Recent Posts
- How is Disney beating the odds?
- Strategic Supply Management - Recommended Reading
- ISM Conference in St. Louis - II
- ISM Conference in St. Louis - I
- The ROI of Supplier Recognition
- ISM Conference in St. Louis
- SRM and Supplier Recognition - V
- SRM and Supplier Recognition - IV
- Strategic Sourcing of Information Technology: Part 2 – What Can Be
- Strategic Sourcing of Information Technology: Part 1 – What Sometimes Is
Recent Comments
- wow gold on Transformation Leadership - Part 2
- wow gold on Litmus Test for Market Knowledge
- googleÅÅÃû on The Organization Chart Diversion – Part 1
- wow gold on Welcome to Transformation Leadership - Part 1
- Anthony on SRM and Supplier Recognition - III
Most Commented On
- The Organization Chart Diversion – Part 4 (3)
- Litmus Test for Market Knowledge (2)
- The Organization Chart Diversion – Part 1 (2)
- Transformation Leadership - Part 2 (2)
- Welcome to Transformation Leadership - Part 1 (2)
Archives
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Blog
Leadership versus Management - II
March 4, 2008
One of the very best books on the subject of leadership and management is The Leadership Challenge by Kouzes and Posner. If you have not read it, do so. It is a classic.
The authors outline and elaborate on a five-stage process (five key practices) as shown in the Figure.
FIGURE
1. Challenge the process
a. Search for opportunities
b. Experiment and take risks
2. Inspire a Shared Vision
a. Envision the future
b. Enlist others
3. Enable Others to Act
a. Foster collaboration
b. Strengthen others
4. Model the Way
a. Set the example
b. Plan small wins
5. Encourage the Heart
a. Recognize contributions
b. Celebrate accomplishments
Source: The Leadership Challenge, Kouzes and Posner
The purpose in "challenging the process" is to establish the belief that challenging the status quo is not only acceptable – it is desirable. The idea behind "inspiring a shared vision" is to develop excitement about where the organization is heading, and what management is trying to accomplish. "Enabling others to act" is about providing the support mechanisms that enable employees at all levels to succeed. The idea of "modeling the way" is to illustrate, through appropriate examples and small wins, the behaviors and results desired. And "encouraging the heart" refers to reinforcing the right behaviors and results and demonstrating positive consequences on a personal level.
Clearly, when understood in the above terms, leadership is all about transformation. And, there is a big difference between “leadership” and “administration” or “management.”
My challenge to you: give some thought to the top contenders in the U.S. presidential primaries (Clinton, Obama, McCain). Are any of them leaders? Are any of them managers? Does any one of them possess both skill sets? What specific examples do you have in mind when you answer those questions (e.g. how well they have run their campaign)? If you want to share your answers and your thinking with our readers, please do so by posting a Comment.
More on leadership and management in my next posting.
Posted by Robert A. Rudzki on March 4, 2008 | Comments (2)
In response to: Leadership versus Management - II
Sourcing Manager commented:
Here is one person's view: McCain is not really an inspiring leader, and there is some evidence he is not a good manager (consider his campaign's near-bankruptcy and virtual implosion last year) Clinton doesn't seem to fit the description of a leader, but might very well have good management skills. Obama seems to have the strongest leadership talents, and - if his campaign organization is any indication - may also be a good manager (or knows how to find good managers to be part of the team).
In response to: Leadership versus Management - II
Kelly in Green Bay commented:
Wow, what a great question. I am familiar with 'The Leadership Challenge' and agree that it is a timeless work and applies to more than just business principles. I won't poke fun or rant about any of the contenders. Instead, I will pose a question. When looking at these three campaigns what do you see in their cohesiveness, direction, and strategy? The Clinton group: I see a rather reactionary disorganized group that is dependent upon one (or two) individuals to orchestrate everything. The changes by state are dramatic from crying to attacking her opponent. I believe that this would be an example of Management. It can get the job done only it is not progressive due to limited leadership and input. The Obama group: I see a much steadier and less chaotic plan. In appearance the execution is less reactive and presents a steady and consistent message. This approach would appear to support the view of an overall leader who depends upon others for input which only strengthens his position. The McCain group: To me there has been a dichotomy of manage/lead dymanics. Early on when there were more candidates and pressure he exhibited many of the same characteristics of the Clinton group. Now that he has the republican nomination wrapped up he is much more steady or relaxed. More will be displayed when the gloves are off for the final stretch. In effect, these individuals are in a specific business and competitors in an industry with immediate and specific feedback mechanisms. How they lead will determine their popularity, strategy, and ultimately the success of their 'company'.