This topic has been written by so many authors. So what is different from what I am writing? The simple answer is that I am part of that web of debate and I have and am still experiencing the emotion of it all. Your interest in reading is because you are living personally in the system in which you draw your paycheck.
Depending on your age, which correlates to your emotional reaction to leadership and management; you are likely to react differently. I am in my fifties, and for a good part of my life worked in a transnational company with business in most part of the globe. I am proud to be part of that experience and glad about the learning derived from it.
Simply put, leadership is steering the ship in the direction that will ensure the safety of its passengers. Management is ensuring that the engine room, kitchen, laundrette, "shipscaping" and the daily chores are efficiently carried out. Does a ship need both qualities? You bet, they need them! Will you see both of them living in peaceful co-existence? The sad truth for most part, you will not experience both of them simultaneously. If you do, you are in the zenith of best corporate living!
What do I mean by that? It truly means the company is respected by its competitors and the employees satisfaction goes over the roof. It is a company that people will want to be associated with. Suppliers come knocking because it is a corporation of high integrity. It will be an oft-quoted company on best practices across the globe. It is a company that is hard to beat.
Sadly, there are the rare breeds. James C. Collins et al wrote the book, "Built to Last" describing such companies. While the descriptions are generally true, the reality evolves quickly in the competitive world, where a change in leadership will change the culture.
I work in a company that was described in the book. It was a great corporation with great respect from many. A change in leadership brought about a change of culture that truly surprises me. It was not the change in culture, but rather the speed of change in just a couple of years. My manager made this cryptic remark before he left, after 35 years of service. He said, "In the past, when a soldier fell, we would carry him along so he could fight another day. Now, if he falls, we will shoot him, so that he would not be a burden to us." For a 35-years veteran to tell such a story was shocking, yet revealing on the type leadership that has been installed.
Are companies built to last? I think not. Many of the companies described in the book, "In Search of Excellence" by Tom Peters are no longer around. They were then the best in the class. Big companies are not necessarily great companies. Enron is an example with bad leadership. A good company is as good as the leader of the time. A change of baton could bring about an even bigger progress or it could be the other way around.
What about good management? Does it help to counter-balance bad leadership at the top? In my opinion, it does. A good management system will sustain the company's processes and people morale for as long as the leader does not tweak it too much. A good management system is more robust and longer lasting than leadership. It has a momentum of its own, and it is much harder to dismantle, as compared to just changing the CEO.
As an employee, you can relate to the system better, as it pays your salary and the infrastructure to enable you to work. It provides you with telephone, data lines, tables and chairs and a comfortable environment. It is difficult to relate to the CEO who is surrounded by his or her people who love nothing but only good news from the ground. Eventually, the people who made up of the greater part of the company will switch off and will manage the system to generate the support for the company business. The people are now but a contractor of service. They are not "citizens" of the company, where loyalty would have made them work beyond the call of duty.
"Built to Last" or "Built to Pass"? I think the latter is more appropriate. No CEO should think the management system will sustain him forever. If he was a good leader, he will know how to ride the system, and truly "last" a long time, instead of just a "pass"ing flavor of the year.
Depending on your age, which correlates to your emotional reaction to leadership and management; you are likely to react differently. I am in my fifties, and for a good part of my life worked in a transnational company with business in most part of the globe. I am proud to be part of that experience and glad about the learning derived from it.
Simply put, leadership is steering the ship in the direction that will ensure the safety of its passengers. Management is ensuring that the engine room, kitchen, laundrette, "shipscaping" and the daily chores are efficiently carried out. Does a ship need both qualities? You bet, they need them! Will you see both of them living in peaceful co-existence? The sad truth for most part, you will not experience both of them simultaneously. If you do, you are in the zenith of best corporate living!
What do I mean by that? It truly means the company is respected by its competitors and the employees satisfaction goes over the roof. It is a company that people will want to be associated with. Suppliers come knocking because it is a corporation of high integrity. It will be an oft-quoted company on best practices across the globe. It is a company that is hard to beat.
Sadly, there are the rare breeds. James C. Collins et al wrote the book, "Built to Last" describing such companies. While the descriptions are generally true, the reality evolves quickly in the competitive world, where a change in leadership will change the culture.
I work in a company that was described in the book. It was a great corporation with great respect from many. A change in leadership brought about a change of culture that truly surprises me. It was not the change in culture, but rather the speed of change in just a couple of years. My manager made this cryptic remark before he left, after 35 years of service. He said, "In the past, when a soldier fell, we would carry him along so he could fight another day. Now, if he falls, we will shoot him, so that he would not be a burden to us." For a 35-years veteran to tell such a story was shocking, yet revealing on the type leadership that has been installed.
Are companies built to last? I think not. Many of the companies described in the book, "In Search of Excellence" by Tom Peters are no longer around. They were then the best in the class. Big companies are not necessarily great companies. Enron is an example with bad leadership. A good company is as good as the leader of the time. A change of baton could bring about an even bigger progress or it could be the other way around.
What about good management? Does it help to counter-balance bad leadership at the top? In my opinion, it does. A good management system will sustain the company's processes and people morale for as long as the leader does not tweak it too much. A good management system is more robust and longer lasting than leadership. It has a momentum of its own, and it is much harder to dismantle, as compared to just changing the CEO.
As an employee, you can relate to the system better, as it pays your salary and the infrastructure to enable you to work. It provides you with telephone, data lines, tables and chairs and a comfortable environment. It is difficult to relate to the CEO who is surrounded by his or her people who love nothing but only good news from the ground. Eventually, the people who made up of the greater part of the company will switch off and will manage the system to generate the support for the company business. The people are now but a contractor of service. They are not "citizens" of the company, where loyalty would have made them work beyond the call of duty.
"Built to Last" or "Built to Pass"? I think the latter is more appropriate. No CEO should think the management system will sustain him forever. If he was a good leader, he will know how to ride the system, and truly "last" a long time, instead of just a "pass"ing flavor of the year.
Comments