« An outbreak of sense? | Main | Peeking round the column..... »
April 30, 2004
Manager or Leader?
I came across an interesting set of points by a person called Myles Munroe [unknown source] which sets out the prime differences between "managers" and "leaders". This fits with what I have always understood about corporate change - it can't be managed, it must be led.
Mr Munroe gives the following key points:
Managers administrate - Leaders innovateManagers are copiers - Leaders are original
Managers maintain - Leaders develop
Managers focus on systems and structures - Leaders focus on people
Managers rely on control - Leaders inspire trust
Managers have a short range view - Leaders have a long range perspective
Managers ask what and when - Leaders ask what and why
Managers keep their eyes on the Bottom Line - Leaders have theirs on the horizon
Managers imitate - Leaders originate
Managers accept the status quo - Leaders challenge it
Managers are good soldiers - Leaders are their own person
Managers do things right - Leaders do the right thing
Rather sums it up, really. Perhaps this is what is wrong with our society and with all its so-called public services. They are not being led, they are being managed. Cloning is happening in the workplace, incompetent and poor management practice is what is being duplicated and cloned.
Even in politics we see the same thing; ideology is a substitute for facts and for truth. We have no leadership, we have lawyers, accountants, and trade union organisers masquerading as "leaders" when in reality they are simply "managers". The tragedy for us all is that they will drag us all down through their incompetence while deluding themselves that they are "managing" everything efficiently.
Beam me up, Scottie; the last intelligence is outnumbered by the management.
Posted by The Gray Monk at April 30, 2004 01:00 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt3.mu.nu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2457
Comments
so true
Posted by: Matthew at April 30, 2004 01:15 AM