Cited were two examples of strong leaders who were poor managers. Leadership is about the ability to motivate people to accomplish goals. Management is about the selection of goals. There is some overlap; but, not to the extent you imply. Goals that you disagree with can still have long term viability with effective leadership to maintain them. Just look at all of the countries that don't have our system of government; yet, have been around for a long, long time.
Within each given type of system there is a moral component to leadership in which the selection of goals needs to reflect the big picture rather than limited interests; or, self interest. That's necessary to prevent what Lamplighter mentioned earlier: "A strong-but-wrong leader and subordinates ultimately are brought down by the followers." His characterization of leaders who don't get the big picture was more accurate than yours.
For those without formal leadership training it may help to think of it this way: in the military, from corporal to general, leadership training stays the same; but, management training varies widely and by the time generals get a second star they're considered to be more like politicians.
For those with formal leadership training, the terms are already defined and discussing it with those who don't know the jargon becomes a game in semantics. Similarly, saying "a grasp of the big picture (a strategic objective)" is not the way I would put it. I equate "the big picture" with a comprehensive understanding of the way things are now and "strategic objectives" with a person of vision. The terms are not synonymous for me.
OTOH, I understand the gist of what you're saying tw, even though others may have said it better, and I don't disagree.
|