Description
Management in all business and organizational activities is the act of coordinating the efforts of people to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively.
What is Differences between Leadership & Management?
Before I explore the work of Kotter it is perhaps worth pointing out that he undermines a central tenet of Transformational Leadership when he states that leadership has nothing whatsoever to do with charisma; however, as is often the case with many Harvard Business Review articles, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support such a proposition. Consequently, this piece is written in a somewhat polemical style. I mention this because he is considered to be one of the more influential academics in the field, therefore his views no doubt count to many industry people. Kotter (p.37) declares that leadership and management are "two distinctive and complementary systems of action", whereby the former is primarily concerned with dealing with change and the latter is more involved in addressing issues relating to organizational complexity. He expands on this point by suggesting that the sheer complexity of modern organizational life necessitates the need for a cadre of leaders who are able to quickly make sense of the shifting organizational landscape which itself is a consequence of the heady mix of increasing international competitive forces, demographic changes and increasing market deregulation. Kotter was writing this in 1990, long before the rise of Asia, so it is reasonable to suggest that such factors have only intensified in the past decade or so. In this authors view, the challenge for today's organizations is how best to deal with the twin forces of complexity and change. How is this to be done? Is it possible to establish a clear dividing line between the primary functional responsibilities of leaders and managers? In this author's view the complexity of modern organizational life requires a leadership comprised of individuals who have the mental ability to clearly articulate the overall direction of the firm (the vision part) in such a way that the successful operationalization of the overall strategic vision becomes reality. This latter part is the domain of management activity. (See Kotter's 1995 work which provides a more detailed discussion of his attitudes concerning how best to utilize organizational resources towards the successful delivery of any given strategic vision). In relation to the 'people handling' (my term) aspect, Kotter makes a crucial distinction between the role of managers and leaders. Whereas the former are mainly responsible for overseeing all aspects of the planning and implementation process within organizations vis-à- vis human and asset resources in order for the vision to be successfully realized (monitoring, delegating tasks and so on), leaders are more concerned with 'aligning' the various interest groups (stakeholders) thereby ensuring that the overall vision corresponds to their own understanding of the end-game (ibid, pp.38-41). Clearly, this involves a different skill-set such as being sensitive to the political subtleties which are an inherent feature in the successful formation of (potentially unstable) coalitions, as well as having a more acute understanding of human nature, and what ultimately makes people tick. This chimes with Phil's comment about leaders often being more emotional. I suppose to an extent they need to have an inherent understanding of the issues which ultimately drive people. The author's comments are interesting in relation to the imperative nature of getting the vision as finely tuned as is humanly possible from the earliest possible stage in the process. On this point he states that the key thing is not so much the originality that holds importance, rather it is "how well it serves the interests of important constituencies - and how easily it can be translated into a realistic competitive strategy" (ibid, p.43). A failure to get this right can lead to wasteful and over-elaborate planning initiatives taking on a (n ultimately pointless) life of their own only to be scuppered at some later stage in the process. Ultimately this is because the planners have failed to take sufficiently into account the fact that the dynamics of constant change within a work environment are constantly at play, which can render such plans obsolete in a very short space of time. Key to success, therefore, is for leaders to actively ensure that the overall vision is being adhered to during critical areas of strategic planning processes. All the better if planning can be kept as lean and short-termist as possible so as not to over-commit finite budgetary and human resources. Clearly, this is all
about effective communication on the part of the leaders of any organization. I know full well what he is talking about here and have seen it happen in my own experiences (I suspect I am not alone). You see a situation where even seasoned managers become disillusioned with the leadership team if the perception arises that strategic initiatives are out of sync with the vision. I think that to an extent this is down to the way that certain individuals are not very good at coping with massive change, and try hard to cling on to the vestiges of a more comfortable way of doing things. But more importantly, it is about a failure of leadership. I think that one of the most critical aspects of today's leaders is to find a successful way to combat cynicism within the workforce and the only way that this can be done is through the establishment of trusting relationships. I think that this is where the more task-oriented managers are lacking certain skills so it is down to leaders to motivate people from all layers of the organization to feel as if they are a part of the overall vision- shaping process. Zaleznik's (1977, p.65) influential contribution to the leadership canon goes as far as to suggest that managers and leaders are fundamentally different types of people. To quote, " they differ in motivation, personal history and in how they think and act". He goes on to state that "managers relate to people according to the role they play in a sequence of events or decision-making process, while leaders, who are concerned with ideas, relate in a more intuitive and empathetic ways" (ibid, p.73). References: Kotter, J.P, (1990) 'What leaders really do' Zaleznik, A (1977) 'Managers and leaders: are they different?' (both of the above articles are available in 'Harvard Business Review on Leadership' 1990, HBS Press) Kotter, JP (1995) ' Leading change: why transformation efforts fail' Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995
doc_536250174.docx
Management in all business and organizational activities is the act of coordinating the efforts of people to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively.
What is Differences between Leadership & Management?
Before I explore the work of Kotter it is perhaps worth pointing out that he undermines a central tenet of Transformational Leadership when he states that leadership has nothing whatsoever to do with charisma; however, as is often the case with many Harvard Business Review articles, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support such a proposition. Consequently, this piece is written in a somewhat polemical style. I mention this because he is considered to be one of the more influential academics in the field, therefore his views no doubt count to many industry people. Kotter (p.37) declares that leadership and management are "two distinctive and complementary systems of action", whereby the former is primarily concerned with dealing with change and the latter is more involved in addressing issues relating to organizational complexity. He expands on this point by suggesting that the sheer complexity of modern organizational life necessitates the need for a cadre of leaders who are able to quickly make sense of the shifting organizational landscape which itself is a consequence of the heady mix of increasing international competitive forces, demographic changes and increasing market deregulation. Kotter was writing this in 1990, long before the rise of Asia, so it is reasonable to suggest that such factors have only intensified in the past decade or so. In this authors view, the challenge for today's organizations is how best to deal with the twin forces of complexity and change. How is this to be done? Is it possible to establish a clear dividing line between the primary functional responsibilities of leaders and managers? In this author's view the complexity of modern organizational life requires a leadership comprised of individuals who have the mental ability to clearly articulate the overall direction of the firm (the vision part) in such a way that the successful operationalization of the overall strategic vision becomes reality. This latter part is the domain of management activity. (See Kotter's 1995 work which provides a more detailed discussion of his attitudes concerning how best to utilize organizational resources towards the successful delivery of any given strategic vision). In relation to the 'people handling' (my term) aspect, Kotter makes a crucial distinction between the role of managers and leaders. Whereas the former are mainly responsible for overseeing all aspects of the planning and implementation process within organizations vis-à- vis human and asset resources in order for the vision to be successfully realized (monitoring, delegating tasks and so on), leaders are more concerned with 'aligning' the various interest groups (stakeholders) thereby ensuring that the overall vision corresponds to their own understanding of the end-game (ibid, pp.38-41). Clearly, this involves a different skill-set such as being sensitive to the political subtleties which are an inherent feature in the successful formation of (potentially unstable) coalitions, as well as having a more acute understanding of human nature, and what ultimately makes people tick. This chimes with Phil's comment about leaders often being more emotional. I suppose to an extent they need to have an inherent understanding of the issues which ultimately drive people. The author's comments are interesting in relation to the imperative nature of getting the vision as finely tuned as is humanly possible from the earliest possible stage in the process. On this point he states that the key thing is not so much the originality that holds importance, rather it is "how well it serves the interests of important constituencies - and how easily it can be translated into a realistic competitive strategy" (ibid, p.43). A failure to get this right can lead to wasteful and over-elaborate planning initiatives taking on a (n ultimately pointless) life of their own only to be scuppered at some later stage in the process. Ultimately this is because the planners have failed to take sufficiently into account the fact that the dynamics of constant change within a work environment are constantly at play, which can render such plans obsolete in a very short space of time. Key to success, therefore, is for leaders to actively ensure that the overall vision is being adhered to during critical areas of strategic planning processes. All the better if planning can be kept as lean and short-termist as possible so as not to over-commit finite budgetary and human resources. Clearly, this is all
about effective communication on the part of the leaders of any organization. I know full well what he is talking about here and have seen it happen in my own experiences (I suspect I am not alone). You see a situation where even seasoned managers become disillusioned with the leadership team if the perception arises that strategic initiatives are out of sync with the vision. I think that to an extent this is down to the way that certain individuals are not very good at coping with massive change, and try hard to cling on to the vestiges of a more comfortable way of doing things. But more importantly, it is about a failure of leadership. I think that one of the most critical aspects of today's leaders is to find a successful way to combat cynicism within the workforce and the only way that this can be done is through the establishment of trusting relationships. I think that this is where the more task-oriented managers are lacking certain skills so it is down to leaders to motivate people from all layers of the organization to feel as if they are a part of the overall vision- shaping process. Zaleznik's (1977, p.65) influential contribution to the leadership canon goes as far as to suggest that managers and leaders are fundamentally different types of people. To quote, " they differ in motivation, personal history and in how they think and act". He goes on to state that "managers relate to people according to the role they play in a sequence of events or decision-making process, while leaders, who are concerned with ideas, relate in a more intuitive and empathetic ways" (ibid, p.73). References: Kotter, J.P, (1990) 'What leaders really do' Zaleznik, A (1977) 'Managers and leaders: are they different?' (both of the above articles are available in 'Harvard Business Review on Leadership' 1990, HBS Press) Kotter, JP (1995) ' Leading change: why transformation efforts fail' Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995
doc_536250174.docx