F250 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) A manager is not a 'leader', a manager is a facilitator. It's your responsibility to know how to do your job. It's your manager's job to see to it that 1) you know what your job is, and 2) you can do your job free of encumberances. And this applies to everyone in the unit. That means keeping individual employees from being encumberances on other employees. Either because they're too stupid, or because they're too abrasive. See link for correct definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manager quote from link: Characterises the process of LEADING and DIRECTING all or part of an organisation, often a business, through the deployment and manipulation of resources... Edited August 20, 2006 by F250 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g48150 Posted August 20, 2006 Author Share Posted August 20, 2006 See link for correct definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manager quote from link: Characterises the process of LEADING and DIRECTING all or part of an organisation, often a business, through the deployment and manipulation of resources... Correct definition of a leader: A change agent, one that brings about change. There's no change at Ford, none. Just a system of MANAGEMENT that keeps the status quo, that's also the same reason that culture change is impossible, it would be easier and more cost effective to cull ALL the chickens and start over. Salaried, I mean. This is the guy that you need to keep an eye on for leadership Watch for this guy, Dr. Edward Demming works for his company, ASI USA, Inc. They're in Livonia, on Seven Mile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 See link for correct definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manager quote from link: Characterises the process of LEADING and DIRECTING all or part of an organisation, often a business, through the deployment and manipulation of resources... Depends on the level of management. Contrary to what you may think, managers that supervise the people that actually do the work, are not change agents. The managers of managers, and their managers (who are usually VPs of some sort) are change agents. Stuff moves from top down. The people that supervise workers are responsbile more for the smooth operation of the unit, than trying to force the 15-20 people under them to do their bidding, or trying to push change upward through the organization. A problem occurs when managers that are good facilitators get promoted to 'change agent' type jobs. There, the ability to facilitate the smooth operation of day-to-day activities is no longer valuable--in many cases it's a liability.. Altogether too often, the people at the VP level and above have risen to those positions because they're good at keeping the machine, as built, from breaking down. They are less effective at developing new ideas and less effective at pushing the managers under them to implement change. Also, while you have cited Wikipedia, please allow me to cite, perhaps, a more well respected source for my description of management's responsibilities: "The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks will fly Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 (edited) Like I said in an earlier post WHEN they learn HOW to manage and not micromanage I will post it on BON. Edited August 21, 2006 by sparks will fly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g48150 Posted November 2, 2006 Author Share Posted November 2, 2006 I'm not THAT big of a grouch, I still know my role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.