By the late 1970s and early 80s, the number of writers was up to management. They were looking for a scapegoat to blame for the failure of the US business to deal with Japanese commercial invasion. The warfare was to replace managers with leaders. One of the biggest motivated executives was Professor Harvard Business School, Abraham Zaleznik. It's time to bring managers back from the dead, to take their right place together with leadership as an indispensable organization. To do this, we need to unveil writing by management managers to show what nonsense they were writing. Indeed, nothing was wrong with the work of management in the 1970's, as it was practiced. Attack Zaleznik is particularly important to deal with the Harvard Business Review still publishing its original 1977 article (Managers and Leaders: Are they Different?) In their collection of leadership articles, it makes their views still important and up to date when they are really dangerous outdated and harmful.
Zaleznik addresses its modern management by comparing it with science management Fredrick Taylor. Bearing in mind that Taylor died in 1915, it is surprising that Zaleznik does not show why it is legal to compare Taylor's views with how modern executives work, so his opinions are dubious even before we begin to examine his arguments.
In a book published in 1989, The Management Mystique, Zaleznik, states that "# 39; what Taylor put through his administration system follows the way modern managers think and work." The principle is common sense. The goal is efficiency. "Most importantly, Zaleznik believed that managers and leaders differed in their personalities. Zaleznik is a leader of Taylor, and describes executives as cold efficiency of machines that accept impersonal, if not idle, attitudes toward goals. & # 39; & # 39; Furthermore, & # 39; & # 39; Managers see themselves as retention and regulators about current procedures. "He tells us that & # 39; & # 39; managers & # 39; Methods appear flexible: On the one hand, they agree and agree; On the other hand, they use rewards, punishments and other types of forcing. "So, managers are only s feasible and they are forced, even manipulative in the eyes of Zaleznik. In 1977, Zaleznik analyzed exactly the same requirement, stating that: & # 39; & # 39; … one often hears subordinates characterize executives as seamless, detached and manipulative. & # 39; & # 39;
Zaleznik would believe that managers are looking for activity with people, "they maintain a low level of emotional engagement in these relationships." They also seem to "& # 39; & # 39; lack of sympathy. "Zaleznik expands on the emotional theme of the management girl by telling us that managers work within a narrow range of emotions. This emotional mix when combined concerns about processes lead to the management of executives being impeccable , detached and even manipulative.
It's not clear what data Zaleznik has for these damaged charges. He seems to be doing nothing but explaining Fredrick Taylor's ideology without asking himself whether executives have committed themselves to to declare Taylor Zaleznik has begun by worshiping Taylor, as efficiency, and has cleared all the managers of all time with the same brush.
Zaleznik believes leaders are creative and motivated while executives are only interested in a process – How things are done, not what. For Zaleznik, & # 39; & # 39 Leaders who are more concerned about ideas are related to intuition and sympathy. & # 39; & # 39; No doubt, leaders are more focused on ideas than how they are implemented, but there is no basis for calling leaders more consciously than managers.
Basically there is no real basis for this personality distinction. It's not good enough to say that managers were managing from the time Taylor until the Japanese invasion showed them. Even if this is historically accurate, there is nothing in this provocative fact that commits executives to work today in this way. The simple way around Zaleznik's condemnation of management is to define it actively for the purpose it serves, not in terms of how it really realizes its purpose. This leaves a way to control everything open.
Management versus leadership
A simple way of defining leadership and management is to say that leaders introduce new guidelines while executives execute the current. In addition, it is widely acknowledged today that leaders can have essentially different personality, ranging from quiet, certain and factual to bubbly, vague but encouraging cheerleading species. The whole move to divide leaders from managers by personality lines has failed miserably and it's time to give it up. The truth is that both leaders and executives can be encouraging, they only have different emphases. An encouraging leader brings us to change direction while the motivating manager urges to work better. Yes, executives contribute to efficiency, but this does not necessarily mean Fredrick Taylor's mechanical coordination. Management is like an investment. Successful managers make use of all the resources at your disposal as they will make the most of this investment. In modern organizations, built by intelligent knowledge staff, this can mean setting up a self-governing team. In order to get the best results from such talents, modern managers need to be good coaches, nurturers and developers of people. Of course, they need to measure and track results to know if their deployment on people is paying, but that does not mean it's cool, mechanical or administrative.
The result is that managers are equally important in leadership organizations and it's time to throw like the views of writers such as Abraham Zaleznik, who review it differently. In addition, the fact that his writing is still endorsed by Harvard Business School raises questions about their credibility.