Leadership vs. Management

Discussion in 'Economics' started by Port1385, Dec 12, 2008.

  1. Management has become a bad word in today's society. A manager is seen as a ruthless unpopular authoritarian who must fire at least some of the staff and managers each year.

    Leadership is a more popular approach where you do not tell people what to do, but to suggest and persuade them into doing the right thing.

    Management was a concept of the 80s&90s where as Leadership is a concept of the 00s.

    The more effective approach, in my opinion, is management. Jack Welch is one of history's most effective CEOs. Under the Welch concept of management, the bottom 10% must always be fired where as the top 20% are constantly rewarded. Jack was never a popular CEO at GE because people were always getting fired at the company. However, General Electric's stock grew more then 57 times during his reign. The top 20% at GE were rewarded handsomely and experienced handsome raises and bonuses year to year.

    GE is now under a different CEO whose concept is of leadership. Under "Leadership", GE has floundered and now trades as if it was going into bankruptcy. Its a ship wreck, a train wreck.

    Leadership is for Armies where soldiers must perform life-threatening work with a rather low pay. Management is for workplaces where people come to make a check. People who report to workplaces each day are not there to fight against advancing armies. They are there to support families.

    Slackers in society enjoy the concept of leadership because they are protected against being fired quickly. Top performers loathe the concept of leadership because raises and bonuses are much less as the slackers are included into the matrix.

    Our society has advanced more under the concept of management. Eliminating people from a business is not unhealthy and has created many a wealthy person.

    If Marc Cuban was not fired from that IBM store, then he would not be where he is today. It was a manager who fired Cuban and not a leader. If Marc's boss was a leader, then he would have forgiven Marc for his mistakes at the store and attempted to coach him and bring him up to speed. Luckily, a manager was at that store who made the decision to simply terminate Cuban and move on.

    Leaders are for armies, managers are for companies. They cannot be mixed...
  2. Good points.

    A manager is a simpelton, a pony boy. Managers are idiots most of the time. Look at the idiots one deals with in the Corporate World. Managers are a dying breed as the layoffs hit Main Street.
    The fat that is being cut across the board, Managers. A Manager is trained but lacks core strength most of the time. He/She is a yes person.

    Leader has a innate core strength. A Leader is trained to bring out the innate core strength, to develope that core and to thrive above and beyond any expectations from the Simple Minded Fools who surround him/her.

    A Leader will not fail but is not afraid of Failuer. A Leader will put his/her self in front of "Adverse" situations in order to take control. A Leader is not afraid to deligate duties and give individuals freedom to grow. A Leader does not fire on the spot but tries to mentor and correct the flaws. A Leader will roll up his/her sleave and get into the trenches with his team.

    Corporate America is full of Managers, worthless, brainless, idiots.
  3. A leader sounds good on paper, but was it leadership or management that grew the S&P500 during the 80s/90s?

    There were more managers during the 90s then leaders. The 00s is when the philosophy of coaching and leadership began to be popular. Look at where we are today as a result? Businesses closing shops, stock market wrecked, massive unemployment, etc.

    Managers are seen as selfish and unpopular, but they are behind the business and the company. The leader is behind the individual, but not the company.

    Throw darts at Jack Welch, a true manager, but he did grow General Electric more then 57 times.

    I support firing people on the spot. It seems cruel and it is cruel. However, this is the way to cleanse an organization quickly of people who do not fit well or are simply dead-wood. Others who look on are encouraged by the actions of on the spot firing. If you just saw your co-worker get fired, then how would you react? You would work harder because you dont want to be like that guy.

    Managers are true capitalists. Capitalism is sometimes seen as ruthless, unpopular, but the concept works.

    Socialism and communism needs good leaders for the system to work. Its a flawed system and a popular guy is needed to convince people that it actually works...

    When Cuban was fired from the IBM store in the early 80s, the stock traded around 13 dollars. By the end of the management era, IBM traded well north of 100 dollars.

    So I ask you, which philosophy is more effective? I know leadership is more popular, but does it actually work?

    Dont forget, the concept of management involves rewarding the top performers monetarily. The concept of leadership involves rewarding everyone. Should everyone be rewarded? My answer is that the top 20% should be rewarded where as the bottom 15% should be fired. Its that simple and works to encourage those in the workforce.