Possibly the most impractical and unhelpful – not to mention annoying – “insight” of the past several decades was the “discovery” that management and leadership are different – so much so, in fact, as to be essentially incompatible individual functions. Of course, they are also supposed to be unequal, with leadership superior to management. And thus the modern leadership movement, with its members champions in their various incoherent ways of the individual leader, was born.
The movement’s definitions and prescriptions, as we have noted, are constantly changing, always slipping through our grasp. But do we take that as evidence of their lack of substance? Of course not.
I recently read a piece acknowledging that there is no agreement among the many differing definitions of leadership. The author resolved this by gliding with effortless illogic to the conclusion that it means that there are many “facets” to leadership. How about that? Whatever mirror you choose to gaze into in Lake Woebegone, you will be assured that you are the fairest of all.
The notion of leadership as a separate individual characteristic or function from management – and a superior one, at that – continues easily to survive, even to thrive on such stupefyingly insubstantial foundations; clear evidence of the great seductive power of the concept. It is not evidence, however, of its veracity.
Here are some of my assertions regarding this:
- Leadership is not superior to management.
- Rather, the overriding function necessary to the successful operation of an organization is management. It comprehends – contains – (most of) the functions of leadership.
- Management can be argued to be superior to leadership in this sense, but that, too, is a distinction with no valuable, actionable meaning in this context. The issue is simply that most functions of leadership are best viewed as falling under the general duties of management.
- Leadership is of strategic importance, but so are several other management functions; there is no practical value in inflating the role or importance of leadership at all, much less with respect to other functions. The issue is merely to do the work, of which leadership is a part.
- There are certain elements of leadership that, strictly speaking, do not belong to management; but they don’t belong to a distinct class of special beings called “leaders,” either – they belong to owners. Yet, for all the importance of those elements and, even, their irreplaceable role in the genesis of the purposeful organization, they are essentially prosaic in prosecution.
We will attempt to cover these points – the heart of the current discussion, intended to address challenges presented previously by commentators – over the next two days. I do hope you will stop in and offer your own opinions!
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of clarity of comprehension in complex and highly-charged circumstances, Bruce Weinstein, who offers a regular Business Week column under the heading of “The Ethics Guy,” has recently published a two-part discussion of the ethical issues involved in viewing and dealing with downsizing – a topic of growing visibility, recently. This is a carefully considered and presented effort, and I am happy to recommend it. Please do stop over to see the installments for assessing the issue both from the perspective of managers, and from that of employees.
—
Did you know you can click on the green “Share This” icon below and uplink this post to any of the major social content sites, or email it to your friends and colleagues – give it a try right now!
And, while you’re at it, don’t forget to subscribe, and encourage your friends and colleagues to do so, as well!
—
Technorati Tags: management, leadership, leader, operation, owner, Bruce Weinstein, Business Week, The Ethics Guy, downsizing, manager, employee
Sphere: Related Content
