1

NAME: Department:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Contents Executive Summary................................................... 4 Section One: Leadership traits............................................ 1.1 1IntroductionThe Difference between Leader and Manager 1.2 What defines leadership.................................. 1.3 What Defines Responsible Leadership? ...................................

Section Two: An Overview of the Leader over Manager.............. 2.1 How to Make the Transition from Manager to Leader.................... 2.2 Creating sustainable results in growth and performance?.............. 2.3 From Manager to Leader

Section Three: Study of Manager can be leader or not........ 3.1 Findings.............................. 3.2 The Answer/Conclusion........................................... 3.3 bibliography.............................................

Executive Summary

The business world contains an abundance of competent, capable, hardworking, committed managers, but only a handful of them would be regarded as successful leaders. What qualities, then, does a manager need to possess in order to inspire others to want to follow? "To manage" means "to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct." "Leading", on the other hand, is "influencing, guiding in direction, course, action, opinion." The distinction is crucial. Managers are people who do things right, and leaders are people who do the right thing. The difference may be summarized as activities of vision and judgement - effectiveness, versus activities of mastering routines - efficiency. (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). A manager focuses attention on efficiency, effectiveness, and making sure the right things happen at the right time. You are in a manager role when you set performance objectives with staff, prepare budgets, review cashflow projections, develop action plans, and evaluate programs or fund raising strategies or any other aspect of the company. Managing may also include doing hundreds of other tasks that require focused and logical attention to the good health of the organization. The difference between leader and manager can be summarized this way:When you are a leader, you work from the heart. As a manager, you work from the head. Although it is probably more complex than that, the point to remember is the difference between what you do as a leader and what you do as a managerand the constant need to be able to do both.

Furthermore, the head and heart need to be partners, not independent operators. On the other hand, a leader is a strategist, a visionary, and some-one who inspire others to greatness. You are leading when you share your vision for your organization, or when you bring staff and people together to design a program or develop a strategy or resolve a problem. Leaders motivate staff and people, serve as role models, inspire people to cooperate, build community and capacity inside and outside the organization, and create learning environments in which people can grow and develop themselves without fear. Leaders follow their own intuition which may in turn be more benefit to the company. Their Followers are often more loyal to them. Managers do things by the book and follow company policy. Their Subordinates may or may not be loyal to them. A Leader in practical terms motivates others to do the task. A Manager in business terms ensures tasks are done through others. Leadership is different from management. It is not necessarily better than management, nor a replacement for it. Rather, leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and changing business environment.

1.1 INTRODUCTION It is the very human nature to ascend, seek and discover higher possibilities, transcend limitations (self-actualization / self-realization), attain to higher states of existence, all of which result in or lead to expanding of one's consciousness. Man always strives to go beyond and transcend his / her initial limitations. Leadership is about gaining control over phenomena responsibly (response-ability) and takes the responsibility squarely on our own shoulders, to create the state of affairs of our liking but which does not transgress or run-counter to one's own primordial holistic nature. (Since we would not be in a co-operative frequency of the nature holistically and at some point in future the efforts may run counter-productive and break down). Can a leader be a leader without followers? Off course, having a following is not the true aim of any leader for the purpose of merely having followers. Rather it is to create and possess the synergy, create the thrust (synergies) to transcend the original situations or break through the initial barriers and limitations, whatever these limitations might be. So leaders, even if it be assumed, "are born" have to be made (nurtured), since at least the counterpart of the leader, that is the followers, who are the critical variable of the environment and without which the leaders would not have any role to play; the leader has to communicate or learn to communicate in ways that will connect with and inspire the followers. How can this be an in-born skill or trait since these can only come into play after the so called discovered individuallater-turned-leader is born? It says management focuses on getting work done on time, on budget, and on target in other words, steady execution and control while leadership focuses on change and innovation. Some years ago, management was the more inclusive term and included leadership along with motivating, planning, communicating, organizing and

the like as one of many functions necessary to make groups of people productive. Then in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the perception took hold that the U.S. was in danger of falling behind innovative competitors (Japan, in particular) because traditional management as practiced by U.S. businesses didn't promote change and innovation. The solution was leadership, which was singled out as the ability to do exactly that. Thus was born the new age of leadership in which we've heard even senior managers say, like, "I'm a leader, not a manager!" Most writers about leadership then and now explicitly note the continuing importance of management. Success still depends on execution, controls and boundaries, systems, processes, and continuity. Without all that, leadership only produces dreams. Nonetheless, being a leader has taken on a shiny, romantic aura these days while management has been given an undertone of grubby practicality. Leaders are superior beings who inspire the rest of us to greatness while managers are dull business functionaries obsessed with budgets, schedules, policies, and procedures. This thinking is at least partially behind the attitude of Kent's friend. Roy considers himself an artisan, a creator of beauty in wood, and seeing himself as a leader fits easily with that selfperception. But making sure the bills go out on time, keeping the machines working, and dealing with the employee who cuts corners and doesn't meet customer specifications aren't nearly so romantic. Both leadership and management are crucial, and it doesn't help those responsible for the work of others to romanticize one and devalue the other. To survive and succeed, all groups and businesses must simultaneously change in some ways and remain the same in others. They must execute and innovate, stay the course and foster change. Yes, the guidance, group skills, and mindsets required for serious change and innovation differ from those needed for continuity and steady execution. But that only means those in charge must

be able to act as both change agent and steward of continuity, manager and leader, as the situation requires. The challenge is to discern when one versus the other is needed. To idealize leadership and demean management only makes that challenge even harder. The primary focus of this report is to explore how an organisation can enhance the understanding and practice of responsible leadership by developing managers that have the competencies for integrating social and environmental considerations into business decision making processes. Even if leaders are born, they undergo nurturing consciously or inevitably through contact with the environment in which they interact!!! Such nurturing is the "making" of the leader. While some people may be more indisposed to possessing some leadership skills (in-born traits), nurturing is inevitable. We need to recall that Leadership doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is always relative. At this point of time in discussion I wish to limit my views to this stage only unless and until, we have good number of exploratory responses on this topic.

Manager Controls things Keeps track of things Budgets, makes ends meet Plans Organizes Solves problems Copes with complexity Staffs jobs and tasks; external locus of control; conservative and cautious Rule oriented, system based Interacts internally; keeps people in line with systems Responsible for performance of organization Deductive process Creates structures, risk averse Monitors organizational culture

Leader Creates things Changes things Finds resources Gets the mission defined Creates an environment Shakes things up Sets the direction and tone Aligns people; internal locus of control; creative risk taker Imagination based Interacts with outsiders; inspires people Responsible for overall outcome Inductive process Creates mandates; risk taker Monitors outside culture

1.2 What defines leadership? Many organizations claim that each and every employee can be a leader, more often than not they are referring to those four behaviors: initiative, creativity, the courage of one's convictions, and integrity. And, in one sense, they are right to call attention to these behaviors. Each employee can take initiative, and figure out new ways of getting things done, and show resolve, and take full responsibility for his actions. And, yes, if each employee does these things, the organization will be stronger for it. But they err when they label these behaviors leadership. There are many examples of admirable men doing heroic things, but they don't necessarily indicate leadership. (And, yes, all leaders should possess integrity, but so should the rest of us. Integrity is not just a desirable leader-ship trait; it is a desirable human trait.) The same can be said of many other, often heroic, behaviors. If you take initiative, improvise creative to changing circumstances, and have the courage of your convictions, you will be a formidable and effective human being, and surely an asset to any organization, but you will not necessarily be a leader. So what does define leadership? What do leaders get done that is distinct from what ordinary people of initiative, creativity, resolve, and integrity get done? From all my research, this is the only satisfactory definition I've found: Great leaders rally people to a better future. A leader encourages. If you don't feel this way, if you are, by nature, a little jaded, disillusioned by the motives of man and the capriciousness of fate, take heart. First, you will be right more often than the optimist. After all, there are many more ways that things can go wrong than right. And, second, there are jobs for you, jobs in which an innate scepticism can serve as a distinct advantage in the legal department, for example, or strategic planning. (I'm

10

joking. A little.) But, whatever you do, don't lead. Properly defined, the opposite of a leader isn't a follower. The opposite of a leader is a pessimist. This doesn't mean that the best leaders are wide-eyed dreamers, delusional about or dismissive of present realities. On the contrary, the best leaders are markedly clear-eyed when it comes to assessing the challenges of the present. It simply means that, despite their realistic assessment of present chal-lenges, they nonetheless believe that they have what it takes to overcome these challenges and forge ahead. Which, inevitably, raises the whole question of ego. The need for a leader to have a strong ego is rather less self-evident. Much has been written lately about the need for leaders to be humble, to downplay their egos, and, indeed, a review of the business pages reveals a motley crew of executives all of whom appear to have succumbed to a surfeit of ego. Bernie Ebbers at WorldCom; the Rigas family at Adelphia; Gary Winnick at Global Crossing; Ken Lay at Enron; Martha Stewart at Martha Stewart Omnimedia. The list is depressingly long, and growing. However, no matter how reprehensible their actions may have been, to explain their misfortune as a function of excess ego is actually a misdiagnosis. The reputations of these executives fell not because their egos were too strong but because their principles were not strong enough. They had too little integrity, not too much ego. The key thing about leading is not only that you envision a better future, but also that you believe, in every fibre of your being, that you are the one to make this future come true. "I am not satisfied." This is the mantra of the leader. As a leader you are never satisfied with the present, because in your head you can see a better future, and the friction between the "what is" and

11

the "what could be" burns you, stirs you up, propels you forward. This is leadership. Leaders, those who have a passionate belief in a better future, can be found in any sphere. The school superintendent who constantly pushes his teachers to come up with more effective ways to help children learn is a leader, as is the pastor who rallies his congregation with images of a more faithful community; the store manager who begins every staff meeting with a vivid description of the best customer stories from the previous day; and the sports coach who challenges his team to visualize what the perfect play would look like. Whenever a person strives to make others see a better future, there is leadership. Optimism and ego are the talents underpinning all great leadership. The need for a core talent for optimism is almost self-evident. As a leader you must believe, deeply, instinctively, that things can get better. You don't describe your images of the future because you want to put a brave face on things, or because you hope that you will be able to inspire other people. Others may become inspired, and you may recognize that as important, but you don't do it for this reason. You do it because you can't help it. You do it because you see the future so vividly, so distinctly that you can't get it out of your head. No matter how intense the present, the possibilities of the future seem to you even more intense. You have no choice but to do everything in your power to make them real. Corporate excellence has always been impossible to explain without factoring in the role of the leader. Naturally, the importance of the leadership role varies according to the type of challenge the organization is facingwhen the organization is confronted by dramatic change, the guiding hand of a strong leader is more influential than when the organization needs simply to maintain its current course. But, in general, my experience conforms with that of

12

Warren Bennis, perhaps the preeminent leadership expert, when he says, "Leadership accounts for, at the very least, 15 percent of the success of any organization." It is inaccurate and not a little unhelpful to say that everyone, regardless of his or her place in the hierarchy, must be a leader. Leaders play a distinct, discrete, and enormously diffi-cult role within an organization. If everyone is trying to play leader, they will lose focus on their primary rolewhether it be sales, or service, or design, or analysis, or managementand quite quickly the organization will splinter apart. Leadership does in fact require certain natural talents: the notion that anyone can learn to be a great leader, no matter how appealing it is at first glance, is equally inaccurate and unhelpful. The same can be said for great managers. Obviously, you can improve your performance as either a leader or a manager through practise, experience, and training, but if you lack a few core talents you will never be able to excel consistently in either. 1.3 What should good leaders do? Research reveals that, in fact, leaders neither have as much control over things as many people believe, nor should they. Yet people who occupy leadership positions need to figure out how to exercise their responsibilities. And although lead-ers aren't omnipotent, what they do does matter. Given the evidence on leader effects and effective leader behavior, there are some sensible suggestions that can guide behavior, or more accurately, show how to design and think about behavior. The fundamental guidelines we propose emerge from four paradoxes that leaders face: 1. Everyone expects leaders to matter a lot, even as they have limited actual impact. Leaders need to act as if they are in control, project confidence, and

13

talk about the future, even while recognizing and acknowledging the organizational realities and their own limitations. 2. Because leaders succumb to the same self-enhancement tendencies as everyone else, magnified by the adulation they receive, they have a tendency to lose their behavioral inhibitions and behave in destructive ways. They need to avoid this trap and maintain an attitude of wisdom and a healthy dose of modesty. 3. Because the desirability of exercising total control is itself a half-truth, effective leaders must learn when and how to get out of the way and let others make contributions. So sometimes the best leadership is no leadership at all. 4. Leaders often have the most positive impact when they help build systems where the actions of a few powerful and magnificently skilled people matter least. Perhaps the best way to view leadership is as the task of architecting organizational systems, teams, and culturesas establishing the conditions and preconditions for others to succeed. By recognizing both parts of the half-truth and negotiating the middle ground appropriately, leaders, managers, and everyone else involved in the organization, can construct the most effective cause of action.

2.1 How to Make the Transition from Manager to Leader Almost any head of a company will concur that great leaders arent born, theyre made. However, not every manager can be an exceptional leader. Going from a manager to a leader involves inward reflection and certain intrinsic values (such as attitude and thoughts). Discover five key questions corporate managers should ask themselves to become a great leader.

14

According to Business Management Daily contributor Mike Winstanley, True leaders look inward every day and take stock of themselves. As simple as it sounds, its the step most overlooked by managers in their journey to becoming leaders. Thats why managers who aspire to be leaders must constantly ask themselves thought-provoking questions and answer those questions honestly. Here are five crucial questions suggest every manager who wants to be a leader should ask themselves: 1. What does it look like? Many people struggle with their leadership abilities because theyve never stepped back and thought about what it means to truly be a leader. Ask yourself the question, What are the characteristics embodied by leaders I admire? 2. Hows my attitude? How do you feel about your job and employer? If managers think their working conditions stink, theyre underpaid and their bosses hate them, theyll pass this attitude on to their employees. Attitudes are contagious, and attitudes affect behavior and job performance. As a leader, you have to be conscious of your attitudes impact on your team and the people around you. Then work to eliminate the negative behaviors that result from it. 3. How do I stack up? Do an honest self-appraisal. Rate yourself on a scale of 1-10 as to how well you think youre doing on each task on a daily basis. That will give you a ballpark idea of where youre at. Then ask yourself what a 10 looks like for each item. Put it into specific behavioral terms. This will give you a beginning picture as to what you have to do (or stop doing) to become a better leader. 4. Whats my real value? Managers must ask what value they bring to the organization. How do they affect the corporate bottom line? Remember, your

15

company expects a return on its investment. Managers should assess their true value and put it in terms of how the company profits from the things they do on a day-to-day basis. 5. Do I believe? Do you truly believe you can become a great leader? If you have doubts, analyze why. Dont blame your company or boss for holding you back. Honestly ask yourself if its inside of you to be a leader OR are if you have any fears of being a success or failure. Moral is, Dont try to change everything at once it may be too overwhelming. Try working on one item at a time. Small steps make for an easier journey.Finally; remember that this self-analysis is what successful leaders do all the time. Its part of their daily schedule. 2.2 creating sustainable results in growth and performance Both a Manager and a Leader may know the business well. But the leader must know it better and in a different way. S/he must grasp the essential facts and the underlying forces that determine the past and present trends in the business, so that s/he can generate a vision and a strategy to bring about its future. One telling sign of a good leader is an honest attitude towards the facts, towards objective truth. A subjective leader obscures the facts for the sake of narrow self-interest, partisan interest or prejudice. Effective leaders continually ask questions, probing all levels of the

organization for information, testing their own perceptions, and rechecking the facts. They talk to their constituents. They want to know what is working and what is not. They keep an open mind for serendipity to bring them the knowledge they need to know what is true. An important source of information for this sort of leader is knowledge of the failures and mistakes that are being made in their organization.

16

To survive in the twenty-first century, we are going to need a new generation of leaders leaders, not managers. The distinction is an important one. Leaders conquer the context the turbulent, ambiguous surroundings that sometimes seem to conspire against us and will surely suffocate us if we let them while managers surrender to it. Leaders investigate reality, taking in the pertinent factors and analyzing them carefully. On this basis they produce visions, concepts, plans, and programs. Managers adopt the truth from others and implement it without probing for the facts that reveal reality. There is profound difference a chasm between leaders and managers. A good manager does things right. A leader does the right things. Doing the right things implies a goal, a direction, an objective, a vision, a dream, a path, a reach. Lots of people spend their lives climbing a ladder and then they get to the top of the wrong wall. Most losing organizations are over-managed and underled. Their managers accomplish the wrong things beautifully and efficiently. They climb the wrong wall. Managing is about efficiency. Leading is about effectiveness. Managing is about how. Leading is about what and why. Management is about systems, controls, procedures, policies, and structure. Leadership is about trust about people. Leadership is about innovating and initiating. Management is about copying, about managing the status quo. Leadership is creative, adaptive, and agile. Leadership looks at the horizon, not just the bottom line. Leaders base their vision, their appeal to others, and their integrity on reality, on the facts, on a careful estimate of the forces at play, and on the trends and contradictions. They develop the means for changing the original balance of forces so that their vision can be realized.

17

A leader is someone who has the capacity to create a compelling vision that takes people to a new place, and to translate that vision into action. Leaders draw other people to them by enrolling them in their vision. What leaders do is inspire people, empower them. They pull rather than push. This "pull" style of leadership attracts and energizes people to enroll in a vision of the future. It motivates people by helping them identify with the task and the goal rather than by rewarding or punishing them. There is a profound difference between management and leadership, and both are important "To manage" means "to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct." "Leading" is "influencing, guiding in direction, course, action, opinion." The distinction is crucial.

Management is... Coping with complexity Planning and Budgeting Organizing and Staffing Controlling and Problem Solving Effective Action

Leadership is.... Coping with and promoting change Setting a Direction Aligning People Motivating and Inspiring People Meaningful Action

Both are necessary and important. Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing. The difference may be summarized as activities of vision and

18

judgment

effectiveness

versus activities of mastering routines

efficiency. The chart below indicates key words that further make the distinction between the two functions: The manager administers; the leader innovates. The manager is a copy; the leader is an original. The manager maintains; the leader develops. The manager accepts reality; the leader investigates it. The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people. The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust. The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective. The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why. The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his or her eye on the horizon. The manager imitates; the leader originates. The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it. The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person. The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing. The most dramatic differences between leaders and managers are found at the extremes: poor leaders are despots, while poor managers are bureaucrats in the worst sense of the word. Whilst leadership is a human process and management is a process of resource allocation, both have their place and

19

managers must also perform as leaders. All first-class managers turn out to have quite a lot of leadership ability. 3.3 From Manager to Leader Too many of those in positions of some power are self-absorbed, arrogant and interpersonally inept. When it comes to subordinates, most managers are blissfully comfortable with themselves, blindly indifferent to the needs of others, and relatively disinclined to do anything that does not provide immediate selfbenefit. Should we be surprised? Anyone who works for a company today knows how self-interest gets rewarded, understands the pressure to self-aggrandize, and recognizes that corruption has been made interpersonally legal. It's the rare and special leader who sheds those self-imposed limitations on the way up the ladder to become someone truly worth following. Typically, we are called in when high-flying executives have hit an abrupt interpersonal wall. Either they have suddenlyand for no apparent reason lost the support, commitment and admiration of "their people"; or they have so alienated colleagues, customers, or staff that their careers are in immediate jeopardy. This is not a rare occurrence. In fact, it happens all the time. Managers, by nature, rarely figure out what it takes to be a real leader without the healthy shock of imminent derailment. They are simply not hard-wired to let go of the technical skills, capabilities, and intelligence that got , them where they are today, in order to embrace a new, softer skill set that will serve themselves and others better from now on. The work that we do is (and must be) developmentally based. Generally, we engage (often intermittently) with a client over a two-year time frame. Anything less is nothing more than assuaging upper management that

20

something is being done. We are not interested in what might be considered palliative; what we really want to accomplish is something meaningful. In our model, we teach managers to develop three behavioral constructs: First, we guide managers in learning how to be irreverent. Leaders need to look at themselves from the point of view that who they are and what they are doing is worth examining, doubting, and changing. Second, we try to invoke a sense of courage. Leaders need courage to confront the dark corners where so much of their dysfunction resides, and they need courage to become someone fundamentally different in overcoming those handicaps. Third, we help managers develop a sense of passion. Leaders must have a sense of passion about creating a better "them" because that is the only thing that creates a better "us." Without the irreverence to question assumptions, the courage to act and grow in ways that are fundamentally awkward and risky, and the passion to really care about what happens to themselves, their people, and the world a leader is not worth following. We measure our success in two ways. First, is the manager now producing the interpersonal results that they intend to produce, as opposed to having those effects occur haphazardly and caustically? Second, do the people that the manager affects feel better toward them, have greater respect for them, and view them as more credible, responsible, and trustworthy? In other words, the criteria for success lie outside the manager. We evaluate the impact of the leader by the impact on the followers. "What kind of manager am I?" "How do I affect the people around me?" "Who do I need to become to bring out the best in others?" Real leaders ask those sorts of questions of themselves all the time. They know that introspec-tion, critical self-examination, painful honesty, and a willingness to change and grow

21

are essential leadership tools. To accomplish that sort of deep, behavioral shift, the manager's own desire to change is the critical ingredient. In my narcissistic opinion, what managers really need is a solid dose of panic. Anything less will fail to provide them with sufficient motivation to try something different, let alone become someone differenta person who is Responsible, Empowering, Accountable, and Loving to themselves and others. Leadership, at any level, is fundamentally about the relationship between people. Without a relationship, there is no trust and without trust, leadership doesn't grow. 3.1 Findings:

Statistical analysis confirmed that all six zones correlate very highly with each other, suggesting that the six zones triangulate on a larger leadership construct for a Manager.

22

In other words, the six-zone approach is very accurate. The Practices As useful as statistics may be, most leaders will find greater use in the practices themselves listed here with a short behavioral definition for each zone: Zone 1 Reflection: Leaders assess their motives, beliefs, attitudes, and actions, asking, How can I make sure my limitations dont lead me to make poor Decisions? To succeed in this zone, leaders: Take responsibility for their own Mistakes. Seek the knowledge required to make sense of the big picture. Examine what role they play in the challenges that they face. Treat failure as a chance to learn and grow. Reflect often on their performance as a leader. Give serious consideration to opinions that differ from their own. Speak frankly with others to learn from them and build trust. Zone 2 Society: Leaders apply principles such as fairness, respect, and the greater good to balance individual and group well-being. To succeed in this zone, leaders Act ethically to serve the larger good, not just to obey the law. Encourage others to take socially responsible action. Openly challenge what they consider unethical decisions and actions. Take action to benefit others, not just themselves. Recognize and reward others based on merit, not on politics. Make fair decisions, even if they have a negative impact on themselves. Take steps to reduce environmental harm. Zone 3 Diversity: Leaders respect and leverage such basic differences as gender, ethnicity, age, nationality, and beliefs. To succeed in this zone, leaders: Strive to meet the needs of customers representing other cultures. Encourage collaboration among people from different groups. Display sensitivity in managing across cultural boundaries. Collaborate well with people very different from themselves. Effectively lead groups made up of very

23

diverse people. Learn about the business practices of other cultures. Manage virtual teams with explicit customer-centric goals and practices. Zone 4 Ingenuity: Leaders offer and execute practical ideas and help others do the same to create a climate in which innovation can thrive. To succeed in this zone, leaders: Help other people to adapt quickly to changes. Help groups to develop a shared picture of a positive future. Develop themselves with the goal of improving overall group capabilities. Solve realworld problems by thinking clearly and engaging others. Tell stories to motivate others toward strategic goals. Create a work environment in which innovation can thrive. Find ways to promote speed, flexibility, and innovation. Zone 5 People: Leaders connect with others on the human level shared by all to earn commitment, inspire effort, and improve communication. To succeed in this zone, leaders: Read a range of emotions in others and respond appropriately. Adapt to the leadership needs of different groups. Help others resolve issues of work-life balance. Make a daily effort to inspire the trust of customers and colleagues. Minimize the negative human impact of their decisions and actions. Build and maintain a cross-functional task network. Communicate well with customers and colleagues at all levels. Zone 6 Business: Leaders develop strategies, make and execute plans and decisions, organize the work of others, and guide effort toward predicted results. To succeed in this zone, leaders: Adapt quickly to changing business conditions. Manage the costs of operation. Learn new ways to make the business competitive. Develop and implement effective business plans. Analyze and use hard data to promote business results. Manage customer acquisition, retention, and lifetime value. Add clarity to their organizations vision and values.

24

3.2The Answer Today What answer do these findings offer for our earlier question about the difference between a leader and a manager? An analogy may illustrate: The zone model suggests that the difference between a manager and a leader is very much like the difference between a raisin and a grape. If a raisin is a grape with something vital missing water so a manager is a leader with many vital things missing. Through the lens of this model, a manager is competent primarily in one zone: Business. Managers make and execute plans and decisions, organize the work of others, and guide effort toward predicted results. Leaders must do these things, too, but our study indicates that leaders also demonstrate other interests and abilities grouped in the model . Just as a raisin has vital nutritional value, a manager has vital organizational value. In fact, survey respondents at every level in every global region consistently rated the Business zone more highly than other zones and for good reason: without business results, no one succeed. Business savvy alone is not enough to meet the complex variety of 21stcentury challenges: More complex problems demand greater Reflection. Sustainable long-term strategy must have a positive impact on Society. Large-scale efforts need to leverage Diversity in all its forms. Ingenuity drives innovation, which sharpens a competitive edge. Motivating People must involve their emotions as well as their minds. Potential can be in-born (latent) but manifest leadership is only on interaction with the environment. Capacity to learn may be in-born but learning and having learnt comes only later. Perhaps knowledge can possibly be acquired by birth but application is always after having been born and requires interaction

25

with environment. in the context of leadership, the relevant knowledge and the knowledge about the applicability of that knowledge (wisdom) for effective leading are the two sides of the same leadership coin. All required leadership elements can never be assigned or solely confined to the "in-born" argument. Leaders are thus made (by their own involvement or the circumstances or by conscious learning). "The leaders are made, more so, because we believe that, since man possess the capacity to constantly evolve and break free from the barriers gradually through perseverance aided by discriminating ability, pure intelligence, courage, adventure, sacrifice and being guided by heart, we believe that management and leadership can be learnt and thus can also be likewise taught. However, what are the effective ways of teaching and learning is debatable and is a different, though definitely a related matter. By this definition, then, effective 21st-century leader moves smoothly among the zones as conditions demand, leveraging strengths from each zone to address deficiencies and ultimately succeed in the other zones.