Did you intentionally say "manage" leaders vs. "leading" leaders. And should there be a difference here? Yes, I did. This whole concept was born out of advertisement by a company looking for "26 leaders to join the team"--my immediate thought was why do you need 26 leaders--don't you need one and 25 followers? So the distinction I am drawing is that managing skills are different thatn leadership skills, but a person may have to do both. After the helicopter crash that killed and injured several people in my task unit, I had to lead my unit back into the field. I had to be in the first helo off the deck, I had to be right there with them. I had to lead my leaders. But when we were conducting raids in Afg, I didn't need to lead them, I had to manage them. I had to know where a weak spot was and tell someone to fill it, but I didn't have to tell them how why etc--they had all the leadership skill do accomplish the task--so,I believe that by efficiently managing your leaders you get a lot more out pof the organization--then when it is time to move to a new "level" you lead them there, and then settle back into management mode--it is the best way to continue growth.
Can't a leader still be a leader even if they are not actively "leading at that moment"? No. How can you be a leader if you aren't leading anything---this is often thought of as splitting hairs, but, if you talked with a scientist or a mathmetician or a marketing person who is use to segmenting his target etc--anyone use to dealing with absolutes, you would never get them to budge on a an accurate measurement---and why that is important is that at any givien moment you need to know what you are doing and why (well you don't have to of course)No, I have had heated arguement about this with people nearly hollering at me and saying "You are a leader look at this this and this" and I reply, "I was a leader, but am not now--I am not a follower, I have no role--because I am not leading anything" So, when someone is in charge of people but they aren't leading them anywhere, they are not a leader--they are just responsible--and I think that difference is important.
Can't I be described as a caring person even though sometimes my actions are uncaring? Sure, but it won't excuse you from acute acts--She was such a caring person, can't believe what she did to that kitten--so I can be described as someone with leadership traits, but that doesn't mean I am leading.
The "leadership purists" are probably gagging, but who cares, you've got a role to play.
Absolutely, and that is where the managment framework is important--what roles are acceptable and which are not---
Great comments