There is a saying that says (organizations are a reflection of the characteristics of their top management). Responsibility for making decisions is a critical task, either to take the organization to success and excellence or to failure and collapse

Mintzberg thinks organizations are overled and undermanaged.

Article Mintzberg's Model of Managing: Random Thoughts from an Observation

Article Mintzberg's Managing: Implications for Coaching and Training

This is a really interesting observation - I couldn't resist responding!

'Management' and 'Leadership' are two quite different things. It's clear in this question, but is not always recognised or understood in practice. Charles Handy wrote about this in his classic book, "Understanding Organisations". He described how "directing and mentoring" are largely management approaches whilst, "coaching and delegating" are employed and recognised more often as leadership.

Management is about controlling or reducing risk whilst conversely, leadership is about enabling innovation through empowerment - a continuum perhaps?

Whilst it's relatively straightforward to distinguish between management and leadership at the extreme ends of this continuum, every job is different in terms of context, people and task - so it's not surprising that a conscious deployment of the right mix of management and leadership approaches is commonly advocated in the complex world of work.

I hope these reflections are helpful to your question / work. Good luck...

Olivier Serrat, thank you for sharing the articles. I have been through most of Mintzberg's and I tend to agree with him when he suggests that leadership is a managerial/interpersonal function within organisations. However, the terms 'overled' [and 'undermanaged'] are overrated. Being an HRD practitioner, I've noticed that most of the leadership training and development programmes miss the very essence of leadership and focus too much on [managerial] performance.

To further Levin and Leech: Performance (outcomes) is the result of multiple factors both authors named which some are relatively constant and others constantly changing but the implications of changes for the organization functioning and the internal and external problems it bound to face require analysis and integration by well-informed leader. S/he enhances performance by orchestrating the various factors while seeking new solutions together with subordinates who has practical know-how and phronesis learned on their jobs and in practitioner communities while consulting also outside sources. S/he always faces questions which problems to tackle her/himself and which to delegate to lower echelons, how much to be involved in which sector in view of changing circumstances and how keep and enhance subordinates' trust in her/his decision-making so that would share every important information and knowledge. In short, shaping a high-trust innovation-prone culture of cooperation. See my attached works.

Tariq Kadhim, you are right but my concern is that top management is usually wrongly labelled as leadership and that their functions are intermixed and confused.

Olivier Serrat, thank you for sharing your articles.

I have studied most of Mintzberg. Mintzberg is probably referring to the over emphasis on leadership. Most of the writers on leadership imply that managers should manage the leaders' way - and not the managers' way. However, I believe that such propounding is based on a very preliminary understanding of leadership and management.

Darren Leech, thank you for your input. I believe that each managerial function has a leadership component; and that is because these managerial functions cannot be performed without people. So, instead of [independently] stratifying organisational functions into managerial and leadership, we need to focus on the leadership and managerial components of each function.

Ben Levin

Reuven Shapira, thank you sharing your views and articles.

Leadership & performance remain the pillar of the organization .The success of any organization demand on performance on man power ,the success of which demand on MAN , MONEY , & MATERIAL .

This is my personal opinion

Dear Sajid,

If we understand leadership as a process in which leaders inspire and influence followers to achieve goals, leadership could be a part of management.

Modern leadership depends on many variables and factors. It´s difficult to compare how you can become a leader in the healthcare system, manufacturing, sports, military, etc. We need to understand the framing effect. The leadership career path is full of inconsistencies. That´s why, as you mentioned, leadership has no direct link with performance. Why not? As a leader, you have to be able to change management, to inspire. As a manager, you can improve your management style and get good results. As a consequence, productivity and performance are part of management. But, if you behave as a manager without change managing or sharing vision or strategies, it will be challenging to maintain your team focused on the long term.

Dear Sajid,

Leadership is directly related and mutually determined with corporate culture. The corporate culture and the management style applied in the company directly connect with the increase of its competitive advantages.

Regards,

Yanica

Sajid,

Management practices and performance, you can read the paper of Bloom et al. (2016) "Management as a Technology?"

Ben Levin

What can I learn from the current turning point in Europe? Stylish/leader-centric leadership theories, or 'how to lead' theories, seem to have implicitly supported the belief that leaders can do/behave whatever they choose to do/behave with their very own free wills and arbitrary thinking (thus, a style).

I do believe in another approach - a theory of why - or a stakeholder/team/organizational approach: leaders MUST do what they are expected to do. While expectations are not always clear, ethical or rational or both, authorizing stakeholder/team/organizational expectations are much better than the selfish, free will of the leaders. Driving by the expectations of the others rather than their selfishness, leaders can then become truly good leaders and create values for all stakeholders. To correctly and ethically lead means to guide the peoples to the future of peace and happiness, where values are created for all. Good leaders make the dreams of the others come true. Bad leaders chase their own mindful dreams by lulling others - what has been likely theorized as the science of influencing others. A big question for me to think: to what extent do they have the right to influence others, and why? The then 'how to lead' must follow the answer of the first 'why' explanation.

I have consistently defined leadership as the use of resources, or resource use for short. Cheers. Le Vinh.

Ben Levin

Dr. Sajid Iqbal , ethical change management could create an ethical culture and ethical leadership that increases teacher satisfaction and school performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Kindly visit the link.

Article A Qualitative Study of Ethical Change Management Affecting T...

All the best,

Kindly find the related link.

Article The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction Between the Relatio...