LEADERSHIP and MANAGEMENT

People who have pondered over the word Leadership usually come up with two questions, what is a leader made of? And Is a Leader born or made? My friend the other day mentioned that its chaos that creates leaders. The next Lee Kuan Yew will not be from Singapore, he/she will be from India or China. In Singapore, the structure is already there, the country is running smoothly, everyone knows his/her place in the society and his/her role. People know where to look for answers and believe the answers they get are always right. So there is no need for another LKY to rise above others and show the way.

I agree. But then, my personal definition for leaders is people who blaze a trail when none exists. If there are 10 options and a person has to take one, eventually one will stumble upon the right one, that’s not the real deal. The key words are “when none exists”. Leaders are born but are identified or make themselves known in chaos. I don’t think leadership can be thought but powerful personalities with the right attitude can be groomed to be leaders.

Managers and Leaders and often thought of in the same light – I don’t think so. No longer can you call yourself a leader simply because you are a good manager. What differentiates a Leader from a Manager? A manager can manage with the right people around him/her to supplement his/her qualities but a leader should lead by example. A true leader does not lead by telling others what to do but rather leads by example, by doing the right things the right way which will inspire the others to follow. When a subordinate fails a manager most probably will replace the person whereas the leader will teach the person to do it by doing it right. Management is about being organized and systematic in executing existing business but leadership is about breaking new ground with creativity.

Common ground between a Leader and a Manager is drive and high standards. Any person looking for success should have the drive and will and should set high standards for himself/herself that will never be compromised for anything including achieving the goal. To sum up, Management qualities are learned; Leadership qualities are innate and need to be groomed.

So who is more important to a company? There is a general feel that Managers are the poor cousins of Leaders but I beg to differ - managers are not some lower class citizens, its is high time profile of managers are raised and the bandwagon which is compelling everyone to call themselves leaders be stopped. A leader serves the function of finding new direction but it’s just as important to have managers to profitable execute the plan in following that direction.

Something about one of the Leaders I admire.
------------------

Roy Keane is the game's most inspirational captain, according to skysports.com readers
The Results
1. Roy Keane 29%
2. Paolo Maldini 13%
3. Bobby Moore 12%
4. Alan Shearer 10%
5. Tony Adams 9%
6. Franz Beckenbauer 9%
7. Bryan Robson 7%
8. Graeme Souness 5%
9. Franco Baresi 5%
10.Tony Mowbray 2%

Malaysian GP - Tifosi disappointed yet again......

Red Bull, Renault, Toyota have proven that their showing in Melbourne was not all down to the Rain God. I think everyone has to stand up and applaud what they have done. Although I question the logic behind restricting speed in a racing competition, I must admit Max Mosley in a way, has created a level playing field. The small budget teams are not in the front but at least they are not being embarassed by the charts and the race to the Championship looks open, I truly expect the traditional top three, Ferrari, McLaren and BMW to get back to their winning ways.

As for my fav team, Scuderia Ferrari, it seems they have underestimated the work of their competitors. To be fair, Ferrari must have been monitoring BMW and McLaren to evaluate thier standing but its the other teams like Toyota and Renault that have sprung the surprise. The 2003 Ferrari was a one of a kind and it was not surprising that it was superior to the 2004 entrants from the other teams, but then not every day is not a Sunday and Ferrari has learnt it the hard way.

Hearing the commentators speak, it seems it is the tyres that is the problem area. Bridgestone has always built its tyres around Schumi and his Ferrari. As confirmed by Brawn recently, Schumi's strength has been his speed and his aggresive style which is always harsh on his tyres. Suddenly he has been asked to conserve his tyres, control his aggression.......maybe they have not been able to react on time....hopefully they can get their act together soon. Again this is what everyone wanted, to see Ferrari off the top pedestal and they got it...but I think Brawn, Todt and Schumi have done it before and will do it again, the 2005 will improve things but I am not sure it can compensate for the tyre wear, its up to the three of them to fix that

Talking about Karthikeyan, another finish, in a Jordan thats good! Am slightly sorry to see him just give way everytime he is being lapped, seems a little too nice....but nothing more expected of him. A points scoring finish would be nice, I really wish him that, really do. He comes across very well during the interviews, more like Webber or Barrichello....

The talking point of this race is not Ferrari's position but Ralf's drive. Trulli is exposing him, he is the second best paid driver on the grid and Trulli with the same car is looking far more impressive that him. Toyota and Michelin cleary have kept their part of the deal and its time for Micheal's little brother to let his driving do the talking and not use his surname to his advantage. Lets also not forget Mr Button, as with every other British prospect he has let the media hype get to him, now he is blaming the engine..... the question to Mr Button - when was the last time you saw Schumi blame his team or his engineers for his position. You are one among the team and has to share the blame, thats a team player.....a team player does not wash his dirty linen in public. BAR seems to have screwed things over, they sacked Dave Richards, fought for a driver who does not want to drive for them and look at their position - All I can say, "Be Careful about what you ask for - you may get it"

Management, specifically, MAN Management

Last Saturday, at the Airport waiting to check in, 2 of my friends and myself (All 3 of us follow Football) had this arguement giving the clubs each other support some stick, it did get a little heated, but the respect we have for each other and good time we just had, kind of kept things under the lid. There was a statement saying Sir Alex Ferguson of Manchester United was a tyrant. So I wanted to share my thoughts that why Management in the current times is not about the Manager but about the person being managed and Sir Alex, a person with 23 winner medals, is a master in dealing with different people differently.

In the old days, managers came out with methods and procedures on how the work needs to be done, because there was only one way to it. Any worker who joined, learnt how to operate the machine (there was nothing much in terms of value add from the worker), looked to impress the manager with his/her productivity and the managers too liked only such characters as it made them look good - as it improved the numbers that they get to show their bosses. Workers were kept down, so the quality of their lives became more dependent on the employer, a managers job was easy as it was just a supervisory role. In these days, such authoritative styles are effective only in an emergency and should stay within the armed forces.

In the world around us now, the skill levels required on the job are so specialized that there are many ways to do the same job and the manager is dependant on his workers to do choose the best option and make is successful. As you go up the Organization Chart, people only decide “What to do” and look to people below them for answers to the question “how best to do it”. The Boss earns his money is choosing the people who are talented enough to do it, people who are good team players and in getting each individual to actually complete the job to perfection (Both in terms of quality and time). It gets even complicated when managers don’t recruit the team but inherit the team, often this is the case and the manager’s first few days and first few actions will set the tone for all the future projects. If the manager impresses the team and takes care of those who work for him/her, he/she will float to greatness on their achievements.

Man management is so important because bigger the talent, bigger the ego and harder the task in getting the talent out. It’s no more about management styles but more about the person being managed or how important the person’s qualities are to the task at hand. The more indispensable the person being managed is the more dispensable is the manager – so the situation has changed, it’s no more a supervisory role but more of a decision making role. The manager who makes the better decisions and calls the best shots and has his/her team working for him will have the best report card at the end of the year. So in recent times you would have seen many examples of the manager being after the staff once the staff has proven his/her talent.

One field that is bucking this trend is I.T, proving that life is full of circles. Managers/Leaders of proven track record are of the wanted breed, taking us to back to the time of the factory workers. Why? Because the talent required (Programmers/developers) are available in plenty. So the talented person at the bottom is no more indispensable but just another warm body that is easily replaceable. The only way for a person at the bottom (programmer/developer) to be recognized is via the recognition of the person above him (Team Leader/Project Leader) gets. It also depends on how much of that recognition is being shared by the person above you. The CIO or CEO only hears what your superior has to share about you. So it’s imperative that programmers or entry level staff, in general technical staff, work hard to show their superiors in the best of light and move along with them up the ladder. This is why people skills and communication skills have to be taught early in schools, as much as I believe these cannot be taught but are being determined by the upbringing and the surroundings of the individual, I accept that such skills can be molded or corrected early at schools.

Finally to finish up, I agree Sir Alex threw the rule book at Whiteside, Strachan, Paul Parker, Ince, Stam - all gifted individuals who have went on to have great careers but he has used the "Arm around the shoulder" approach with people like Cantona, Giggs, Solskjaer, Cole, Yorke, Keane - now Ruud, Rio, Rooney and Ronaldo, clearly showing that there is no one way to Man Management. Ask yourself whether you can motivate and a group of multi-millionaires who have won everything they can possibly win in the game to push themselves week in week out, then probably you will appreciate his workload

Some management style Test
1. Business Bureau
2. Management Vitality

Money Money Money.....

At 17 every single person chases 2 things, money and certificates (which btw, we assume will help us make more money). I know there will a good few who would want to add career to that list, if you are one, stop and think for a minute. Did you ever sit down and think about "What am I good at? What am I passionate about? Where do I see myself in 10 years?" If you answered those questions and sought a career based on those answers, then you are a gifted person. Yes go ahead and add career to that list, for everyone else, like me, career is encompassed in the first target, Money.

So the Million Dollar Question is how much Money is enough? When do we consider ourselves to be rich? Can you certify a person to be rich? Is there a milestone for a person to reach so that he/she can call himself/herself rich? So why talk suddenly about money? Its not that I had struck the lottery, I was sent to a Financial Planning course last week and in my 2 days there they put me through every emotion possible....pain, anger, sorry, fear, failure and finally supreme! (They had a small game and I retired with a 14000$ paycheck, 10 properties and 1.8Million in cash)

Coming back to the main topic? How much is enough. I think it depends on what every person wants in life. Why? Because just the day after the course, I was explaining to my colleagues that after sitting through my financial analysis, it was determined that I needed 2.3 Million to retire. My friend asked me the question, why? I told him the same answer, the financial planners told me, "To maintain my lifestyle". And I think therein lies the answer to the big question. Rich is just an adjective we used to describe people based on our own needs, wishes and dreams. If he/she has more that what we think we need, we classify the person rich.

If you have 10$, if you want to dine at the Four Seasons, you don’t even have enough for a single meal, if you want to have dinner at Mac's then you will have a spare dollar or two, if you want to buy veggies and cook, the same 10$ can be enough for a few days. So it’s not the 10$ that matters but what you want to do with it that determines whether you have enough or not. Few years ago, a person wanted to build a small temple for his god at my native place. The land required belonged to a person who is an odd job laborer. He only gets paid when he works and he only works when he is called up to work. Meaning he has no idea where or when he is going to get his next pay. Yet when asked, he insisted on giving his land for free! How many of us educated, monthly paid people put in his shoes make the same decision. We probably think it was a foolish decision only the uneducated can make! The person did compensate the laborer for his loss but again that’s secondary.

So Money is just the tool that can help to get what we want, let’s treat it with the respect it deserves but let’s not chase it so blindly that we lose sight of the very purpose of why we are chasing it. Let’s not fear it but be cautious of its power to engulf us and manipulate us. I made 1.8M while playing the game but the game did not factor personal health, at 55 even if I really had that much money, it’s no use to me if I were to be counting my days. So let’s take stock of our needs, our current situation at regular intervals and enjoy life with what we have - whenever we can ;)

Australian GP - My own review

To start off, a mention of my allegiance to the Red of Ferrari, so no points if you think the same after reading the whole post. Initially it was my liking to Schumi’s skills that got me hooked on Ferrari but recent news on McLaren trying to lure Schumi got me thinking and I think now I love the team more than the 2 drivers. The history and tradition of the team, the more you read it’s very beautiful.

Secondly, I am happy for Karthikeyan giving a good account of himself. I think he had a good day. Was very apprehensive about his chances, thought he will do a Alex Yoong, it was much better a performance. If only Indian sponsors had trusted him earlier(He could have been Jaguar's second driver), F1 fever would have spread in India and we could have had our own GP by now. F1 would be ideal for India's tourism, I hope it happens soon.

Now to the race proper, not a bad week for Ferrari/Bridgestone, Barrichello has proved that the 2004 car can still match the front runners so it was just bad luck that Schumi could not finish within the points. McLaren, Williams, BAR all have no reason to party, none of thier packages seems to be taken the F1 circus by storm, Montoya has a silent race by his standards, the TV cameras never went his direction - that was surprising.

The surprise of the weekend are definitely the Red Bull team, excellent performance for a new team, all though they would have carried on from Jaguar's groundwork, their performance this week was miles ahead of anything Jaguar could have conjured up. Its sad to see such a presitigous car maker like Jaguar go out but then its a competitive team in Red Bull Racing that has replaced them and it better for the big picture. Coultard is a better choice than Hiedfeld and I think they chose rightly, Coultard's experience can be used to develop the car and the team, if their start is anything to go by, Red Bull Racing could soon follow BAR's roadmap and could see real competitive drivers driving for them soon.

Hiedfeld seems to have taken over Montoya's single mission of spoiling it for Schumi. I think the commentators were little bit easy on him, it was a right corner and Schumi had the racing line, Hiedfeld had no right to go for it, to me it was just plain frustration from a man overtaken the previous corner. It was poor judgement, probably he thought he could get more media coverage by taking out the world champion that finishing 9th.

Finally, Button should calm down. All this crap about him beating Schumi given the same car is nonsense. For a person who wanted to ditch his team and join a front runner (Atleast he thinks so), just to win races - he has no rights to talk about a World Champion, who joined a flaggering team, worked hard for years and made them the world beaters that they are today. Its very unfair to state that Schumi is winning because he has the best package. He along with Todt and Brawn are the reason why Ferrari are what they are today. So if Button is even half as talented as the great man, he should shut up and work hard instead of running around looking for the best car. If you have earnt your millions, there is nothing wrong in flaunting it.