Management vs. Leadership- what are the differences?

I thoroughly enjoyed this topic because I feel there are a lot of differences and similarities between Managers and Leaders. I agree with a earlier blog I read about how we as students are taught to be better managers, but only told to be good leaders. How can it be so important to be a great leader but not explain to us better on how to achieve this? In a competitive business school it’s said that we should strive to be leaders, when in reality that is not the best fit for many students. I like sports examples and this is where one fits perfectly. Some people don't like being in charge and get nervous or panic if they are shoved in a leadership role, where others relish in the thought of leading others. I would not want a captain who never spoke, or didn't cheer me on, and didn't try to help me. People should not be put into situations where they don’t belong just because it’s believed to be where they should be. I truly do believe leaders are naturally born in most cases and are products of their environment. People shouldn't count out managers and followers because they are what keep a company moving. Overall Leaders to me are captains to a team, and a manager is a coach.

Does Personality matter in Leadership??

I believe that a leader’s personality plays a huge role in the success of their leadership. On the other hand I don’t think that there are specific personality traits that can be said to guarantee to result in effective leadership. I believe that the success of the leader is a product of their environment and the culture of the company.  Interpersonal relationships also play a huge role in the effectiveness of a leader. If your employees don't respect you or understand you, you will achieve nothing. There are important characteristics that are imperative in all situations. Someones internal locus of control and being able to get along with many different kinds of people are key factors as well. I think leaders that are well organized, self-motivated, and reliable prosper. When a leader exudes these traits it fosters a healthy work environment as well as a sense of trust. A self-motivated leader is one that leads by example. Take me for instance, I have a personality where I won't ask or expect something from someone unless I can do it myself. I played numerous sports in high school but excelled in Ice Hockey and Softball.  When I was named captain of both of my teams I choose the path of being a leader by example. I embodied what I wanted of other and expected, this lead to expectations being understood and achieved. I felt like I had the respect of my teammates and we had a common goal in winning. This trait in me is an example of having an internal locus of control. A internal locus of controls means a person thinks that their success is due to their own efforts and merit rather then by luck. I also am a firm believer in fostering relationships with either employees or teammates. Getting along with different personalities is very important in achieving satisfaction and in the long run productivity.

When it comes to the personality tests we were asked to take I feel like we can learn a lot about ourselves, it might bring something to light that you would have never thought. As far as whether the results dictate a effective leader, I would say no. There are always exceptions to things, and many people can surprise you. For example mine said I was introverted, this I feel is off because I am a social butterfly and love being in a group or team.  I am not someone who can sit in my room and do work alone, I'd much rather go to the library and work at a table with my roommates.

Overall, I think personality plays a vital role in the effectiveness of a leader, but its not the only role. There are many kinds of leaders that come form many different environments and situations that all call for a kind of different leader. This being said there is no set mold for what personality traits dictate a successful leader.

What motivates us?

What motivates us? Well there are countless answers to that question, but the three main ones we are focusing on are: Automany, Mastery, and Purpose. Most people think of motivation as external rewards like money, but now we are learning that is not always the best method of true motivation. Many people are challenging that traditional notion of "if you want someone to do something for you, give them money/a reward", with saying high performance and satisfaction at work is the basic human need to direct our own lives, to learn and create new things, and to do things better by ourselves. Like the youtube clip stated, "The reward-based incentive actually creates poorer performance in any group of workers for cognitive tasks, regardless of economic background or complexity of the task involved." This notion has now been proven over and over again. I loved the example of a software company giving their employees one day off to work on whatever they would like and at the end of the day would have a party and share what they had worked on. Having such an open forum to create things fosters innovation and creativeness so well, and as I'm learning has led to the companies success.  I am someone who loves sports and has always had them come very easy to me, so when I joined Ship women's rugby it was a shock to be to not master it right away.  I was driven and motivated to work even harder in a sport I barley understood because I wanted to master it.  Going to practices and extra practice sessions gave me purpose to continue on with rugby and expand my knowledge of the game. Every week we have runs, gym hours, and library hours and it makes us embrace the idea of automany. If we attend all these things will will reap the benefits on Saturday in a game when we are in better shape and can play longer and harder than the other team.  So if I were to ask myself what motives me, I would say to become the best I can be at something. What would you say motivates you?

The Organizational Kid

I believe these Princeton University students have the lifestyles they do because of their upbringing, and their successful/wealthy parents. The families know exactly what it takes to reach the level of success they did so they instill it in their children from an early age.  These students are so goal-oriented they tend to lose sight of the little things: friends, family, dating, just basically a social life. Opportunities draw these students in and keep them hungry.  The sense of an opportunity to further themselves makes these students stay in line, do what is asked of them, and not question authority.  This mindset is what causes these same students to become workaholics later in life the kind that sleep at their desks, don't see their families, and forget important events outside of work. Living out this crazy nonstop lifestyle has come second nature to most of these student due to the fact that most of these kids have been living a schedule since they could walk.  Parents plan things out to the very last second of everyday when these students were younger, with the thought of how it would look on a college application and to the community. Expectations were made for these kids very early and will continue on through their lives with no letting back. When Brooks visited the campus he witnessed students that didn't question how things were and had never thought to. these students were drones going about their day. An example of being drones and doing what is told and expected of you is the movie Mona Lisa Smile. Its a movie about a teacher Katherine Watson( Julia Roberts) who is hired to teach Art History to the young ladies of Wellesley College. She is not to go off topic and only teach the curriculum that the school provides. Watson is a very modern woman, especially for the 1950s and has a passion for her students to further themselves. For the most part, the students all seem to be biding their time, waiting to find the right man to marry. The students are all very bright and Watson feels they are not reaching their potential. The movie ends with Watson being asked to leave Wellesley because of their dominant culture not agreeing with her viewpoints. Back in the 50's is was expected to go to school and learn how to be a proper wife, where now a days it is expected we go to college and learn how to be a perfect employee. Overall in the end of the article the Princeton kids efforts paid off  they become successful for the most part, make tons of money, and live up to their parents expectations. As for the girls of Mona Lisa Smile the same happened for them, most married and become the perfect wife/mother. doing what is always expected of us has its pros and cons you just have to weigh which fits you better. The Organizational Kid has lost the sense of values, religion, and self-appreciation.

Grasso: Money-hungry?

This article provides a interesting insight at the rise and fall of Dick Grasso, who was the CEO of the New York Stock Exchange from 1995-2003. As I read the article, I thought about  the five sources of power: referent, expert, coercive, reward, and legitimate.  Grasso's is a leader who derives power from five sources, some more than other but still all five. This is a story of what it takes to achieve power.  Grasso in his later days was more money hungry than anything, but the fact of his leadership was unchanged. The first thing you have to take a deeper look at is where Grasso derived his power and influence from. One person used the term Grasso has a low substitutability and as we read there was no one like him.  He knew the ins and outs of the NYSE unlike anyone else allowing him to be an asset. There's always a possibility that their is someone who could be better, but that's a very small chance because Grasso is unique and experience will always play a key role in this. The people at NYSE know he is a piece of the puzzle that they couldn't lose and Grasso understood how much he was needed and that only built on his power. When it comes to being a leader and the CEO Grasso made every decision, he wanted all the responsibilities and control at all times. Someone who can shoulder the weight of what that really means in a leader in my opinion. Influence was his biggest strong suit I feel, and he can flourish at any of the 10 categories of Influence. He was very good at making people aware of him, he was visible to all, and threw his weight around the NYSE to prove it. If you thought of power/influence/and leadership as a recipe you would need to throw in a little of everything to be successful but Grasso seemed to take his humble upbringings and hard-working demeanor and accomplished all three while at the same time making a ton of money.