hifting the . . . institution through the mundane language of management systems . . . altering agendas so that new priorities get . . . attention . . . being visible when things are going awry, and invisible when they are working well . . . building a loyal team at the top that speaks . . . with one voice . . . listening carefully . . . speaking with
encouragement, and reinforcing words with . . . beingtough when necessary . . . the occasional naked use of power or the 'subtle accumulation of nuances, a hundred things done a little better (Peters, and Waterman, 1982, 107).
Regardless of the authorship of this definition of leader ship, there is one point upon which there can be no argument: this definition thoroughly strips the concept of leadership of any semblance of art. In actuality, leadership is likely a little bit of each of the definitions presented above (and probably a little bit of some other definitions of the concept which were not considered). Leadership is, most probably, a little bit art, a little bit science, and, as is true with most aspects of human life, a whole lot of drugery, frustration, and boredom. It may also be quite satisfying, when practiced effectively.
John P. Kotter (1988), and Anthony Zaleznik (1977) have proclaimed that significant differences exist between
leadership and management. Zaleznik (1977, 68) sees a manager as a "problem solver," while he see a leader as a charasmatic visionary. In fact, corporate officers must be both, at dif ferent times. A leader and manager wears many hats, at differ ent times of the corporate day and year.
Kotter (1988) says that the peacetime army needs managers, while the wartime army needs leaders. While it is true that an army commander in battle must be able to visualize missions and objectives, and motivate his troops, it is also true that an army commander in battle must be able...