Introducing the Leader/Manager: No. 5 - Leading, Managing - People and Task
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Wednesday 27 August 2008 |
Going back to the Peter Farey's Leader/Manager Framework, we see that in general: 
Activities 'above the line' (leadership) suggest an enthusiasm for the new, the radical, the revolutionary. They indicate a desire to be first, unique, to look outside and beyond current constraints; to challenge what exists already, what is 'reasonable', what 'cannot be done'.
Those 'below the line' (management) on the other hand represent a wish to achieve what is wanted and improve what exists already. They are about maintaining stability while making things better, faster, cheaper, smoother. They seek to be more efficient, cost/effective, systematic; to get more from what is currently available and possible.
Activities on the left (task) side of the line indicate a prime concern for production and output. They show particular interest in objectives, goals, priorities, results. They seek to meet targets, timescales and standards.
On the right (people) side, they display more of a concern for others; an interest in people, relationships with them, and a concern for what they think, believe and - perhaps most of all - about how they feel.
It can be seen that by combining these preferences, four main types of behaviour can be described, one for each of the four quadrants. 
Task leadership - providing a purpose and single-mindedly pursuing it
People leadership - inspiring people to follow enthusiastically
Task management - organizing what has to be done to achieve it
People management - making full and satisfactory use of people's abilities.
Of course in each case, it is possible to have either too little or too much of a good thing! The power of the model to discriminate is suggested by the figure... wait for it...!
(Excerpted from The Leader/Manager Guide © Peter R. Farey. To be continued).
[more]Labels: 360 Facilitated, 360 feedback, Leadership |
posted by Dr Ron @ 10:43  |
|
| 4 Comments: |
-
You imply that leadership and management are mutually exclusive and that good managers cannot be good leaders and vice versa. You do a disservice to both.
To quote a post I recently read that fits this case -"Yep, here we go again, espousing the simpleton attitude that manager=bad, leader=good. Anyone read 'First Break All the Rules?', 'Good To Great', or 'Execution'? If not, buy them all and read them now and you'll forever be rid of this pox of consultant-speak and the feelings of inadequacy foisted on good managers everywhere. Good/great/awesome managers are vital, critical, and essential to the success of any organization -- government, not-for-profit, or private sector. To trivialize what is required of managers and aggrandize what is required of leaders does a great disservice to both."
Managing is simply a term that applies to the effective use of a resource such as money management or supply chain management or what-have-you. People are a resource and they must be managed like any other resource, but obviously the tools are different for each resource.
Leadership applies to people and denotes the sending of value standard messages to people which they then follow/use. Thus we say that they have been "led" in the direction of those value standards. Leadership is therefore one side of the coin called values, the other side being followership.
Leadership in the workplace consists of the value standards reflected in everything that an employee experiences because these standards are what employees follow by using them to perform their work. Most of what the employee experiences is the support or lack thereof provided by management - such as training, tools, parts, discipline, direction, material, procedures, rules, technical advice, documentation, information, planning, etc.
Leadership is not a process any manager can change. It happens inexorably every minute of every day because of the way people are. The only choice available to a manager is the standard (good, bad, mediocre or in between) which employees will follow.
For instance, the top-down command and control technique is a specific method by which to manage people . Since top-down by its nature demeans and disrespects people, it "leads" them to demean and disrespect their work, their customers, each other and their bosses resulting in very poor performance.
If you want to lead employees to very high performance, treat them with great respect and not like robots, thus leading them to treat their work, their customers, each other and their bosses with great respect.
To better understand the right and wrong ways to manage people, please read the article "Leadership, Good or Bad"
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
-
Thanks for your comment, Ben. It does appear that you didn't read any previous postings (this was number 5) and made your interpretation. In reality, we pretty much agree. The Leader/Manager Framework looks at the behaviours leader/managers require/use on the job. It does not separate 'leaders' from 'managers'. Thanks anyway expounding your view - which is pretty much my view also - so eloquently. We are on the same side I'm pleased to see.
-
Thanks for responding, Ron.
Glad to hear that you agree, but that makes me somewhat confused as to why you would post Farey's Framework. In the real world, there is no above the line or to the left or the right. I managed people for over 30 years and never found Farey's framework to be true.
Making things better, faster, cheaper, more efficient and cost effective are not at odds with treating employees as if they are highly valued. In fact, every employee wants the same while also wanting to be respected and heard.
Good managers can achieve all of this through their people by managing them properly with great respect.
You are right that I did not read your previous posts. I saw no need to do so since the Farey post was more than clear.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
-
I've responded to this in my comment/reply of 29 August.
If anyone else is confused, please check previous postings on this issue, at least as far as 25 June.
Best regards
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
You imply that leadership and management are mutually exclusive and that good managers cannot be good leaders and vice versa. You do a disservice to both.
To quote a post I recently read that fits this case -"Yep, here we go again, espousing the simpleton attitude that manager=bad, leader=good. Anyone read 'First Break All the Rules?', 'Good To Great', or 'Execution'? If not, buy them all and read them now and you'll forever be rid of this pox of consultant-speak and the feelings of inadequacy foisted on good managers everywhere. Good/great/awesome managers are vital, critical, and essential to the success of any organization -- government, not-for-profit, or private sector. To trivialize what is required of managers and aggrandize what is required of leaders does a great disservice to both."
Managing is simply a term that applies to the effective use of a resource such as money management or supply chain management or what-have-you. People are a resource and they must be managed like any other resource, but obviously the tools are different for each resource.
Leadership applies to people and denotes the sending of value standard messages to people which they then follow/use. Thus we say that they have been "led" in the direction of those value standards. Leadership is therefore one side of the coin called values, the other side being followership.
Leadership in the workplace consists of the value standards reflected in everything that an employee experiences because these standards are what employees follow by using them to perform their work. Most of what the employee experiences is the support or lack thereof provided by management - such as training, tools, parts, discipline, direction, material, procedures, rules, technical advice, documentation, information, planning, etc.
Leadership is not a process any manager can change. It happens inexorably every minute of every day because of the way people are. The only choice available to a manager is the standard (good, bad, mediocre or in between) which employees will follow.
For instance, the top-down command and control technique is a specific method by which to manage people . Since top-down by its nature demeans and disrespects people, it "leads" them to demean and disrespect their work, their customers, each other and their bosses resulting in very poor performance.
If you want to lead employees to very high performance, treat them with great respect and not like robots, thus leading them to treat their work, their customers, each other and their bosses with great respect.
To better understand the right and wrong ways to manage people, please read the article "Leadership, Good or Bad"
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"