Success at Work

About us




When we got fed up with managers in the 1980s we replaced them with leaders. Now that our patience is wearing thin with so-so leaders, maybe we need to replace them with “advanced” leaders. Or is this idea just so much hype?

We regard our most admired leaders as heroes while managers are seen as villains or antiheroes. Why the good-evil slant?

Thanks to Daniel Goleman it is accepted wisdom that leaders must be emotionally intelligent to be effective. But this notion is not only wrong, it is harmful if it blocks people from showing leadership who might otherwise be great and vitally important leaders.

The concept of leadership style is a usurper. It seized the territory once occupied by management style. It's time to give it back.

Why do large companies continually struggle to innovate and engage employees? One of the findings of a 2002 Gallop poll was that employees are discontented when they feel that leaders don't respect them enough to hear their input.

A hotly debated issue: some are adamant that leadership isn't a role, but the feeling that it must be persists. What's the answer?

A lot of people feel that leadership isn't a role but what does it mean exactly to reject this idea? Is there any sense to the claim that leadership is in fact a role?

Apples and oranges have different properties but managers and leaders have different functions. So, it's not about what it takes to be a leader but how the function works.

Leaders who want people to be fully engaged in their vision can't use the same influencing tactics as sales people, who are generally self-interested.

It's time to stop talking about leaders and managers and focus on leadership and management instead. People in charge should be called executives, bosses, chiefs, captains, coordinators, catalysts, presidents or premiers, anything but leaders or managers.