Management and Leadership Sites?

[JC004]

What sites do you like as resources for management and leadership topics?  I'd say HBR, among others, but I was going to see if I could put together a list here.

[jimmydeanno]

http://managingleadership.com/blog/

[Briski]

Check this one out:
http://leadership.au.af.mil/index.htm

Pretty sure I have more links somewhere, but that's the best resource I can recommend for now.

[JC004]

Check this one out:
http://leadership.au.af.mil/index.htm

Pretty sure I have more links somewhere, but that's the best resource I can recommend for now.

That is one of my favorites.  I have spent many hours there.  Excellent share for people here.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The first thing I clicked on was the "Glory" study plan. I stopped reading after the whole "chechen commander" bit.

Complete rubbish.

6. What leadership style do you think works best in combat?  A matter of debate, however, most leaders believe that it is a combination of both styles as the situation dictates.  It would seem logical that while in combat following directional orders works best—up to the point the individuals need to make on the spot decisions on how to proceed with the "big picture" orders.  For example, the example in the paper, last paragraph about observations of a Chechen commander:

A Chechen commander was killed. On his body was a diary that compared fighting the US with fighting Russians. He noted that when you take out the Russian leader, the units stops and mills about, not sure of what to do next. But he added that when you take out a US leader, somebody always and quickly takes his place with no loss of momentum. A squad leader goes down, it may be a private that steps up to the plate before they can iron out the new chain or command. And the [darn] thing is that the private knows what the hell he is doing.

[davidsinn]

The first thing I clicked on was the "Glory" study plan. I stopped reading after the whole "chechen commander" bit.

Complete rubbish.

6. What leadership style do you think works best in combat?  A matter of debate, however, most leaders believe that it is a combination of both styles as the situation dictates.  It would seem logical that while in combat following directional orders works best—up to the point the individuals need to make on the spot decisions on how to proceed with the "big picture" orders.  For example, the example in the paper, last paragraph about observations of a Chechen commander:

A Chechen commander was killed. On his body was a diary that compared fighting the US with fighting Russians. He noted that when you take out the Russian leader, the units stops and mills about, not sure of what to do next. But he added that when you take out a US leader, somebody always and quickly takes his place with no loss of momentum. A squad leader goes down, it may be a private that steps up to the plate before they can iron out the new chain or command. And the [darn] thing is that the private knows what the hell he is doing.

Why is it rubbish? US military leadership training emphasizes carrying on with the mission and sharing information with subordinates while Russian doctrine is still tainted by Soviet top down trust no-one command style.

[Майор Хаткевич]

When was the last US action in Chechnya?

[davidsinn]

When was the last US action in Chechnya?

Never. Perhaps he was a Soviet "advisor" for another country in the past. Perhaps he has observed our military in action. Perhaps he was merely repeating an anecdote. I have heard similar anecdotes in the past. Just because the logic is not apparent doesn't mean it's worthless.

[N Harmon]

http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/