Be the Head or take the Lead? Ensure Both.
Leading and management as complementary are correlated. Leading is more about an act which people look after to a person who is able to be followed. And it interprets into six qualities which are Visionary, Ardent, Bold, Wise, Substantial and Responsible. These qualities must be established on a day-to-day basis to be seen as real, in other words, how you act in large talks or discussions doesn’t make you a leader at all. Management is more of a craft; it’s primarily skill-based, just like cooking or carpentry. And again, those skills need to be exhibited on a day-to-day basis.
An internal process of self-reflection is primarily way in becoming a good leader. Seeing yourself as a leader, you must learn how to think and behave differently in a way that people see you as a leader, too. To become a good manager is primarily about improving your craft like creating excellent habits of speech, organization, and collaboration that allows people who work for you to be best utilized and focused on achieving the company’s goals.
Managers are people who do things right, while leaders are people who do the right things, according to Warren Bennis. But best bosses do more than thinking big because they have a deep understanding of their industries, organizations, and teams, as well as other seemingly mundane things. Providing an effective leadership is an essential element of a manager’s role. Without this leadership, the team may still achieve its goal, but it is not as efficient and in timely manner.
There has been much written about leadership in the past that leads to many different opinions on what makes an effective leader. These viewpoints range from the dictator to the uninvolved buddy. The key to effective leadership in the modern working environment is finding and using a style that is appropriate to the situation and the people involved.
According to Robert I. Sutton, Ph.D., focusing on management and leadership is treacherous even though it has a disparity. He sometimes mentioned that this theme when giving talks or workshops based on his book. He wrote posts on it for Harvard Business Review and his blog, Work Matters. But he didn’t realize how important the topic was or how worked up people got about it until he did a Good Superior, Bad Superior workshop for a dozen or so Executive Officers of huge high technology companies. He even said “yes, leadership is about things like taking a long-term outlook, vision, setting a strategy and also it is about operations, details, implementation, and the little things required to keep a team or an organization moving forward.”
He certainly argued this difference was precise but treacherous because it twists how too many superiors at all ranks view and do their job. This actually urges superiors to see generating big and vague concepts as an imperative part of their jobs. Management work best done by the little people to treat operation or pesky details of any kind. A lot of superiors reveal on how to contemplate and act.
At the top of the nibbling order, there’s this same difference that could be seen among leaders. There’s an instance when one of the Senior Executive who spent a decade on the top team of a huge phone company revealed that his self-opinionated Executive Officer made a series of depraved decisions about deciding on what archetypes to develop and sell. It was out of touch with consumers because it had a little interest in technical details and refused to visit stores where phones were sold. As he cleared up to his board and team that his job was a tactic not supervision.
Regrettably, the story of the phone Executive Officer is way too emblematic. Superiors often make verdicts without considering restrictions for time and charge required to implement them. They are especially prone to suffer from the clever talk deception. Because in achieving things and making sure these should get done are errands for little people, not top dogs, A-players, or high potentials like them.
He has passion for all immense philosophies, ideas, and visions. One great case in point for that was Anne Mulcahy’s hard work to turn around Xerox was successful in part because of her in depth knowledge of the company’s maneuvers. She was mainly detail-oriented during the critical early years of her period of influence when Xerox was so close to failing.
This aptitude to go back and forth in the middle of the diminutive specifics and the immense picture is evident in the leaders which should be appreciated the most. We are not even rebuffing the distinction between leadership and management. In fact, the best leaders do something that might properly be called a mix of leadership and management for Real Leaders Are Also Managers!
Erika Andersen. (2012, April 10). Manage or Lead? Do Both. Retrieved February 03, 2017, from Forbes