6
6
0
Are Leaders successful Managers or are Managers successful Leaders? Or both?
Do you need both in order to be successful? Which specific positions in the
Military would Leaders be successful rather than Managers or vice versa?
Management
NCOs
Officers
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 29
10
10
0
Simple...you LEAD people and you MANAGE systems.
Not everyone can lead (it's a commitment), but leaders can surround themselves with good managers.
Not everyone can lead (it's a commitment), but leaders can surround themselves with good managers.
(10)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Very true MSG(P) Quick. Sometimes leaders are not surrounded with good managers or any managers at all. I believe a true leader will influence his subordinates to become managers/and(or) leaders through simplified systems to get their respective task or purpose accomplished while being a manager him/herself.
(6)
(0)
7
7
0
I am of the opinion that good management is a component of good leadership. Management is about tasks and deadlines, and driving subordinates to complete those tasks regardless of the subordinates' understanding of the tasks and their benefit to the organization.<br><br>Leadership, however, is the next step where the person in charge is able to genuinely communicate the value of the tasks to the organization, that the work of the people accomplishing those tasks is valued, and that the task has some positive effect for the individuals actually doing the work. <br><br>I like to use property accountability as an example for everything (it's easy). The manager can put an inventory on the training schedule as a mandatory event that meets the 100% property accountability rule. A few Soldiers will be tasked to do the layout and sit around while the Commander and supply sergeant conduct the inventory. All this while other Soldiers are doing other random stuff because the squads or platoons are understrength due to the inventory. This is management. The task is clear, the deadline is clear, and it is accomplished with little or no benefit to the whole.<br><br>The leader, will make property accountability an implied METL task, make it the sole event on the training calendar for the specific period of time, and direct NCOs to know and instruct predetermined subjects out of AR 710-2 or 735-5. After the Soldiers have laid out the equipment, the NCOs are providing instruction on relevant points of Army property accountability while the Commander and supply sergeant conduct the inventory. The Commander has demonstrated his/her commitment to property accountability, required NCOs to develop their own knowledge, and set Soldiers up for better performance on competitive or promotion boards. <br>
(7)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Great example of a leader and manager CPT Walk. In my situation currently, I would put myself in the Manager role as Battalion Motor Sergeant because I manage the Battalion's Maintenance Program; the Platoon Sergeant would be the leader and train, coach and mentor his troops on everything but Maintenance practices (which is my lane).
(5)
(0)
CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A.
I think we undervalue those serving in the manager roles. We treat "managers" like they are something less than they are. Applying the word "manager" gets a person treated like a leper. <br><br>Let's face it, things need managed. The maintenance program, the supply room, rating chains, etc... Not every person is a leader all the time. We move people around through various manager/leader experiences to provide those experiences. Additionally, being the Squad Leader, Platoon Leader, Commander, will stress you out. Those manager positions can provide a bit of a respite.<br><br>Army duty position titles provide a bit of a clue as to where a persons focus should be. If your title has Commander or Leader in it, then the bulk of your efforts should be focused on providing leadership. If, however, your duty position has Officer or Sergeant in it (Logistics Officer, or Supply Sergeant) then your contribution to organizational success should be focused on managing that area.<br><br>That's not to say that those management persons aren't required to provide some level of leadership, but I am talking about the balance of effort as opposed to a 100% one way or the other.<br><br>We have managers and we have leaders. We need both, and we need people to move between them. <br><br>
(6)
(0)
7
7
0
You can lack the ability of one and still be good at the other. You can also be good at both, or neither.
The Army structure would seem to require you be good at both, but as long as your team is capable of both, you can succeed regardless. This dynamic is seen in the Command team where the Commander is the Leader and his XO is the manager and the 1SG is HR.
Of course, the trick is, if you really suck at one, don't create a toxic environment using the other to compensate.
The Army structure would seem to require you be good at both, but as long as your team is capable of both, you can succeed regardless. This dynamic is seen in the Command team where the Commander is the Leader and his XO is the manager and the 1SG is HR.
Of course, the trick is, if you really suck at one, don't create a toxic environment using the other to compensate.
(7)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google