Tax Specification Changes - Effective 1st April 2012
For detailed infomation regards the changes, please click the below image.
Managers and Leaders, are they Different?
by Abraham Zaleznik
The Difference between managers and leaders, lies in the conceptions they hold, deep in their psyches, of chaos and order.
Managers embrace process, seek stability and control, and instinctively try to resolve problems quickly sometimes before they fully understand a problem’s significance.Leaders, in contrast, tolerate chaos and lack of structure and are willing to delay closure in order to understand the issues more fully.Organizations need both managers and leaders to succeed, but developing both requires a reduced focus on logic and strategic exercises in favour of an environment where creativity and imagination are permitted to flourish.
Manager versus Leader Personality
A managerial culture emphasizes rationality and control. Whether or not his or her energies are directed towards goals, resources, organization structures or people, a manager is a problem solver. The manager asks: “what problems have to be solved, and what are the best ways to achieve results so that people will continue to contribute to this organization?
From this perspective, leadership is simply a practical effort to direct affairs. It takes neither genius nor heroism to be a manager, but rather persistence, tough mindedness, hard work, intelligence, analytical ability and perhaps most important, tolerance and goodwill. Leadership is really managing work that other people do.
Development of Leadership.
Psychological biographies of gifted people repeatedly demonstrate the important part a teacher plays in developing the individual. Andrew Carnegie (once the world richest man through his exploits in setting up
As head of the Western Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, Scott recognized talent and the desire to learn in the young telegrapher assigned to him. By giving Carnegie increased responsibility and by providing him with the opportunity to learn through close personal observation, Scott added to Carnegie’s self-confidence and sense of achievement. Because of his own personal strength and achievement, Scott did not fear Carnegie’s aggressiveness. Instead he gave it full play in encouraging Carnegie’s initiative.
Great teachers take risks. They bet initially on talent they perceive in younger people. And they risk emotional involvement in working closely with their juniors. The risks do not always pay off, but the willingness to take them appears to be absolutely crucial in developing leaders.
Can Organizations Develop Leaders?
One large integrated oil company has accepted the importance of developing leaders through the direct influence of senior on junior executives. The chairman and chief executive officer regularly selects one talented university graduate whom he appoints as his special assistant and whom he will work closely with for a year. At the end of the year the junior executive becomes available for assignments to one of the operating divisions, where he or she will be assigned to a responsible post rather than a training position. This apprenticeship acquaints the junior executive firsthand with the use of power and with important antidotes to the power disease called hubris- Performance and integrity.
Working in one-to-one relationships, where there is a formal recognized difference in the power of the players, takes a great deal of tolerance for emotional interchange. This interchange, inevitable in a close working arrangements, probably accounts for the reluctance of many executives to becoming involved in such relationships.