Select Page
  

I have the exam right now. Just take a look 2 articles i link below. Used your own words to answer 4 questions below (each one 75-100words)Pleaseeeee make sure you can do it on time then please finish it asap (you can just point out the point, no need full sentence but just use information in my source and paraphrase it carefully, it will be turn it in check online). Thank you so much!1-According to the article “ The Managers Job”, Which of the following is NOT one of the management folklores/myths that Mintzberg identified? 2- According to the article “ The Managers Job”, What did Mintzberg mean when he said “You can’t teach swimming or management in a lecture hall?” 3- According to the article “ The Managers Job”, Mintzberg argued that managers actually do more than the 4 traditionally ascribed functions of a manager’s job. Instead, the work of a manager is comprised of 3 distinct roles. What are these 3 roles? 4-According to Zaleznik in the article “Managers & Leaders – Are They Different”, how are managers and leaders different?
managers___leaders___are_they_different.pdf

themanagersjob.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Managers and leaders comparison discussion
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

67
Managers
and leaders:
Are they
different?
Abraham Zaleznik
Most societies, and that
includes business organizations, are caught hetwcen two conflicting
needs: one, for managers
to maintain the balance
of operations, and one
for leaders to create new
approaches and imagine
new areas to explore. One
might well ask why there
is a conflict. Cannot
both managers and leaders
exist in the same society^
or even better, cannot
one person be botb a
manager and a leader? The
;iuthor of this article
does not say that is impossible hut suggests
that because leaders and
managers are basically different types of people, the
conditions favorable to the
growth of one may he
inimical to the other.
Exploring the world views
of managers and leaders,
tbe author illustrates,
using Alfred P. Sloan and
Edwin Land among others
as examples, that managers
and leaders have different
attitudes toward tbeir
goals, careers, relations
with others, and them-
selves. And tracing their
different lines of development, the author shows
how leaders are of a psychologically different
type tban managers; their
development depends on
tbeir forming a oneto-one relationship with
a mentor.
Abraham Zaleznik is the
Cabners-Rabb Professor of
Social Psychology of
Management at the Harvard Business School.
He is also a psychoanalyst
and an active member,
American Psycboanalytie
Association. This is
Dr. Zaleznik’s fifth
article for HBR, tbe last
one being “Power and
Politics in Organizational
Life,” wbich appeared in
tbe May-June 1970 issue.
The present article is
based on a working paper
prepared for Time Inc.’s
conference on leadersbip,
held in Washington in
September, 1976.
Illustration by
Hans-Georg Rauch
A bureaucratic society which
breeds managers may stifle young
leaders who need mentors and
emotional interchange to develop
What is the ideal way to develop leadership? Every
society provides its own answer to this question,
and each, in groping for answers, defines its deepest
concerns about the purposes, distributions, and uses
of power. Business has contributed its answer to the
leadership question by evolving a new breed called
the manager. Simultaneously, business has established a new power ethic that favors collective over
individual leadership, the cult of the group over that
of personality. While ensuring the competence, control, and the balance of power relations among
groups with the potential for rivalry, managerial
leadership unfortunately does not necessarily ensure imagination, creativity, or ethical behavior in
guiding the destinies of corporate enterprises.
Leadership inevitably requires using power to influence the thoughts and actions of other people.
Power in the hands of an individual entails human
risks: first, the risk of equating power with the
ability to get immediate results; second, the risk of
ignoring the many different ways people can legitimately accumulate power; and third, the risk of
losing self-control in the desire for power. The need
to hedge these risks accounts in part for the development of collective leadership and the managerial
ethic. Consequently, an inherent conservatism dominates the culture of large organizations. In The
Second American Revolution, John D. Rockefeller,
3rd. describes the conservatism of organizations:
“An organization is a system, with a logic of its
own, and all the weight of tradition and inertia. The
May-Iune 1977
68
Harvard Business Review
deck is stacked in favor of the tried and proven way
of doing things and against the taking of risks and
striking out in new directions.” ^
heroism to be a manager, but rather persistence,
tough-mindedncss, hard work, intelligence, analytical ability and, perhaps most important, tolerance
and good will.
Out of this conservatism and inertia organizations
provide succession to power through the development of managers rather than individual leaders.
And the irony of the managerial ethic is that it
fosters a bureaucratic culture in business, supposedly
the last bastion protecting us from the encroachments and controls of bureaucracy in government
and education. Perhaps the risks associated with
power in the hands of an individual may be necessary ones for business to take if organizations are
to break free of their inertia and bureaucratic conservatism.
Another conception, however, attaches almost mystical beliefs to what leadership is and assumes that
only great people are worthy of the drama of power
and politics. Here, leadership is a psychodrama in
which, as a precondition for control of a political
structure, a lonely person must gain control of him
or herself. Such an expectation of leadership contrasts sharply with the mundane, practical, and yet
important conception that leadership is reaily managing work that other people do.
Manager vs. leader personality
Theodore Levitt has described the essential features
of a managerial culture with its emphasis on rationality and control:
“Management consists of the rational assessment
of a situation and the systematic selection of goals
and purposes (what is to be done?); the systematic
development of strategies to achieve these goals;
the marshalling of the required resources; the rational design, organization, direction, and control
of the activities required to attain the selected purposes; and, finally, the motivating and rewarding of
people to do the work.” –
In other words, whether his or her energies are directed toward goals, resources, organization structures, or people, a manager is a problem solver. The
manager asks himself, “What problems have to be
solved, and what are the best ways to achieve results
so that people will continue to contribute to this
organization?” In this conception, leadership is a
practical effort to direct affairs; and to fulfill his
task, a manager requires that many people operate
at different levels of status and responsibility. Our
democratic society is, in fact, unique in having
solved the problem of providing well-trained managers for husiness. The same solution stands ready
to be applied to government, education, health care,
and other institutions. It takes neither genius nor
Two questions come to mind. Is this mystique of
leadership merely a holdover from our collective
childhood of dependency and our longing for good
and heroic parents? Or, is there a basic truth lurking
behind the need for leaders that no matter how
competent managers are, their leadership stagnates
because of their limitations in visualizing purposes
and generating value in work? Without this imaginative capacity and the ability to communicate, managers, driven by their narrow purposes, perpetuate
group conflicts instead of reforming them into
broader desires and goals.
If indeed problems demand greatness, then, judging
by past performance, the selection and development
of leaders leave a great deal to chance. There are no
known ways to train “great” leaders. Furthermore,
beyond what we leave to chance, there is a deeper
issue in the relationship between the need for competent managers and the longing for great leaders.
What it takes to ensure the supply of people who
will assume practical responsibility may inhibit the
development of great leaders. Conversely, the presence of great leaders may undermine the development of managers who become very anxious in the
relative disorder that leaders seem to generate. The
antagonism in aim (to have many competent managers as well as great leaders) often remains obscure
in stable and well-developed societies. But the antagoni.sm surfaces during periods of stress and change,
as it did in the Western countries during both the
Great Depression and World War II. The tension
also appears in the struggle for power between thc1. John D. Rockefeller, 3rd., The Second AinBiican Revolution
Horpcr-Row, 1973). P- 7^-
(New York
1. Theodore Levitt, “Management and the Post Indusiiial Society,” The
Public Interest, Summer 1976, P- 75.
Managers and leaders
69
May-June 1977
70
Harvard Business Review
orists and professional managers in revolutionary
societies.
In other words, in. much the same way that the inventors of the late nineteenth century tried, failed,
and fitted until they hit on a product or method,
managers who innovate in developing organizations
are “tinkerers.” They do not have a grand design or
experience the intuitive flash of insight that, borrowing from modem science, we have come to call
the “breakthrough.”
It is easy enough to dismiss the dilemma I pose (of
training managers while we may need new leaders,
or leaders at the expense of managers) by saying
that the need is for people who can be both managers and leaders. The truth of the matter as I see it,
however, is that just as a managerial culture is different from the entrepreneurial culture that develops
when leaders appear in organizations, managers and
leaders are very different kinds of people. They differ
in motivation, personal history, and in how they
think and act.
A technologically oriented and economically successful society tends to depreciate the need for great
leaders. Such societies hold a deep and abiding faith
in rational methods of solving problems, including
problems of value, economics, and justice. Once
rational methods of solving problems are broken
down into elements, organized, and taught as skills,
then society’s faith in technique over personal qualities in leadership remains the guiding conception
for a democratic society contemplating its leadership
requirements. But there are times when tinkering
and trial and error prove inadequate to the emerging
problems of selecting goals, allocating resources, and
distributing wealth and opportunity. During such
times, the democratic society needs to find leaders
who use themselves as the instruments of learning
and acting, instead of managers who use their accumulation of collective experience to get where
they are going.
The most impressive spokesman, as well as exemplar
of the managerial viewpoint, was Alfred P. Sloan, Jr.
who, along with Pierre du Pont, designed the modern
corporate structure. Reflecting on what makes one
management successful while another fails, Sloan
suggested that “good management rests on a reconciliation of centralization and decentralization, or
‘decentralization with coordinated control’ “.^
Sloan’s conception of management, as well as his
practice, developed by trial and error, and by the
accumulation of experience. Sloan wrote:
“There is no hard and fast rule for sorting out the
various responsibilities and the best way to assign
them. Tbe balance which is struck . . . varies according to what is being decided, the circumstances of
the time, past experience, and the temperaments
and skills of the executive involved.” *
Managers and leaders differ fundamentally in their
world views. The dimensions for assessing these
differences include managers’ and leaders’ orientations toward their goals, their work, their human
relations, and their selves.
Attitudes toward goals
Managers tend to adopt impersonal, if not passive,
attitudes toward goals. Managerial goals arise out
of necessities rather than desires, and, therefore, are
deeply embedded in the history and culture of the
organization.
Frederic G. Donner, chairman and chief executive
officer of General Motors from 1958 to 1967, expressed this impersonal and passive attitude toward
goals in defining GM’s position on product development:
“. . . To meet the challenge of the marketplace, we
must recognize changes in customer needs and desires far enough ahead to have the right products
in the right places at the right time and in the right
quantity.
“We must balance trends in preference against the
many compromises that are necessary to make a
final product that is both reliable and good looking,
that performs well and that sells at a competitive
price in the necessary volume. We must design, not
just the cars we would like to build, but more importantly, the cars that our customers want to
buy.”‘
Nowhere in this formulation of how a product
comes into being is there a notion that consumer
tastes and preferences arise in part as a result of
what manufacturers do. In reality, through product design, advertising, and promotion, consumers
learn to like what they then say they need. Few
would argue that people who enjoy taking snapshots
need a camera that also develops pictures. But in
response to novelty, convenience, a shortt ‘• ‘
Managers and leaders
between acting [taking the snap) and gaining pleasure (seeing the shot), the Polaroid camera succeeded
in the marketplace. But it is inconceivable that
Edwin Land responded to impressions of consumer
need. Instead, he translated a technology (polarization of light) into a product, which proliferated and
stimulated consumers’ desires.
The example of Polaroid and Land suggests how
leaders think about goals. They are active instead
of reactive, shaping ideas instead of responding to
them. Leaders adopt a personal and active attitude
toward goals. The influence a leader exerts in altering moods, evoking images and expectations, and in
establishing specific desires and objectives determines the direction a business takes. The net result
of this influence is to change the way people think
about what is desirable, possible, and necessary.
Conceptions of work
What do managers and leaders do? What is the
nature of their respective work?
Leaders and managers differ in their conceptions
Managers tend to view work as an enabling process
involving some combination of people and ideas
interacting to establish strategies and make decisions. Managers help the process along by a range
of skills, including calculating the interests in opposition, staging and timing the surfacing of controversial issues, and reducing tensions. In this enabling process, managers appear flexible in the use
of tactics: they negotiate and bargain, on the one
hand, and use rewards and punishments, and other
forms of coercion, on the other. Machiavelli wrote
for managers and not necessarily for leaders.
Alfred Sloan illustrated how this enabling process
works in situations of conflict. The time was the
early 1920s when the Ford Motor Co. still dominated
the automobile industry using, as did General Motors, the conventional water-cooled engine. With
the full backing of Pierre du Pont, Charles Kettering
dedicated himself to the design of an air-cooled
engine, which, if successful, would have been a great
technical and market coup for GM. Kettering believed in his product, but the manufacturing division heads at GM remained skeptical and later opi Alfred P. Sloan, [r.. My Years with GenernI Moinrs [New York: DiiLililcday
& Co. 1964!, p. 419.
posed the new design on two grounds: first, that it
was technically unreliable, and second, that the
corporation was putting all its eggs in one basket
by investing in a new product instead of attending
to the current marketing situation.
In the summer of 1923 after a series of false starts
and after its decision to recall the copper-cooled
Chcvrolets from dealers and customers, GM management reorganized and finally scrapped the project. When it dawned on Kettering that the company
had rejected the engine, he was deeply discouraged
and wrote to Sloan that without the “organized
resistance” against the project it would succeed and
that unless the project were saved, he would leave
the company.
Alfred Sloan was all too aware of the fact that
Kettering was unhappy and indeed intended to leave
General Motors. Sloan was also aware of the fact
that, while the manufacturing divisions strongly
opposed the new engine, Pierre du Pont supported
Kettering. Furthermore, Sloan had himself gone on
record in a letter to Kettering less than two years
earlier expressing full confidence in him. The problem Sloan now had was to make his decision stick,
keep Kettering in the organization (he was much
too valuable to lose), avoid alienating du Pont, and
encourage the division heads to move speedily in
developing product lines using conventional watereooled engines.
The actions that Sloan took in the face of this conflict reveal much about how managers work. First,
he tried to reassure Kettering by presenting the problem in a very ambiguous fashion, suggesting that he
and the Executive Committee sided with Kettering,
but that it would not be practical to force the divisions to do what they were opposed to. He presented
the problem as being a question of the people, not
the product. Second, he proposed to reorganize
around the problem by consolidating all functions
in a new division that would be responsible for the
design, production, and marketing of the new car.
This solution, however, appeared as ambiguous as
his efforts to placate and keep Kettering in General
Motors. Sloan wrote: “My plan was to create an
independent pilot operation under the sole jurisdiction of Mr. Kettering, a kind of copper-cooled-car
division. Mr. Kettering would designate his own
chief engineer and his production staff to solve the
technical problems of manufacture.” *”‘
4. Ibid., p. 411).
S ibiJ. p. 440.
(i llijd, p. 91.
While Sloan did not discuss the practical value of
this solution, which included saddling an inventor
May-June 1977
72
Harvard Business Review
with management responsibility, he in effect used
this plan to limit his conflict with Pierre du Pont.
the leader needs to project his ideas into images that
excite people, and only then develop choices that
give the projected images substance. Consequently,
leaders create excitement in work.
In effect, the managerial solution that Sloan arranged
and pressed for adoption limited the options available to others. The structural solution narrowed
choices, even limiting emotional reactions to the
point where the key people could do nothing but
go along, and even allowed Sloan to say in his
memorandum to du Pont, “We have discussed the
matter with Mr. Kettering at some length this morning and he agrees with us absolutely on every point
we made. He appears to receive the suggestion enthusiastically and has every confidence that it can
be put across along these lines.” ”
Having placated people who opposed his views by
developing a structural solution that appeared to
give something but in reality only limited options,
Sloan could then authorize the car division’s general manager, with whom he basically agreed, to
move quickly in designing water-cooled cars for the
immediate market demand.
Years later Sloan wrote, evidently with tongue in
cheek, “The cooper-cooled car never came up again
in a big way. It just died out, I don’t know why.” ^
In order to get people to accept solutions to problems, managers need to coordinate and balance
continually. Interestingly enough, this managerial
work has much in common with what diplomats
and mediators do, with Henry Kissinger apparently
an outstanding practitioner. The manager aims at
shifting balances of power toward solutions acceptable as a compromise among conflicting values.
What about leaders, what do they do? Where managers act to limit choices, leaders work in the opposite direction, to develop fresh approaches to longstanding problems and to open issues for new
options. Stanley and Inge Hoffmann, the political
scientists, liken the leader’s work to that of the artist.
But unlike most artists, the leader himself is an integral part of the aesthetic product. One cannot look
at a leader’s art without looking at the artist. On
Charles de Gaulle as a political artist, they wrote:
“And each of his major political acts, however tortuous the means or the details, has been whole, indivisible and unmistakably his own, like an artistic
act.””
The closest one can get to a product apart from the
artist is the ideas that occupy, indeed at times obsess,
the leader’s mental life. To be effective, however.
lohn F. Kennedy’s brief presidency shows both the
strengths and weaknesses connected with the excitement leaders generate in their wo …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP