Comments

Nice insights Chris. How many freakin' paradigms do we have weighing us down? The New World of Work requires a shift in tactics.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 26, 2007 1:47 PM

You are right. Obtain good people and get out of the way. If you are having to resort to authoritarianism or C&C then you either have the wrong people or the right people who don't believe in your vision. A checks and balances should be set up allowing employees to voice opinions through a vote of confidence...on all levels of management.

Posted by adhder at January 26, 2007 2:24 PM

You have a great point Chris, the search, and encouragement of talent should be a priority task for everyone in a company. But what happens with those who don't think they have talent or they don't want to use it. They can become a drag in the organization. My question is: how could we include and help them with out a Command & Control logic, with out a constant supervision?

Thanks
Marco

Posted by Marco Gallen at January 26, 2007 4:04 PM

Anyone that disagrees with you Chris, obviously has NOT read Wikinomics by Don Tapscott and Andy D. Williams!!!

Posted by Ernie F at January 26, 2007 4:35 PM

Chris: "they'll leave and go somewhere more rewarding" - Exactly! So now I live in the most desirable place in the world (for me) ... interacting with wonderful people all over the world via the Internet. And it's over 10 years since I last attended a time-wasting business meeting ... and my then bosses (multiple layers of hierarchy) were glad I left. Of course, that Division is out of business, and that Corporation is on the slide ...

Posted by Mike L at January 26, 2007 5:01 PM

I’m with you Chris – Number 2 of my 3 simplicity principles; ‘If managers have a job at all in 2007 it is to make it easier for front line staff to do their job.’ Actually I have a problem with the language of ‘managing people.’ It implies some sort of ‘ownership’ and I don’t like that. We all ‘manage’ ourselves and it is somewhat arrogant for any manager to believe they actually ‘manage’ anyone. Managers manage ‘things’ - people manage themselves. ‘Twas ever thus in my worldview. We talk about the ‘old days’ when managers did manage people and then I am reminded of this story from 1211.

“The Cathédrale Notre Dame De Reims”

In May 1211 Archbishop Aubrey de Humbert laid the cornerstone of what today is regarded as one of the most beautiful churches in Europe. Several years later Humbert was on the road to Paris where he planned to raise funds for the continuing construction of the cathedral.

While passing through a small village his attention was drawn to the labors of a stonemason chiseling blocks on the side of the road by firelight. To the Archbishop the shape and color of the stones being crafted looked oddly familiar. He inquired of the stonemason why he was working with such ardor so late into the evening. “Why, your Grace”, the stonemason replied with enthusiasm, “I am building the Cathedral at Reims.”

To me the best managers encourage their talent - by leaving them to get on with job they know how to do - whether they be stonemasons in 1211 or any front line staff in 2007.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 26, 2007 5:14 PM

Hmmm, I'm not not too sure. I tend to agree with the principle BUT, and it's an almighty big one but...

What about Steve Jobs? Sure, he's surrounded himself with talented people but it's about what he thinks is best for Apple. OK, it mightn't be traditional C&C but it's still his vision and if you don't like it...

What about Jack Welch? What about Margaret Thatcher and Bill Clinton? The way Cisco grew up and Andy Grove's leadership of Intel? Larry Bossidy (see post below) provides an example of strong leadership.

Encouraging talent is one thing, but making sure it's working to fulfill the leader's vision of where the company ought to be heading is another - and they aren't always compatible. Surely leadership is about considering the ideas and being able to say either, "Yes, you're right and we'll do it" OR "Look, you've got some great ideas but just now and for this company and where it is now and with my vision for the future, they don't fit. If you can bend your ideas or accept that I'll only pick up 50% of them, fine. If not, you really ought to move on."

Most of these postings seem to be coming from the individualistic and rather idealistic angle. Sometimes where I work, in the real world, you have to accept that as well as leadership, there's followership.

Posted by Mark JF at January 26, 2007 6:04 PM

Marco, good question. The trick is to set it up so that the TEAM, not "the boss," is dealing with performance issues. Command and control leadership gives others the opportunity to NOT be responsible. How many times do we see leaders "training" their workforce to be compliant, then complaining that no one is taking the initiative, offering innovative solutions, or even just telling them the truth?

For an understanding of how to create a team-based workforce - even in a large manufacturing operation - check out Ricardo Semler's books, "The Seven-Day Weekend" and "Maverick." http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-7553914-8679647?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Ricardo+Semler&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go His Brazilian company Semco has been successful for years using small, autonomous teams, even on the production line.

Posted by John O'Leary at January 26, 2007 6:28 PM

I think a point not being considered is that you can give up command without losing control. If you recruit, properly train, reward and recognize high performance rather than just meeting standards it is possible that your talent becomes self policing. Let me use my former employer, United Parcel Service, as an example. Our command and control was at times criticized as being quasi military. Tough rules and standards were enforced consistently and without prejudice. As employees we were taught the business model and most importantly, the rationale behind the standards. We are talking such things as walking at two steps a second, no facial hair and hair off the collar (ok, I am dating myself there), no going above your boss unless you first addressed the issues directly with him/her, late for work or returning from breaks (.17 of an hour), led to progressive discipline and often to discharge. We knew the rules, we knew the consequences. But we also knew the rewards. We owned a lion's share of the company. You could go from loader to CEO with hard work (all the CEO's started as hourly employees). We sometimes took exception to any given rule, but as a group we were proud of the disciplined approach that let us run the tightest ship in the shipping business. Your boss was home grown, rising from the ranks and had a sense of reality few corporate officers in other companies could. There IS a strong need for control and discipline in business...But great companies know how to build talent that exhibits self control for the common good. So leader as teacher and instiller of values became the norm. That isn't soft management. It is smart management.

Posted by Mike Neiss at January 26, 2007 7:08 PM

The question of money and budgets has to come into this at some point. You simply can't give everyone a blank cheque book and tell them to use their discretion.

Having said that I do agree with the peice in general. Put it this way I would prefer to work in an environment where Servant leadership was the norm but there was a sensible return to command and control when needed. You don't get creative and free wheeling when certain legal obligations are concerned.

Posted by PaulH at January 27, 2007 5:46 AM

Hi Paul - great discussion well said - a balanced view as always from you.

'The question of money and budgets has to come into this at some point'

In my experience front line staff are actually BETTER at managing money than managers. Give people responsibility and they do not see it as an ‘open cheque.’ Quite the opposite - they are far more conscientious about spending money than the manager because they are closer to what Mark calls ‘the real world.’ Front line staff will always be closer to the real world than managers. I think leadership is all about serving the front line staff and the customers. It’s about having a vision; putting some stakes in the ground; then getting out of the way and let people get on with it; at the same time always be there if you are needed.

Treat front line staff as adults is where we have to start.

We all have differing views about the level of delegation that is sensible and practical in the situation we work in. On the organisational chart I was responsible for hundreds of staff for 25 years of my NHS career. I never considered I ‘managed’ one single human being – they managed themselves. Any manager in the NHS is patronising at best and arrogant at worst if they think managers have some divine right to always make the right decisions whether we are talking about monetary or legal issues. Just my thoughts.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 27, 2007 6:24 AM

This is a great discussion. What's interesting to me is that like every principle or philosophy there has to be balance. I love what Mike Neiss said "you can give up command without losing control". I wouldn't say "giving up" so much as "sharing" but the bottom line is still the same - you can end up with more control.

Posted by ann michael at January 27, 2007 10:36 AM

1. Totally agree with the idea and drift of elite royal leadership with plenty of servants at beck and call - transform front-liners so they grovel at will

2. Especially appreciate servant status of lapdogs Mr. Trevor & Mr. Paul - typical of their USA client state status in England

3. I provide praise and monied/life of luxury leadership - they provide the appropriate humble servitude - if they come up with a creative idea - it is stolen and they are given a watery gruel treat - and perhaps a mild electrical shock

Posted by sean_transform at January 27, 2007 10:57 AM

You’re trying to turn the attitude of a spoiled child into a business philosophy.
“I want to have my fun and its everyone else’s job to let me.”
You can believe this crap if you want to, but please stop trying to pawn it off as “leadership”.

Posted by John at January 27, 2007 2:22 PM

What do you think leadership is John?

Posted by Chris at January 27, 2007 2:26 PM

Since when was the world EVER "rational, predictable, and stable"?

And since when was servant leadership considered a MODERN necessity?

Did you know that the percentage of people who die has remained unchanged for thousands of years?

Be VERY afraid--like the post says, "We're in BIG trouble."

p.s. I thought fearmongering was an authoritarian leadership tactic.

Posted by Paul at January 27, 2007 4:05 PM

Watching the rise of Google is a great example of the servant leadership style.

Posted by Steve at January 27, 2007 6:05 PM

What we lack is "talent spotters". Can you name one PROVEN talent spotter? Is there one in your current organisation? If so you are fortunate. If not go find another job.

Jack Welch was "a command and control" leader who was also a proven "talent spotter". Jack Welch spotted Jeff Immelt and promoted him well before he got the top job. Jeff Immelt CEO is the opposite of Jack Welch CEO - go ask Jeff about Jack.

Jim Collins says "first get the right people on the bus" but most people do not know just who the right people are.....

Richard

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at January 27, 2007 11:18 PM

Mark, my earlier response was posted before I saw your insightful comments.

Following a leader's vision is one thing. But in the workplace of the future, I’ll bet my Japanese car that fewer and fewer of us are going to put up with autocratic micromanagement by traditional bosses. To take Steve Jobs as an example (admittedly atypical): I don’t know how he’s running his company these days (tho I hear he’s learned from past excess) but in the 80s many of his legendary Mac developers cleared out after product was finally shipped - which was a serious loss to the company. Some have said his vision, including his grasp of the market, was SO compelling (and, it turns out, so prescient) that these sterling qualities redeemed his tyrannical meddling. Perhaps many of the oft-cited “big stick” leaders have succeeded despite their dysfunctional, despotic ways, not because of them. Truth be told, technical (or financial) brilliance and adept social skills are often not concomitant. But I’m willing to noodle this possibility: command & control leadership is desirable when certain, rare conditions are in place, and only for so long.

My prediction: workforce democracy - in its various guises and forms - is a force that won’t be denied. I come from the pop music world and find rock & roll to be a useful, though unorthodox, reference point. The most successful bands (commercially AND artistically) have been teams that made decisions AS teams, not with obeisance to autocratic management. (The few exceptions prove the rule.) The biggest and best pop music team in modern history has been the Beatles, who had no C&C leadership, but had true collective genius. The same with other classic rock greats such as the Who, the Rolling Stones, the Grateful Dead, the Band, the Allman Brothers, Led Zeppelin, Fleetwood Mac, the Ramones, the Clash, etc. And lest anyone dismiss them as irrelevant to mainstream business, consider this: what kind of organizations better represent the innovation, passion, love/hate teamwork, brand focus, and independent thinking that are desperately needed in business teams operating in today's wild and unruly global economy? Anyway, fun discussion…

Posted by John O'Leary at January 27, 2007 11:22 PM

Are managers really necessary at all?

Posted by AJ Hoge at January 28, 2007 4:26 AM

Hi AJ - No

Certainly not in the traditional sense - we are all 'managers' of our time.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 28, 2007 4:54 AM

Absolutely agree. Resorting to what is easy isn't what is best. Servant leadership is hard work it means giving up control to get results and some people can't give up control and the power that they think they have.

Posted by Dan Weigold at January 28, 2007 9:07 AM

Command and Control will no longer work in today's society, at least not those with degree's and talent. We are just starting to see the beginning of the next great stage of society’s development. First we had the Agricultural Society, the Industrial Revolution, a short stinted Information Society. The knowledge worker now realizes they don’t need the corporation to succeed. If you have the knowledge and your doing the work why not just do it on your own or with a group of your peers? Also C&C companies usually promote employees based on tenure, which means top talent won’t stay around.

The major reason why command and control doesn’t work is because we are in the middle of a fast-paced innovated society where moving quickly (time to market) is key. Even with the Ooda Loop C&C won’t work. For a perfect example look at the war we are in. We are supposed to have the best technology, size, and strength, but we are having soldiers die daily because we can’t keep up those who don’t use C&C. Our enemy has given up command, but not control. The U.S. reaction time is to slow. Those CEO’s who believe in C&C are probably leaders in entrenched businesses who will soon be eclipsed (i.e. television vs. web tv, the record industry, telecom).

If you want to read more see http://adhder.com/blog/2006/09/ .

Posted by adhder at January 28, 2007 10:41 AM

"Military Officers and Business Leaders have the same role."

When will you all drop the "war" metaphor from your business lexicon? Please. It's misplaced, at best.

Posted by Tom Asacker at January 28, 2007 12:40 PM

The key to me as I have said several times is the right leadership style for the right situation. Even with the same person, one day I might be quite directive and other times much more "coaching"

The real skill is not in one leadership style or another but in the ability to be appropriate to the circumstances and the individual(s) you are working with.

Some people like the freedom and hate being managed. Others like the sense of knowing exactly what they need to do

Posted by PaulH at January 28, 2007 2:04 PM

PaulH - I agree. We're talking about C&C style leadership in a Western context. Our traditional industries are moving towards low-cost and highly disciplined environments while we're focusing more on design, marketing, retailing etc. These different environments need different management styles.

John O - I agree: workplace democracy will increase and quite rightly but as long as we're human, I think there will be a requirement for basic ground rules.

Folks asking if managers are needed - you're asking the wrong question. Are good managers needed? Absolutely they are! I think the irony is that the really good managers are the ones who don't make a fuss and who you don't really notice, so you probably think you don't need him/her. Then one of you moves on and you realise how much you miss that person.

My take on this: a good manager is one who knows how to recruit good people, how to let them get on with their jobs, how to get their input, when to step in with guidance or direction, and when to say (as will happen from time to time), "Just do it." Sounds easy, eh?!

Posted by Mark JF at January 29, 2007 6:30 AM

Hi Mark

'a good manager is one who knows how to recruit good people, how to let them get on with their jobs, how to get their input, when to step in with guidance or direction, and when to say (as will happen from time to time), "Just do it."

Mmmm .... I agree but you are not talking about managers - you are talking about leaders. A world of difference. I think ANYONE can be a 'manager' because management can be taught - it is a science. It is rational. Not everyone is a leader - it is an art. The words are important and this is how I see it;

*Managers manage things
*Leaders create the climate for people to get on with doing their job with the minimum of interference

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 29, 2007 10:15 AM

First, I firmly believe we need managers. What we don't need is bad managers.

Research clearly shows that the biggest influence over an employee's work experience is their manager. When they leave, most blame the manager, or other factors largely in the control of their manager.

Our problem is that we don't have too many managers who are actually great leaders. I agree with whoever said 'we lead people, we manage things'- and as we know you can't lead without mutual respect & trust.

As to the implications however - here's an example of someone I consider to be an exceptional leader: the chef Gordon Ramsay (he of 'Hell's Kitchen' fame). Although he's widely known for his fiery temper and colourful language, his dedication to helping talented people blossom in the pursuit of perfection, deserves to be equally famous. As he says himself, "I'm lucky enough to work with the most amazing people whose hard work and dedication is an endless source of inspiration to me."

His website http://www.gordonramsay.com/ is remarkable in several ways. The first four News items are devoted to the achievements of four of his protegees. Three other sections on the site are dedicated to Training, Human Resources and (Gordon Ramsay) Scholarships.

I've no doubt at all that someone will respond to this by condemning Ramsay as a foul-mouthed bully who does not deserve to be called a leader. However, recent research in the UK found that Ramsay is one of the reasons young people currently aspire to enter the catering industry.

I think you are absolutely 110% right in your contention Chris! The implications too are profound - but the outcomes shouldn't be pigeonholed as one scenario or another. We should judge a leader as the great architect Sir Christopher Wren, another leader in another age, asked to be judged - 'Si monumentum requiris circumspice' (if you seek his memorial, look around'. In other words, look for all those intangible 'metrics' Tom was talking about in his latest podcast...

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 29, 2007 10:59 AM

viagra cheap australia Chris,

I posted a longer comment but tp.com has decided I'm new to the site and is sitting on it!

Meantime, here's a quick observation: Peter Lederer OBE the Managing Director of the Gleneagles Resort in Scotland (http://www.gleneagles.com/index.aspx), took the helm at Gleneagles in the 1980s when it was a run-down, old-fashioned hotel in the ownership of the British Railways Board, and has led it to its current status among the world's elite.

In the course of a conversation about training leaders, he said to me 'I don't lead anyone. I don't motivate anyone. All I can do is create an environment where everyone who works at Gleneagles is inspired by what we are trying to do here, and has the opportunity to be the best they can be'. 'Nuff said!

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 29, 2007 11:12 AM

Trevor - I think you've got it completely and utterly wrong:

- You say, "I think ANYONE can be a 'manager' because management can be taught - it is a science. It is rational." Then how come there are so many mediocre / poor / downright bad managers and a shortage of good ones?

Sure, there's a difference between management and leadership but good management at any level includes a strong degree of leadership. I want the managers reporting to me to be leaders because that's how I build good bench strength and maintain a strong degree of robustness and succession planning.

Tom A has taken us to task for using military analogies but here's one that applies to the military, to sport and to John's music comparisons: can a team really be a high-performing one unless it has got good leadership at all levels?

Posted by Mark JF at January 29, 2007 11:24 AM

Mark,

Disney believes that EVERYONE in the organisation has to be a leader. Of course, not recruiting people who don't have what it takes, helps!

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 29, 2007 11:33 AM

Hi Mark – completely and utterly wrong? – A slight exaggeration maybe :-) Let me respond from my NHS perspective which is what I know about. This is not about your personal management style which sounds the same as mine.

In answer to your excellent question, maybe we have so many mediocre/poor/downright bad managers and shortage of good ones because there is not really a job for managers that the staff ‘below’ them cannot do and the staff know that. Staff who report to these ‘managers’ are at long last challenging the role of the manager. Quite often the manager simply cannot justify his/her existence. The best ‘managers’ I’ve ever worked for don’t worry about their title and don’t give off the body language or worse still the verbal language about 'owning' people who are responsible to them on some old fashioned management structure diagram. All we need is leaders and then everyone else. And less importance placed on what we actually call people - lets do away with the term 'manager' as a starter. Chief Executive and then 'players' ...only joking ... I think ?

I’ve played in football teams and other sporting teams all my life and we only ever have one leader. The rest of us are ‘players’ each with a role. We don’t have leaders within sections of the team.

Most management structures exist only because of history and because we have to find slots on diagrams for managers. I always said in the NHS that there was something called the management structure and then there was something else called the real world where things actually get done.

When we stop calling people ‘managers’ (the word itself immediately sets up a hierarchy) the organisational world will be a more creative and effective place to be. The power is with the front line! - indeed ‘twas ever thus in my opinion.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 29, 2007 11:59 AM

The post by Paul H., where he talks about leadership styles, struck a chord.

From an integral perspective, different leadership types can described as masculine or feminine. We all have the capacity for both, and how we respond in different situations depends on how we balance these energies with our capacity for compassion.

The masculine type: catalyst, decisive and energizing, can turn destructive. The feminine type: empathetic, receptive, and nurturing can turn self-destructive.

A good leader will know that the response or interaction has the 'right mix' when there's no residue left over - no hurt feelings, nobody following you around sucking you dry.

Not what you are likely to find in a command & control organization!

Posted by mary wynne-wynter at January 29, 2007 2:20 PM

Chris: I don't think "leadership" is anything at all. It’s just a nonsense word invented by people with agendas to promote.
A leader is anyone who has followers. Everything else is irrelevant to the definition. Saddam Hussein, Stalin and Mussolini were leaders just as much as Gandhi, Churchill and Kennedy. Attempting to tack anything else onto the definition is agenda-pushing at its most vulgar and wreaks of psychological manipulation (No, you’re not some idiot in a Goofy costume, You’re a leader!)
Most people on this site fail to make the distinction between “what makes a good leader” and “what kind of a leader do I want?”. The “leader you want” is a reflection of your biases, and Tom’s bias is towards a style of leadership that promotes childhood over productivity. It’s a world of self-absorbed make-believe that is not standing the test of time. American business has nearly destroyed itself by buying into this feel-good new-age delusion where leaders spend their time “empowering” people instead of delivering on actual organizational objectives. The result is a 6 trillion dollar trade deficit that continues to grow by 2 billion dollars a day as countries with real business leaders have proceeded to crush you and your silly little hippie dreams.
Of course, nothing short of total collapse is going to save America from its delusions. The party will keep going as long as you still have one nickel of your grandchildren’s money left to spend.

Posted by John at January 29, 2007 3:42 PM

John,

I can't deal with most of what you say - but I take exception to the Goofy comment! Goofy, along with Mickey and all the other characters at Disney, for which read front desk in every hotel, barista in every coffee shop, every bus driver etc. - is/are the most important people in the whole operation.

It's VITAL they think of themselves as leaders when required to take ownership of the customer experience, manage situations etc. - and anyone telling them they're just an idiot in a Goofy costume has no right to be anywhere near them, let alone in a position of authority over them!!

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 29, 2007 4:09 PM

Actually, I think John has a valid comment--a bit emotional, perhaps, but valid nonetheless. Try giving it some serious consideration instead of just discounting it completely. Think about how John's assessment of the trade deficit and American business leaders in conjunction with the percentage of gigs our hero Dr. Peters has outside the US. As for the topic of the post, what difference does it make how much my CEO gets paid relative to how much I'm paid? What's the difference in responsibility? How about jailability? Can YOU go to prison for something someone in your company does? Your CEO can, and sometimes they do.

Maybe my curmudgeon side is coming to the fore again, but lately I think this whole TP site has gone from an avenue for exploration and discovery to just a bunch of disgruntled souls airing their constant gripes against all things involved in "Bossville." In this land of so many "experts" on just about everything, I'm proud to be a student.

Trevor, my good friend, are there really so many bad managers and poor leaders? Do management structures fill no useful role other than as a Peter Principle fulfilling dumping ground for incompetents? I'm not so cynical about business leaders. Most of them I know are caring, hard-working, competent, continually learning leaders.

Posted by Mike at January 29, 2007 4:52 PM

'Think about how John's assessment of the trade deficit and American business leaders in conjunction with the percentage of gigs our hero Dr. Peters has outside the US' - well, I've thought about it John, and I'll be darned if I get the point!

Yes I'm afraid there really are so many bad managers and poor leaders - open the door and peek outside and you'll get buried in an avalanche of studies showing that workers everywhere are crying out to be properly led.

Increasingly I think the great leaders are out on their own, running start-ups and embracing the web - they've had enough of the politics and blizzards of red tape in the corporate sector, that are designed to eliminate the need for leadership and replace it with safe, inert bureaucracy.

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 29, 2007 6:04 PM

Mike – thanks for that. I have no doubt most managers are caring, hard working, competent and continually learning. I was an operational manager for over 25 years and most of the managers I have ever met in my career do fit your description. I also believe I was/am like that too.

My point is that front line staff don't need ‘managing’ as we once knew it. I say they need ‘leading’ and those two things are as different as chalk and cheese. The reality is front line staff are just as well informed as managers these days – we are not living in 1940 when managers had a monopoly on ‘ownership of information.’ Front line staff will challenge managers and rightly so. The web for all its warts and wrinkles has provided people with the questions to ask – more power to it I say. Effective managers always welcome challenge. discount viagra online

If managers have a role at all it is to justify some of these things:

*Why managers are paid more than front line staff
*What ‘value added’ are managers bringing that front line staff could not do themselves without managers?
*Why are managers still considered ‘higher’ in the status ‘pecking order’ in 99% of traditional organisation than front line staff?

Believe it or not I don’t actually ‘have it in’ for managers and I genuinely believe the best and brightest managers know that ‘leadership’ is what they should be doing 99.9% of their time rather than manage ‘processes.’

Those people who are left in 10 years time (probably less) with the job title ‘manager’ will be managing only ‘things’ and certainly not managing people. Even in 2007 and, as a curmudgeon myself in many ways, I find the expression ‘managing people’ insulting to front line staff. People can manage themselves.

A final thought Mike – I am totally with you on one thing – I too am still very much a junior ‘student’ in all this. My grandmother died at 92 telling me she was still learning every day. When we stop learning we stop living. TP forum is one of the best modes of learning for me. I learn from those who disagree with me profoundly as much as those who may agree. Diversity of opinion is what keeps me coming back as much as sharing thoughts with like minded individuals. So thanks again for your valuable insight – I value it – I disagree but I value it :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 30, 2007 8:13 AM

John,
re yr "The result is a 6 trillion dollar trade deficit that continues to grow by 2 billion dollars a day as countries with real business leaders have proceeded to crush you and your silly little hippie dreams."

I think the econmic well being of Great Britain and the US depends on business managers being better leaders. By that I mean when they look in the eye of a front line worker they see someone capable of great things. That stops them doing all the control / micromanagement that is resulting in the paralysis of our businesses.

I think command and control is the easy way out. Hide in your suit, behind your desk, your rank and your 'authority' if you want BUT know the price you pay is loss of ownership by those who create the value for your organisation. Sounds like a recipie for huge trade deficit to me...

Posted by Chris at January 31, 2007 5:54 AM

It seems to me that if you are responsible for the performance of the group, you have three kinds of work to do.

You must articulate direction and purpose for the group. We often call that "leadership."

You must coordinate the efforts of the group. We often call that "management."

And you must help your people grow and develop while weeding out the unfit and unwilling. We often call that "supervision."

Posted by Wally Bock at January 31, 2007 11:43 AM

Chris.
There is no virtue in making something harder than it has to be.

Command and control works. China, with its culture of C&C, is enjoying huge trade surpluses with America, with its culture of childish self-indulgence. So claiming that C&C is a recipe for trade deficits has no basis in objective reality.

I firmly believe that Tom misspoke when he wrote “…Leaders have the same role... to ensure that all members of the value-creating community are the best they can be.” This is wrong-headed and not in alignment with his body of work. The true role of a leader is to bring out the best in their followers 'within the context of the organization’s objectives'.

Without this qualification, the whole “brand-you” concept collapses. We end up with a never-never land where everyone gets to play all day and nobody ever has to grow up. If out meal ‘ol boss fails to give us all the candy we can possibly gorge ourselves on, we shriek like a spoiled three-year old and go stocking-off looking for a “better paradigm”. In this dystopia, the “Leader” becomes a sort of demented sugar-daddy, whose job it is to protect followers from the consequences of their delusions.

It doesn’t take much of a look at the US economy to realize what kind of leaders they currently enjoy. It is simply not possible to continue in the current manner, but America is so blinded by 40 years of Baby Boomer bullshit that even with the crunch finally happening, people still do not get it. Instead they cry for more and better sugar-daddies to help avoid reality just a little while longer.

The road to hell is paved with nominalized verbs. When we take a process like “leadership” and turn it into a thing, we annihilate the true value of the concept. Saying things like “leadership is when you empower employees” is no different than saying “weather is when it’s sunny out”. Organizations that survive must always keep firmly anchored in the realities of their environment and adjust their plans and methods accordingly. Since effective leading will always be situational, creating any sort of list of what leaders “ought to do” will only serve to fog management’s windshield and lessen their ability to respond to their circumstances.
After creating a static and distorted view of leading, we then compound the error by telling everyone that they must become leaders. When leadership is defined as doing “this this and this”, and reality dictates doing something different, people are faced with the false choice between either being a “bad leader” or an idiot.

The other huge issue I have with Tom’s posting is the implied belief that managers don’t create value, but I think I have done the crazy-ranting-guy-on-the-internet thing enough for one day.

Posted by John at February 4, 2007 4:54 PM

what about "controlling" the talent that is leading/bringing you successfully into a direction contary to your vision, mission, values? from what i have been told no matter how good the talent leaders do not serve into competing adendas.

Posted by lee primeau at April 1, 2007 9:03 PM