and change.

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
    Jan
    29

    The thesis that kick started the GAINMORE Advantage

    Filed Under (Leadership, Simulations, articles) by johnkenworthy on 29-01-2008


    DBA Thesis – Effectiveness of Simulations for developing managerial competencies – Get more Business Documents

    Related articles by Zemanta
    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]