At 08:51 AM 7/26/99 +0100, you wrote:
>>On 16th, Steve Swan commented:
>>
>>>P.S. -- Management is not leadership.
>>On 20th, Eugene Taurman expanded:
>
>>True "management is not leadership". It requires the right skills for the
>>situation and skills in leading methods and knowledge of the leadership
>>process. All of these skills can be acquired, that is learned. People
>>with
>>more native aptitude and or dedication learn to lead better but anyone
>>can
>>learn the skills and be a better leader. It is not a mystery. It is not
>>charisma but doing the right things for the situation.
>>
>>You are right managers are appointed to a station. Leaders are developed.
>>Most often self developed. Leadership is independent of station >
>Roy Benford asks
>
>Drawing a distinction between management and leadership points towards the
>potential for conflict within a business between a manager appointed by
>the organization's hierarchy and a leader elected, informally, by members
>of a workgroup. How should organizations manage such situations? Should
>managers assert their "right to manage" and hence to lead?
The manager should learn to lead and understand leadership. Other wise he
will have to resort to dictatorial methods and will be likely to lose. We
some managers lose the ability to lead because they have not used the
process and cause splits in their own organization. They even cause
unionization to further split the organization.
Today's employees have choices of who to follow and if the management does
not effectively lead they may lose control.
et
Eugene Taurman
interLinx Consulting
414-242-3345 e-mail ilx@execpc.com
fax 781-459-825
http://www.execpc.com/~ilx
"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure
you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
S.I.Hiyakawa
--Eugene Taurman <ilx@execpc.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>