Leaders, or managers?

This evening's class at uni focused on leadership and management, the different types, whether the two terms were distinct, and how. Models of leadership, how leaders excercise authority, different schools of thought on leaders and managers perform their roles.

One model that stuck in my mind was apparently quite an outmoded one, that of Burns' and Bass' transactional and transformational management. In the first, managers believe that employees are self-interested and basically come to work for their week's wages and the only motivating factor is management's big stick. Reward is derived through getting paid. The second is a more enlightened view that managers lead by example and motivate their staff to greater productivity using a range of reward techniques.

No doubt the second one has more relevance in an HR context, and a modern working environment, but I couldn't help thinking about the kinds of models of management that are practiced in the developing world... I wonder if HR even exists there? And if it does, what sort of improvement of conditions are seen as rewards?

Then there's Kurt Lewin's autocratic, laissez faire and democratic leaders. That got me thinking about politicians and which qualities are more desirable in the political world and which are more desirable in the business world. It also helped me evaluate where I hold strengths (getting stuff done, I concluded) and where I probably need to be mindful of improvement (taking time to get others' opinions, worry more about what people think, eg). The main difficulty is giving yourself an honest assessment - I'm sure my own perception of myself isn't quite what others would think.

So many different models and schools to take on... I need to really sit down and remember some of these! Talking about them here while it's fresh in my mind helps though.

In other news, Saturday yielded a productive run round the Tunnel Avenue/Woolwich Road/Blackwall Lane triangle, the heart of which is looking like it needs some love at the moment (or at least the gasworking holes to be filled in). It's deceptive how large the area in that small looking triangle is - if and when work is (started &) completed on the "Heart of East Greenwich" project, I'd imagine it will be of real benefit to the people living there. In the meantime, wasteland rules - although if I had a say, I'd like to see the site made safe and at least used for something in the meantime - open space, allotments, car park space, whatever. I'm sure there are pros and cons to each land use, and probably reasons why it can't be done overnight, but I don't accept that the cost of putting the land to some use would be unjustified - it would even take some of the bitter taste out of the developers' name for the site.


View Larger Map