Much has been written about the differences between, and similarities across, management and leadership. But unsurprisingly, most managers equate the word “manager” with the word “leader” by default. After all, they’ve been appointed by other “leaders“. Thus, by (their) definition, managers are leaders.
On the other hand, most raw employees equate the word “manager” with “manager” by default. Err, on second thought, since (as usual) he has no supporting “data“, this BD00 post is prolly full of BS00:
Our old arrogant, egotistical nature (continuously) seeks out sustaining agreement with itself and its distorted opinions. – William Samuel
If you’re a leader (anointed or otherwise) and the only access to you is communicated via the classic “my door is always open” and “suggestion box” yawners, then you won’t have to mind-wrestle with this vexing Poppercornism:
The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded that you don’t care. Either case is a failure of leadership. – Karl Popper
In his latest book, Gary Hamel proposes that executives and managers ask an important question every day:
It would be a refreshing change from these daily questions:
- How can I get Wall St. off my back?
- How can I get the board to give me a bigger bonus?
- How can I stop my VPs from bickering with each other and kissing my ass?
- Can I blame my poor performance on the economy, fickle customers, and a natural disaster in China?
- How can I squeeze more productivity out of my DICs and trade nothing in return?
- What new management position can I create to extinguish this latest fire?
- How can I ensure that my legacy will be revered?
In this interview of Scott Berkun by Michael “Rands In Repose” Lopp, “Rands In Repose: Interview: Scott Berkun“, Scott was asked about his former stint at Microsoft as a program manager. Specifically, Rands asked Scott what his definition of “program manager” is. Here is Scott’s answer:
It’s a glorified term for a project leader or team lead, the person on every squad of developers who makes the tough decisions, pushes hard for progress, and does anything they can to help the team move forward. At its peak in the 80s and 90s, this was a respected role of smart, hard driving and dedicated leaders who knew how to make things happen. As the company grew, there became too many of them and they’re often (but not always) seen now as annoying and bureaucratic.
Americans have a love affair with small businesses. But due to the SCOLs, CGHs, BUTTs, and BMs that ran companies like Enron, Tyco, and Lehman Bros, big businesses are untrusted and often reviled by the public. That’s because, when a company grows, its leaders often “magically” morph into self-serving, obstacle-erecting, and progress-inhibiting bureaucrats; often without even knowing that the transformation is taking place. D’oh! I hate when that happens.
From Dan Pink’s “FLIP Manifesto“:
To take the E test, draw the letter “E” on your forehead. Oops, too late. You already know which way is the “correct” one.
Check out this tweet from Stefan Stern:
21st century leaders “get” this recipe for building two way trust and respect. 20th century leaders demand that followers (willing or coerced) unconditionally care about what the leader wants. To them, establishing and nurturing a symmetrical, two-way caring relationship is not in the cards.
Quid pro quo Clarisse…. Quid pro quo – Hannibal Lecter
Since BD00 is a bombastic and boisterous blasphemer of the “B” word, I just HAD to meta-blog about this infoworld blog post after I stumbled upon it: “The tech industry’s biggest bozos of 2011″.
And the winners are…..
Because Netflix is one of the companies on my faves list (and I’m a stockholder!), I’m really bummed about the Hastings-Netflix fiasco. Since I think Mr. Hastings and Netflix will recover from the faux pas, I’m keeping them on the list.