Under the influence of this environment, backed by similar literature in most management books, young graduates and managers get totally bewildered and confused. They get easily carried away by these differences between leadership and management and adapt to their self-perceived roles accordingly in their professional lives.
The above arguments are very strongly supported by father of modern management, Peter Drucker who said that Managers have to balance the present against an uncertain and risky future, have to perform for the short-term and make their business capable of performance over the long-term, they have to be administrators, they have to create what is to be, they have to be entrepreneurs, risk-takers and innovators. Hence, the skills in the two columns are not options and cannot be segregated or left out for different people to perform.
In other words, these skills must not be segregated into different columns but put in one column. However, not only misunderstood as different, the segregated concepts are even seen in practice in organizations. Adapted from John Adair , three categories of organizations emerge out of the segregation paradigm Fig-1 : [10]. Where poor organizations see and expect different roles from their people, great organizations demand complete leadership role from every position, at different levels, and expect every manager to act as contributor towards forward movement.
Their managers are not mere administrators, maintainers, controllers, system-oriented and locked to short range perspective, but innovators, developers, people-oriented and far-sighted as well. The result is a complete harmony resulting in a synergetic movement towards great heights. Military world is also under considerable influence of the segregation paradigm.
As said earlier, military world owns Command and Leadership but gives little consideration to Management as being something alien and lower than the other two concepts. Let us look at some perceptions about Command, Leadership and Management in military literature.
Under the influence of the literature like that quoted above, military officers wonder as to what they should do to become good Commanders. Put otherwise, they struggle to determine whether they should be Commanders, Leaders or Managers. Here is where they mostly get confused:. From most literature, it appears that Command is a formal military appointment, which requires directing, motivating and influencing subordinates to achieve a certain mission.
It may be true in a limited sense as one of the meanings of Command is an appointment as head of a Unit, Organization or a Group. Command is authoritarian when it comes to implementation of a plan, and it is not something negative as Selection and Maintenance of the Aim is the chief Principle of War.
It also seems that Leadership is something personal, emotional, moral and qualities-based. It appears that Leadership is still revolving around Trait Theory and later theories either do not exist at all or have failed to prove themselves.
If Leadership is all about emotional sermons, personal charisma, qualities etc. One cannot lead only by inspiration and role modeling, there has to be a strong foundation on which organizations survive and prevail. If we are talking about leadership in an organization, then this inspiration will never come unless it is founded on a compelling vision, rational objective, viable strategy, sound plan, adequate resources, and when people see this strong foundation, only then they agree to work together as a team and only then they let leaders influence them and motivate them.
The literature suggests of Management as mere following and implementing what flows down from top, managing and using resources only to achieve objectives, a real status quo situation.
Everything depends on how you attack the first stone. But the strength of a champion is also this: being able to turn over a new leaf and start from his talent again. Six matches, three goals, five assists to hoist U. Ciancio is Lorenzo the Magnificent again.
And, as the Lord of Florence began the Golden Age of the lilied town, so Ciancio raises the cross-shaped standard to the top of the Region which the unity of Italy sprang from. Because one man only is now in command.
His shirt is black and orange. His name is Lorenzo Ciancio. I counselled him on his actions and his setting a poor example for his men.
About a month later, he came to me wanting to give one of his soldiers an Article 15 for being late to formation. I asked him did he counsel the soldier on his tardiness. The Platoon Leader said no. I asked him if he asked the soldier was there something wrong or was there something happening at home that caused him to be late for formation. Again he said no. I told him to bring the soldier to my office after final formation and that he and his Platoon Sergeant were to present the soldier to me at At the Company First Sergeant and I were sitting in my office to await the soldier and his leadership.
The First Sergeant asked me what I was going to do. I told him was going to provide the soldier and his leadership with additional training.
He began to laugh and said OK, I got to see how this works. I sad Top, I got this one. At the soldier and his leadership knocked on my door. They were 5 minutes late. But this was a good thing because it was a cause and effect to the additional training I was about to enforce. The Soldier and his leadership entered my office and stood in front of my desk at attention.
I continued to look down at some paperwork I had on my desk. Without looking up I ask the Platoon Leader what time it was and he answered I asked him what time I told him to be here and he answered , Sir. The three of them were taken back. And that's fine, but let's not forget that it's not really their call.
Pentagon leaders don't actually have to be in "complete agreement with every component of the president's strategy. NBC's First Read noted yesterday, "Remember the battle cry of some Democrats during some of the darkest days of the Iraq war -- that Bush and Cheney were not listening to the commanders? Well, given where all the military leadership is on this strategy, it is now Obama, the Democrat, who is open to criticism that he is not listening to his commanders.
I understand the political dynamic. In theory, many may like the idea of military decisions being made by military leaders with military expertise. But the American system is designed a specific way for a reason.
Not anyone at the Pentagon. That's exactly right.
0コメント