Forums

Hi all,

I remember that I was asked about these questions years ago when I interview for the police inspector.

Up till now, i cannot figure out how to handle this question. Any idea?

Tks
Tony

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="tonys"]Hi all,

I remember that I was asked about these questions years ago when I interview for the police inspector.

Up till now, i cannot figure out how to handle this question. Any idea?

Tks
Tony[/quote]
First, explain that leadership has nothing to do with management.
BTW if they don't know the difference between the two, I'd seriously consider not working for the company.

Then if you are a leader, describe your style, i.e. how you get people to follow you. Is it through conviction? Seduction? Persuasion? Intimidation?
If you are not, explain why.

Finally, if you are a manager, the question about your style should be answered with: "It depends". :-)
The tools are the same for every style (One-on-one's, Feedback, Coaching) but how you apply them depends on both your strengths and your people's "characteristics" (think DiSC profile, MBTI, etc.).

HTH.

jhack's picture

I wouldn't try to correct their understanding. They're hiring you to help them do things they can't do without you, so assume you're going to contribute. But don't correct them, don't tell them they're not smart enough to understand what you have figured out.

Just describe how you see management and leadership as different and related aspects of what you do. Describe your leadership style (see below) and the actions you take as a manager to see that your vision and ideas get turned into products and services. I would not say "It depends" as that could be misinterpreted as an attempt to tell them you can do anything.

As for your style, there are numerous places where you can go to have this assessed, and you can simply think about how you get others to do things: do you ask, or do you tell; do you set goals, or do you lay out the path; are you engaged day to day in the details, or do you delegate to the team? None is inherently better than the other, but they tell the recruiter how you lead.

And if they don't like your style, you shouldn't be in that role. That's OK.

Finally, please do subscribe to the interview podcasts. They cover how to handle these kinds of questions.

John

tonys's picture

Hi John and Vinnie,

tks for the kind reply.

I think I need a self evaluate. I never lead someone with a significant period or tasl. That makes the evaluation even difficult.

I am considering subscribe the premium contents, but currently busy with the free stuff and did not make clear about what additional the Premium Content offer besides the interview podcast.

Tks

vinnie2k's picture

It gives you all the cheat sheets, templates and slides for all the podcasts.

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="jhack"]I wouldn't try to correct their understanding. They're hiring you to help them do things they can't do without you, so assume you're going to contribute. But don't correct them, don't tell them they're not smart enough to understand what you have figured out.[/quote]
That is not what I meant 8)

I had this question about a month ago during an interview. I proceeded to very simply state what I believe to be true, explaining the difference between managing and leading, and how I could contribute in both areas. They were interested by what I said. They probably haven't changed their views but hopefully they had a very small "aha" moment.

BTW this applies to any topic. If someone asks me about my IT/IS experience, I will first state that I believe IT and IS are different animals, and why (in less than 30 seconds), and then answer their question.

tonys's picture

Vinnie, I am courious. DId you get the job finally?

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="tonys"]Vinnie, I am courious. DId you get the job finally?[/quote]
It was an interview with a recruiting agency.

Mark's picture

TonyS-

I apologize that this has taken me so long.

This question doesn't have a best answer, because everyone's style of leading or managing is different. The key is to structure your answer around key concepts that you can elaborate upon with brief vignettes from your experience.

You have 3-5 minutes.

Again, my regrets. Good to be back.

Mark

tonys's picture

Thanks for the reply, Mark

citius's picture

When people in my company refer to management styles they are almost always referring to those defined in a Harvard Business Review article called "Leadership That Gets Results". It is well worth the time reading it if you can get access to it.

To paraphrase the article, it finds that six different styles are in common use:

* coercive - focuses on obtaining immediate compliance
* authoritative - focuses on articulating the long-term vision
* affiliative - focuses on building and maintaining team harmony
* democratic - focuses on building commitment and generating new ideas
* pacesetting - focuses on maintaining high standards of excellence
* coaching - focuses on long-term employee development.

All of the styles have their time and place. However, the coercive, affiliative, and pacesetting styles are regarded as having a long-term detrimental effect on an organization when used predominately. Most managers rely on one or two styles. The most effective managers can comfortably use any of the styles and will consciously choose one that works well for specific circumstances.

A detailed discussion of each style would form the basis of an excellent series of podcasts (hint, hint Mike and Mark) ;)

I hope this helps.

ashdenver's picture

Citius, thanks for the list & brief descriptions. With those talking points, I will feel more confident in relating my style.

I once went through a sham interview internal to a company I ultimately left before they dissolved into bankruptcy. The CEO asked me questions similar to this one. I responded with some examples or vignettes in 3 mins time but because I didn't drop the buzzwords, he told me I wouldn't be considered. I guess I've never understood why the buzzwords are more important than the actual concepts, styles and actions they represent.

I'm curious -- why do you think the pacesetting style (as predominant) would be detrimental? Is the belief that people get worn out & discouraged trying to do things the right way the vast majority of the time? Working in payroll, I can't imagine NOT incorporating pacesetting in a predominant position. If "eh, it's okay, we'll catch it next week" was an acceptable management style for the payroll/HR group, I'd imagine there'd be larger issues within the company! LOL

(Personally, I'd say I use, in order: pacesetting, democratic & coaching. )

*prints off copy of list to add to Interview Prep File* LOVE this place - you guys are the bestest!!

WillDuke's picture

My guess would be because if not handled perfectly it would wear down you staff. It seems like people might end up saying "it's just never good enough is it."

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="ashdenver"](Personally, I'd say I use, in order: pacesetting, democratic & coaching. )[/quote]

Different people & situations require different types of management styles. The good managers adapt their style to whatever is needed.

So in essence, understanding your natural style is the first step, understanding and practising the others is the second, and recognizing which situation calls for which style is nirvana 8)

citius's picture

Pacesetting works best when everyone on the team is self-motivated, highly competent and need very little direction.

When pacesetting is over-utilized several problems tend to develop long-term.

[b]loss of trust.[/b] When a manager constantly reviews work product and makes corrections as needed, it tends to foster a climate in which the employees feel that their boss does not trust them to perform independently.

[b]inflexibility.[/b] When a manager constantly enforces very high standards, the employees often cope by developing and religiously following a rigid set of "approved" procedures. The work then becomes very task focused and unrewarding.

[b]unclear expectations.[/b] In many cases, a pacesetter establishes higher standards than he is able to completely articulate to the team. The team often finds themselves in the position of constantly trying to second-guess the boss. These leads to frustration and dissatisfaction.

I used to be a frequent pacesetter when I was first promoted to manage a software development team that I had been part of for a couple of years. It was an easy and natural style for the situation. I became properly motivated to develop and rely more consistently on other styles when my director (a wise man) told me I would not be promoted until I had developed a viable successor from within my team. This forced me to introduce other styles into my routine to develop that successor.

And now, no matter what role I am in, I always work towards a goal of identifying and developing a successor (or more often successors) from within my team. This makes my team stronger and forces me to become a stronger manager.

bflynn's picture

[quote="vinnie2k"]
First, explain that leadership has nothing to do with management.
BTW if they don't know the difference between the two, I'd seriously consider not working for the company.
[/quote]

Most interviewers aren't going to make a fine distinction between management and leadership. You're probably not winning any point by splitting hairs with them over semantics. No, they're technically not the same, but it is generally bad form to correct an interviewer on semantics.

If this bothers you too much to work for that company, please remember me and email me the contact information for the hiring manager. I have no problem with it and will work for them in an instant. You're not taking the job, give it to me!

Brian

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="bflynn"][quote="vinnie2k"]
First, explain that leadership has nothing to do with management.
BTW if they don't know the difference between the two, I'd seriously consider not working for the company.
[/quote]

Most interviewers aren't going to make a fine distinction between management and leadership. You're probably not winning any point by splitting hairs with them over semantics. No, they're technically not the same, but it is generally bad form to correct an interviewer on semantics.
[/quote]
1. It's *not* semantics. There's a fundamental difference between leading and managing
2. I'm not correcting them, I am only stating what I think is true and helps companies do a better job at casting people for the right role

I know I am not that smart and they're not that dumb, but that does not mean that I can't state what I know to be true. I met a lot of recruiters who don't know the difference... and I can understand why. People get into recruiting nowadays exactly like I got into computer science: by interest and necessity to get a job. So, yes, whenever I can, I try to bring people some insights into that difference, and they usually don't get offended.

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="bflynn"]
If this bothers you too much to work for that company, please remember me and email me the contact information for the hiring manager. I have no problem with it and will work for them in an instant. You're not taking the job, give it to me![/quote]
Good luck working for a company that hires you as a manager and then asks you to be a leader...

ashdenver's picture

When I think of "being hired to manage" I think of titles like Supervisor (at the lowest end), Manager, Director, Executive, VP, etc. I don't think I can come up with any Leadership titles off the top of my head.

Am I so far out of the loop that I'm naively assuming "if they're hiring you to manage, they also expect you to be a leader -- of your directs and possibly among your peers"?

At my company, any time I plug "management" into the SkillSoft course search field, invariably the results returned are leadership-oriented with a very few courses in budgeting or the like.

bflynn's picture

[quote="ashdenver"]Am I so far out of the loop that I'm naively assuming "if they're hiring you to manage, they also expect you to be a leader -- of your directs and possibly among your peers"?[/quote]

Nope, you are directly in the loop.

Brian

tomas's picture

vinnie2k,

You clearly hold a passionate view about the difference between management and leadership, so much so that you would consider turning down an offer from a company that did not know the difference.

Care to share your thoughts on what the difference actually is?

tlhausmann's picture

[quote="citius"]
When pacesetting is over-utilized several problems tend to develop long-term.
[...]
[b]inflexibility.[/b] When a manager constantly enforces very high standards, the employees often cope by developing and religiously following a rigid set of "approved" procedures. The work then becomes very task focused and unrewarding.
[/quote]

Outstanding post citius! I would add that an overused pacesetting style may lead to an overly risk averse team. When the safest route becomes "Do Nothing" then your team is not innovating and providing outstanding service to those you serve.

tlhausmann

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="tomas"]vinnie2k,

You clearly hold a passionate view about the difference between management and leadership, so much so that you would consider turning down an offer from a company that did not know the difference.

Care to share your thoughts on what the difference actually is?[/quote]
I'm not going to turn down a job on that alone but I'd definitely check it in my list of "signs of a bad company".

The difference is that managing can be learned whereas I don't think leading can. It's also the difference between a skill (managing) and a talent (leading). Leading requires vision, persuasion, charisma, authority. None of these can be learned. You can however learn how to work around them if you do not have them. Read "First break all the rules": what I am saying is not theoretical, it's empirical and based on thousands of interviews.

Take accounting: if you do not possess this love of precision, you can have all the skills you want, you'll never be the most effective accountant around. Take room cleaing: if you can't put yourself in your customer's shoes and see the room as they would see it, you won't be a very good room cleaner. (both examples come from the book).

Mixing up leading and managing is failing to recognize that not all of us managers can be leaders, and vice versa. My previous boss was a horrible manager (he admits it himself) but a very charismatic leader. This misconception is the source of a lot of frustration and inefficiency from both our side and our bosses'; that's why I think it is important to make that distinction.

Off the soap box :-)

bflynn's picture

Everything you said is exactly right.

And, I will emphasize one last time that pointing out the difference to an interviewer is usually not [i]effective[/i] behavior. In addition to not being the best use of your limited time to show how you're qualified for the position, it could cause you to lose a job if the interviewer sees you as correcting them. Your call.

Brian

ccleveland's picture

Vinnie,

I disagree with your explanation of the difference between management and leadership. Saying that leadership cannot be learned is like saying that bad leader will always be a bad leader. While I do agree that there is some factor of talent or aptitude that makes learning easier or more difficult (e.g. IQ), it is certainly possible for someone to change their behaviors and become a “better” leader.

Your example about example about accounting and room cleaning could also be applied to “management.” If someone doesn’t love looking for efficiencies and constant improvement, they won’t be a very good manager. That point is non sequitur with respect to differences between leadership and management.

What is the difference between the two?

CC

jhack's picture

Managing and leading are both sets of behaviors whose goals are to affect the behavior of others.

They have some behaviors in common (such as verbally articulating a goal). This overlap likely accounts for the conflation of these two.

What's not clear to me are the behaviors which are unique to leadership and to management. Defining those would be helpful.

John

Likewise, the Skill/Talent dichotomy. Behavior can be learned (techniques of persuasion, for example, can definitely be learned). Is the difference merely how easily?

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="ccleveland"]Vinnie,

I disagree with your explanation of the difference between management and leadership. Saying that leadership cannot be learned is like saying that bad leader will always be a bad leader.
[/quote]
Actually (see below), there was a flaw in my thinking.

I would rephrase it this way: someone who does not possess the required talents to be leader will never be able to be a great leader.

[quote]
While I do agree that there is some factor of talent or aptitude that makes learning easier or more difficult (e.g. IQ), it is certainly possible for someone to change their behaviors and become a “better” leader.
[/quote]
It's all about proportions. Yes, a bad leader can improve and become less of a bad leader (whatever that may mean). Is s/he going to become a great leader by taking classes and practicing? I believe the answer to this question is "No".

[quote]
Your example about example about accounting and room cleaning could also be applied to “management.” If someone doesn’t love looking for efficiencies and constant improvement, they won’t be a very good manager. That point is non sequitur with respect to differences between leadership and management.

What is the difference between the two?
CC[/quote]
You're right.

There are talents required to be a manager too :-) What you describe could be a good example. Loving to help people become more efficient (coaching, feedback) might be another one.

I think I can rephrase my statement this way: the talents required to be a leader are different than those required to be a manager. Every job out there requires some talent. The difficulty is in recognzing which talents are needed for leadership vs which talents are needed for management.

Here is the beginning of a list:

Management talents: love of efficiency, drive to help others become more efficient

Leadership talents: persuasion, charisma, vision

Some might be common?

Thanks for pointing out the flaw.

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="jhack"]Managing and leading are both sets of behaviors whose goals are to affect the behavior of others.
[/quote]
Yes, but the ingredients you need to be efficient at these sets of behaviors are different, with probably some overlap.

[quote]
They have some behaviors in common (such as verbally articulating a goal). This overlap likely accounts for the conflation of these two.
[/quote]
Yes, I think so. Another reason is the fact that we need people to make decisions, be it managers or leaders; I would guess most people just want to see the outcome (the decision) and are not interested in how the decision was made or what kind of impact it has on the people affected by the decision.

[quote]
What's not clear to me are the behaviors which are unique to leadership and to management. Defining those would be helpful.
[/quote]
I wouldn't be writing in this forum if I had all the answers (or maybe I would, full time :wink: ), but there's the beginning of a list in another post in this thread.

[quote]
Likewise, the Skill/Talent dichotomy. Behavior can be learned (techniques of persuasion, for example, can definitely be learned). Is the difference merely how easily?[/quote]
Techniques can always be learned, but there's a limit to where hrd work can get you. I will use Michael Jordan as an example (which, for a Knicks fan, hurts): no matter how hard I practice, I'll never play as well as Michael Jordan, even taking the physical aspect of the game of out the equation. Or, take any chess Grand Master: no matter how long/hard I play, I'll never be a Grand Master: I am missing the fundamental wiring for the "chess" talent. That's what talent is: how our brain is wired and how it processes information filtered by our senses.

You actually give me another great argument: we recognize talent in sports and arts very easily, yet somehow this does not apply to our professional lives? :-)

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="bflynn"]Everything you said is exactly right.

And, I will emphasize one last time that pointing out the difference to an interviewer is usually not [i]effective[/i] behavior. In addition to not being the best use of your limited time to show how you're qualified for the position, it could cause you to lose a job if the interviewer sees you as correcting them. Your call.

Brian[/quote]
Agreed.

It might not be effective, but honesty and telling what I believe is the truth (especially when it can really help!) are behaviors that I committed to a long time ago, and if my career takes a hit then so be it

Will I arrogantly point out the difference and snicker? No.
Will I try to make my point in 30 seconds? You bet.

skwanch's picture

[quote]Will I arrogantly point out the difference and snicker? No.
Will I try to make my point in 30 seconds? You bet.[/quote]

Take a listen to the recent podcast on the 'Leadership style' question. Mark addresses this practice (differentiating between leadership and mgmt) very directly.

Hint: He doesn't recommend it.

jhack's picture

[b]Warning:[/b] this thread has become academic...

[quote="vinnie2k"] ...there's the beginning of a list in another post in this thread.[/quote]
2 thoughts.
1. "Love," "Drive," "Vision" and "Authority" are not behaviors and are not measurable.
2. Those attributes could apply to either management or leadership.

[quote="vinnie2k"]
... but there's a limit to where hard work can get you. ...no matter how hard I practice, I'll never play as well as Michael Jordan, ... no matter how long/hard I play, I'll never be a Grand Master...[/quote]
I see the distinction you're drawing between skill and talent. Thank you.

You can certainly play basketball well if you practice. You can manage well if you practice. And you can lead well if you practice.

You can't be a great manager any more easily than you can be a great leader.

Are you suggesting that leadership is another word for "great management?"

If not...what behaviors distinguish management from leadership?

John

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="jhack"]2 thoughts.
1. "Love," "Drive," "Vision" and "Authority" are not behaviors and are not measurable.
[/quote]
Behaviors are the consequences of how people are wired and the environment in which they interact. They're not an end in themselves, only the manifestation of deeper forces at work. The fact that these forces are not measurable does not bother me because I know I won't be able to act on them directly - I will only be able to recognize a match or a mismatch, and then act with behavioral psychology (DiSC, MBTI, etc.).

[quote]
2. Those attributes could apply to either management or leadership.
[/quote]
You can be a great manager and not have a talent for vision.
You can be a great manager without having charisma.
You can be a great leader and have no talent for constant improvement. You can be a great leader and have no talent for day-to-day coaching and feedback.
And of course, some talents are common to both roles.

[quote]
You can certainly play basketball well if you practice. You can manage well if you practice. And you can lead well if you practice.
[/quote]
Of course you can improve by practising. The real question is: how far? Again, no matter how hard I try to be an accountant, I'll never be a great accountant because I don't have what it takes to be one. It's all about matching talents with positions, for greater performance.

Gallup research says that great managers recognize the difference between a talent and a skill in all of their daily activities, across the board: hiring, directing, etc. Behavioral psychology only gets you so far; it will never tell you what motivates people, or why they do what they do. Imagine a failing accountant. Understanding what talents your employee possesses will help you make her more efficient because it will give you hints as to what she is wired for. Of course, 1 on 1s will point her problem(s) out because her performance will suffer - but coaching her in changing her behavior is not going to be enough to help the accountant that doesn't love numbers, or precision.

[quote]
You can't be a great manager any more easily than you can be a great leader.
[/quote]
You lost me here.

[quote]
Are you suggesting that leadership is another word for "great management?"
[/quote]
No, they're essentially different.

[quote]
If not...what behaviors distinguish management from leadership?

John[/quote]
Why do you need to know what behaviors distinguish them? Are behaviors the only concepts you are willing to talk about?

jhack's picture

Behavior is one of the few aspects of psychology that can be observed and measured meaningfully (we can measure FMRI imaging, but it doesn’t yet help us understand leadership). In a situation where an unclear concept (“leadership”) needs clarification, we should focus on measurable aspects. I believe in “customer orientation” but it’s hard to measure.

[quote="vinnie2k"]managing can be learned whereas I don't think leading can [/quote]

Hence my comment “You can't be a great manager any more easily than you can be a great leader.” They’re both tough, and they’re both things people do. You can learn to lead, you can learn to manage, and you can learn to shoot hoops.

Perhaps you’re saying that the label “leadership” means great leadership, available only to those born with natural talent. In that case, I simply disagree.

And I disagree that you can be a great manager if you don’t have vision. You might be good, but not great. Likewise, you can’t be a great manager without having charisma. Constant improvement is a requisite for greatness in anything.

This has been a very thought-provoking thread, thanks. One can see several people (including me) evolving their understanding as the thread grows.

John

jhack's picture

OK, I went to the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership#Leadership.27s_relation_with_man...

Good stuff, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING IT, but their definition of management isn’t Manager-Tools management (“Managers focus on systems, leaders focus on people”)

It seems “leadership” is one of those words that mean different things to different people, and has also provided grist to the academic mills for quite some time.

So in the spirit of reconciliation (and I love the manager-tools forums for the lack of ad hominem argument!), I would propose the following two things.

First, leadership and management have much, much more in common than in difference, including communications skills, people skills, organizational skills, etc ad nauseum.

Second, the differences are in the levels of the skills, not the existence / non-existence of the skills (as in DiSC, where no one gets an 8 or a 0 in any dimension).

Areas where leaders are strong relative to managers:
Articulating a vision.
Setting goals that are personally compelling to others.
Persuasion
Public speaking

Managers are strong relative to leaders:
Organizing people and workflows towards a common goal
Budgeting
Coaching individuals

Hey, maybe Leaders are just great High I managers…..Nah!

OK, I’m going to try going cold turkey on this thread.

Thanks all,

John

tomas's picture

vinnie2k,

Thank you for providing your take on the management/leadership distinction. I do agree that leadership and management are not the same thing. I also think that some of your points (such as leadership being trait based, and that it cannot be learned) can be argued either way, and I'm not sure that a 3 minute interview question response is the right setting to launch into that discussion.

As to the relationship between management and leadership, my Management 101 textbook describes the elements of management as "Planning, leading, organising and controlling". That is, leadership is but one element of management. It may be more or less important in particular roles, but it is still there.

Put simply, leadership is the ability to get people to do stuff you want them to do, and effective managers generally need to be able to get people to do things, so leadership is an element of management.

You could tailor your answer to the "management/leadership style" question depending on which one they actually ask. If they want leadership, talk about how you get your team to do things, if they ask about management you can provide a broader answer talking about other aspects.

If the distinction is very important to you maybe that would be a good question to ask, if you can frame it within the context of how you would fit into that particular role.

skwanch's picture

[quote]You actually give me another great argument: we recognize talent in sports and arts very easily, yet somehow this does not apply to our professional lives? [/quote]

Michael Jordan was great because of his commitment to improvement and the hours he spent practicing. Remember - he got cut from his freshman team. THAT was what drove him - the knowledge/awareness/[b]proof [/b]that his innate 'talent' was insufficient.

Similarly, most artists are not prodigies (despite their press kits). Most artists have spent years and years honing their craft, creating a solid base of 'the fundamentals' that allows them to [b]seem [/b]as though they're on a plane above mere mortals. I'm reminded of the old saying in the music business that it takes 20yrs to create an overnight success.

'Talent' is highly overrated and what we choose to perceive as 'talent' is usually the result of a lot of hard work. We are not deterministic clockwork creations, bound by genetics down a certain path. We are the creations of our own vision, directed by discipline and will.

juliahhavener's picture

Behaviors are things you can see and hear. We can talk concepts all day long, but at the END of the day...what I feel doesn't matter as much as what I DO.

Parts of this thread have been great in terms of giving me the vocabulary to describe my leadership/management style.

This piece has not given me the language to define the difference between the two.

I have seen accountants with great charisma and a deep, abiding love for their jobs. I have seen excellent accountants who HATE their job.

You're telling me that you would correct someone in an interview on the difference between leadership and management. It's been asked what behaviors differentiate the two things in your definition. I would love to hear that from someone who feels so strongly that the two must be distinguished between.

Behaviors are the things we do once we have looked at the world in our particularly-colored glasses and made a decision on what we should do next. I can't see vision. I can't see charisma.

As for talking about motivations - we don't motivate others. We may find the keys to THEIR motivation, but it's up to them to do so.

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="jhack"]Second, the differences are in the levels of the skills, not the existence / non-existence of the skills (as in DiSC, where no one gets an 8 or a 0 in any dimension).

Areas where leaders are strong relative to managers:
Articulating a vision.
Setting goals that are personally compelling to others.
Persuasion
Public speaking

Managers are strong relative to leaders:
Organizing people and workflows towards a common goal
Budgeting
Coaching individuals
[/quote]
I can live with that :-)

[quote]
Hey, maybe Leaders are just great High I managers…..Nah!
[/quote]
I was thinking that myself. Great leaders would definitely be high I personas, whereas I don't think great managers don't need the high I component (think Mike :P)

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="jhack"]You can learn to lead, you can learn to manage, and you can learn to shoot hoops.
[/quote]
Sure you can, but my question is how well and to what extent.

[quote]
Perhaps you’re saying that the label “leadership” means great leadership, available only to those born with natural talent. In that case, I simply disagree.
[/quote]
You hit it on the head. The same goes for managers, BTW. Or any other profession for that matter. They all require some set of talents that if you do not possess them, it will be harder for you to succeed in that role.

I am just realizing that the idea I defend goes against many of the American myths and cultural foundations: "be all you can be", "if you work hard enough you'll get what you want", etc. I absolutely respect them because they drive you to become a better professional and a better person, but I respecfully fundamentally disagree :-) And I'll leave it at that :-)

[quote]
This has been a very thought-provoking thread, thanks. One can see several people (including me) evolving their understanding as the thread grows.

John[/quote]
It has, and my thinking has evolved too. Thanks :-)

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="tomas"]I also think that some of your points (such as leadership being trait based, and that it cannot be learned) can be argued either way, and I'm not sure that a 3 minute interview question response is the right setting to launch into that discussion.
[/quote]
Agreed.

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="skwanch"]
Michael Jordan was great because of his commitment to improvement and the hours he spent practicing. Remember - he got cut from his freshman team. THAT was what drove him - the knowledge/awareness/[b]proof [/b]that his innate 'talent' was insufficient.
[/quote]
Sure you need hard work to get where he got. But no matter how hard I practice, I'll never be as good/successful a basketball player as MJ was (and I played ball for 20 years...).

[quote]
'Talent' is highly overrated and what we choose to perceive as 'talent' is usually the result of a lot of hard work. We are not deterministic clockwork creations, bound by genetics down a certain path. We are the creations of our own vision, directed by discipline and will.[/quote]
Going back to the foundations of a large part of the American culture :-)

I think that if 0 is "talent is everything" and 100 is "clockwork creation", the truth is somewhere in the middle :-)

regas14's picture

I'm a little surprised that this conversation has been so active. Here's an interesting article about leadership branding within an organization:

[url]http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2007/ca2007102_799024.ht...

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="juliahdoyle"]Behaviors are things you can see and hear. We can talk concepts all day long, but at the END of the day...what I feel doesn't matter as much as what I DO.
[/quote]
And what you DO is not conditioned by what you FEEL? :-)

[quote]
This piece has not given me the language to define the difference between the two.
[/quote]
My failure. I am by no means an expert on the subject, I have been trying to articulate my vision of the differences between these concepts.

[quote]
You're telling me that you would correct someone in an interview on the difference between leadership and management.
[/quote]
"correct' is too strong of a word. "Point out", "hint"... anything that would prompt a follow-up question by them if they're interested, or prompt nothing if they're not :-)

[quote]
It's been asked what behaviors differentiate the two things in your definition. I would love to hear that from someone who feels so strongly that the two must be distinguished between.

Behaviors are the things we do once we have looked at the world in our particularly-colored glasses and made a decision on what we should do next. I can't see vision. I can't see charisma.
[/quote]
Right. My problem is that because I am no expert, I can define leadership in terms of talents, I can recognize leadership when I see it, but I can't point out behaviors on the top of my head.

I can give you examples of people that are considered to be charismatic leaders: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Adolf Hitler. Steve Jobs, Gandhi...

Then we could ask ourselves: what behaviors do they use? What do they do?

We could come up with a list of things we noticed from watching one of these people, and from there infer a set of behaviors that distinguish great leaders from us mortals :-)

[quote]
As for talking about motivations - we don't motivate others. We may find the keys to THEIR motivation, but it's up to them to do so.[/quote]
Right.

vinnie2k's picture

[quote="regas14"]I'm a little surprised that this conversation has been so active. Here's an interesting article about leadership branding within an organization:

[url]http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2007/ca2007102_799024.ht...
All my fault :oops:

vinnie2k's picture

That's it for me folks.

Thanks for the great feedback and discussion. PM me if you wish to discuss further 8)

ccleveland's picture

[quote="vinnie2k"]All my fault :oops:[/quote]

I'll take the blame:

[quote="ccleveland"]What is the difference between the two? [/quote]

My intent of asking was to show out that the differences aren't obvious to everone.

I agree, Vinnie, that there is an important distinction; however, I think that it is not important to make the distinction during a time where the point is to learn more about the interview[u]ee[/u], not to change interview[u]er[/u]'s views on leadership. (Or show that the interviewee is "smarter" than the interviewer.)

[quote]Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right things. --Drucker[/quote]
(I can't believe no one brought that one up!) :)

CC