Chicken or egg? Or round and round the Mulberry bush?
Bah...4th day of the year and I'm already un-motivated to fulfill those fantastic, Utopic resolutions you see down there.
I was reading a book on motivating people today, and read something about "leadership is but a small part of management". My first thoughts were "HUH?!?!?!?! I thought management is a small part of leadership?" Then I realised - all too often, people use those two words and those 2 concepts interchangably, when in actual fact they are two separate but related ideas (hey hey hey, don't kill me - this is MY blog. Nonetheless, your comments are welcome). Managers aren't necessarily leaders, and leaders aren't necessarily managers (what's the definition of a leader, anyway? And who says it is?). Leadership deals with motivating and influencing a group of people to work towards a certain goal - be it long or short term. But then again, isn't that what a manager does too?
What, then, is the difference between a manager and a leader? Could it be that a "leader" is a position, a "manager" is a title? Is management actually "leadership" in an organizational setting? Or could it possibly be that a manager sits behind a desk shuffling papers, pushing pencils, anal(-)yzing stuff, talking and talking and doing absolutely nothing while a leader leads from the front, showing the way, asking his "men" to go no place that he himself has not been?
Which then brings me to another point - there's this little piece of paper stuck on a door somewhere in my camp that says "A piece of paper makes you an officer. A radio makes you a leader". Is that really true? Is "officer" really automatically a synonym for "leader" or vice versa (in this case, as long as he has the means to communicate)? Don't get me wrong here - I'm not saying all officers aren't leaders, or all leaders can't be officers. But what about the officer who gets in the way of his men to fulfill his own personal agenda? Or the one who allows his men to claim a certain privilege, thinking he is doing them a favor when in actual fact they have work to finish and cannot do so while he, having "cleared" his conscience, walks off scot-free? It all boils down to the fact that any word can be just a title - a rank invested on you by the powers that be - unless one shows by example and by his own actions that he deserves the right to lead.
Disclaimer: This article expresses the long-supressed views of the author, the only author and no one but the author. It is not to be used as justification for insubordination (although we all know how tempting that is). A small part of it has, however, already been used as ammunition for a -little- irreverent outburst directed at one particular officer whose identity shall remain confidential. The author wishes to state for the records that he is NOT sorry for having done so, because said officer was really getting on his nerves.
I was reading a book on motivating people today, and read something about "leadership is but a small part of management". My first thoughts were "HUH?!?!?!?! I thought management is a small part of leadership?" Then I realised - all too often, people use those two words and those 2 concepts interchangably, when in actual fact they are two separate but related ideas (hey hey hey, don't kill me - this is MY blog. Nonetheless, your comments are welcome). Managers aren't necessarily leaders, and leaders aren't necessarily managers (what's the definition of a leader, anyway? And who says it is?). Leadership deals with motivating and influencing a group of people to work towards a certain goal - be it long or short term. But then again, isn't that what a manager does too?
What, then, is the difference between a manager and a leader? Could it be that a "leader" is a position, a "manager" is a title? Is management actually "leadership" in an organizational setting? Or could it possibly be that a manager sits behind a desk shuffling papers, pushing pencils, anal(-)yzing stuff, talking and talking and doing absolutely nothing while a leader leads from the front, showing the way, asking his "men" to go no place that he himself has not been?
Which then brings me to another point - there's this little piece of paper stuck on a door somewhere in my camp that says "A piece of paper makes you an officer. A radio makes you a leader". Is that really true? Is "officer" really automatically a synonym for "leader" or vice versa (in this case, as long as he has the means to communicate)? Don't get me wrong here - I'm not saying all officers aren't leaders, or all leaders can't be officers. But what about the officer who gets in the way of his men to fulfill his own personal agenda? Or the one who allows his men to claim a certain privilege, thinking he is doing them a favor when in actual fact they have work to finish and cannot do so while he, having "cleared" his conscience, walks off scot-free? It all boils down to the fact that any word can be just a title - a rank invested on you by the powers that be - unless one shows by example and by his own actions that he deserves the right to lead.
Disclaimer: This article expresses the long-supressed views of the author, the only author and no one but the author. It is not to be used as justification for insubordination (although we all know how tempting that is). A small part of it has, however, already been used as ammunition for a -little- irreverent outburst directed at one particular officer whose identity shall remain confidential. The author wishes to state for the records that he is NOT sorry for having done so, because said officer was really getting on his nerves.
posted by Ainsley at 5:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home