CAP Members' Input Sought on Corporate Governance

[Al Sayre]

You lead people, you manage equipment and processes...

[ol'fido]

And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.

[CAP_truth]

Amen Al.

[PHall]

And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.

Which is a BIG problem at the big corperation (AT&T) that I work at.
And it seems that the "managers" have the edge on the "leaders" because they know how to "manage" their numbers to look good for the big boss.

[NIN]

And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.

I told a guy once in a job interview "My management style? I prefer to manage by leadership than to lead by management."

He was like "wow, I never thought of it like that before."

LOL.

[ol'fido]

And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.

Which is a BIG problem at the big corperation (AT&T) that I work at.
And it seems that the "managers" have the edge on the "leaders" because they know how to "manage" their numbers to look good for the big boss.

These kind of people are worried about themselves first, last, and always. They never get it through their heads that if they take care of their people, their people will accomplish the mission, and make them look even better. They all read the "Book of the Five Rings", the "Art of War for Managers", buy a set of Katana swords, use buzz words and the word "paradigm" a lot, and think they are samurai warrior leaders.

[PHall]

And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.

Which is a BIG problem at the big corperation (AT&T) that I work at.
And it seems that the "managers" have the edge on the "leaders" because they know how to "manage" their numbers to look good for the big boss.

These kind of people are worried about themselves first, last, and always. They never get it through their heads that if they take care of their people, their people will accomplish the mission, and make them look even better. They all read the "Book of the Five Rings", the "Art of War for Managers", buy a set of Katana swords, use buzz words and the word "paradigm" a lot, and think they are samurai warrior leaders.

Doesn't help that us "worker drones" are protected by the union (CWA) while the managers are "employed at will", i.e. your boss gets a wild hair, you're gone.
So yeah, there is a lot of CYA going on in the Management world.

[lordmonar]

And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.

Which is a BIG problem at the big corperation (AT&T) that I work at.
And it seems that the "managers" have the edge on the "leaders" because they know how to "manage" their numbers to look good for the big boss.

These kind of people are worried about themselves first, last, and always. They never get it through their heads that if they take care of their people, their people will accomplish the mission, and make them look even better. They all read the "Book of the Five Rings", the "Art of War for Managers", buy a set of Katana swords, use buzz words and the word "paradigm" a lot, and think they are samurai warrior leaders.

I love the "manager" vs "leader" fights......and you know....you are both wrong.

Yep.

A leader who can't manage......is a failure.
A manager who can't lead is a failure.

The balance of the two is based on the situation.

It is called situational leadership.

[Eclipse]

In a lot of cases, "managers" are not hired to be "leaders" in the sense that the word is used here.

Managers are generally hire to herd the cats and work the processes provided by those who are actually hired to
be leaders.  An entire corporation where everyone in the chain was expected to be a "leader" would be a cacophony
of noise with no direction.

That's part of the problem today - everyone is taught that their opinion is "equal", regardless of experience or their place in the
universe.  You have to be a follower first to ever become a great leader, and sometimes your lot in life is follower, period.

[ol'fido]

And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.

Which is a BIG problem at the big corperation (AT&T) that I work at.
And it seems that the "managers" have the edge on the "leaders" because they know how to "manage" their numbers to look good for the big boss.

These kind of people are worried about themselves first, last, and always. They never get it through their heads that if they take care of their people, their people will accomplish the mission, and make them look even better. They all read the "Book of the Five Rings", the "Art of War for Managers", buy a set of Katana swords, use buzz words and the word "paradigm" a lot, and think they are samurai warrior leaders.

I love the "manager" vs "leader" fights......and you know....you are both wrong.

Yep.

A leader who can't manage......is a failure.
A manager who can lead is a failure.

The balance of the two is based on the situation.

It is called situational leadership.

First off, edit your post. "A manager who can lead is a failure." Second, I never said a leader didn't have to have managerial skills. That they do is obvious. What we are trying to point out is the trend of of many "managers"( you may insert any supervisory title you wish to here) to substitute managerial skills for leadership. As a matter of fact, most successful leaders are very detail oriented when it comes to the managerial side of things. But they also know when to put this down for the moment(s) in order to lead their people. A leader who can't manage time, organize, plan, and work the logistics is not going to get a chance to lead very often because he will be reacting not acting. On the other hand, many "managers" tend to treat their people as if they are a time punch card.

[Eclipse]

I disagree - history has shown that a lot of good leaders were "big picture" people who surrounded themselves
with good managers who worried about the details.

Steve Jobs, for instance, was a visionary and a great leader in that he could inspire people to his vision.  He has a notorious
reputation as being a horrible boss and manager.

Leaders are strategic, managers are tactical.  Rare is the person who can be both, consistently, and all plans fail without
both mentalities.

[lordmonar]

Maybe it is just me.......I think part of the problem is terminology.

Define:  Leadership.....the art and science of getting a group of people to accomplish a mission/task/goal.

A leader....must have managment....the organisational, bean counting, stratigic vision.....skills.....AND motivaitonal....team building, reward finding, coachin....skills to be sucessful.

Leadership is leadership is leadership......no matter what level you are at.......because leadership is SITUATIONAL.  How you use the tools of leadership will be different based on the situation.

Leading a two man fire team is differnt then leading a two man construction crew.....and both are these are differnt then running a corporation or a country.

But......they are all leaders.

[keystone102]

Ned,

How soon will we hear about the June BOG meeting? I'm curious about any progress on the Corp. Goverance issue.

[Ned]

Ned,

How soon will we hear about the June BOG meeting? I'm curious about any progress on the Corp. Goverance issue.

The BoG is not meeting this month (except for the Audit Committee which is meeting telephonically tomorrow).  We moved our summer meeting to coincide with the NB meeting in Baltimore.  Governance is on the front burner.  Governance wonks should find it very interesting.

[keystone102]

Thanks for replying. I guess I'm a wonk.