Blog #3 Management & Leadership (Chapter 2)
1 A) What are the strengths and
weaknesses of management?
The
strength of management is that it is based on very specific tasks or purposes,
numbers and either material or business goals. Efficiency and the way of
organizing people to reach that efficiency is one of the main building blocks
of management (Chelladurai, 2009). Another strength would be that management has
been defined by specific movements in the past (i.e The Industrial Revolution).
A
weakness would be that management is lacking any personal or human aspects as some
scholars in the early 20th century formulated (Schenk, 1928). Furthermore
there are a number of scholars who “discredit” the management itself when
saying that “Management is done by average managers” whereas “leadership is
done by excellent managers” (Rost, 1993, pg. 116). Basically, the weakness of
management is that no matter how good you are managing tasks and achieving
organizational goals one needs to have good leadership skills to make the
management part an actual success.
B) Which do you prefer, management or
leadership? Why?
This is a tough one. Personally, I prefer management as I think management is based on what you have and what you do with it. It’s based on facts, numbers, data and what you can directly control and quantify. Whereas leadership is a more visionary approach where you have to rely not only on your own leadership qualities but also on others, their trust and your ability to convince them to change their view. With humans, there comes often error so a lot of things are unpredictable with leadership and there are a lot of question marks. Whereas management is simply organizing, directing, and controlling what you have and work with it and maximize its outcome every time.
This is a tough one. Personally, I prefer management as I think management is based on what you have and what you do with it. It’s based on facts, numbers, data and what you can directly control and quantify. Whereas leadership is a more visionary approach where you have to rely not only on your own leadership qualities but also on others, their trust and your ability to convince them to change their view. With humans, there comes often error so a lot of things are unpredictable with leadership and there are a lot of question marks. Whereas management is simply organizing, directing, and controlling what you have and work with it and maximize its outcome every time.
2) Why do you think sport administrators in Canadian athletic departments placed more of an emphasis on management activities?
I
believe it’s because the Canadian Athletic Directors (AD) have a more limited budget
than what we know of and their job is more dependent on having the finances “dialed
in” 100%.
b) Why do you think constraints
(financial constraints, physical constraints) force sport administrators to be managers and not
leaders?
As mentioned above, when you have to worry about “business” (finances, staying within budget, etc.) the leadership aspect is likely to get limited. We know that leaders are seeking opportunities for change (Zaleznik, 1978) and have high goals and wanting to do things different and new sometimes. Unfortunately, when you have constraints you can’t do that so well and have to focus more on the Admin part
As mentioned above, when you have to worry about “business” (finances, staying within budget, etc.) the leadership aspect is likely to get limited. We know that leaders are seeking opportunities for change (Zaleznik, 1978) and have high goals and wanting to do things different and new sometimes. Unfortunately, when you have constraints you can’t do that so well and have to focus more on the Admin part
3)
How do you think the job of an athletic director of a big-time school in
America (think Michigan, UT) differs from that of a Canadian athletic director?
I
think the biggest difference is the cultural difference: Big US schools have a
huge history when it comes to sports (think College Football, Basketball for
example) and intercollegiate (athletic) competition is of very, very big importance
when it comes to the prestige of a school. Being a AD at a big US School you
have to be more a leader since the fan base, the community etc. are so
dependent on the team’s well-doing. And very important to note, too we learned
from Danylchuk, K.-E. & Chelladurai (1999) text that Canadian AD’s don’t
share their workload as much/good as in the US for example. So a US School AD
has more time to be a leader since his duties/responsibilities are spread out
over more people (Assistant AD, Staff, etc.)
b) Do they manage more than they lead
or vice versa?
A
US School AD leads more whereas a Canadian AD’s leads more as mentioned above.
The Canadian AD’s spends much more time with finances/budget.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, managers do not worry about the future. They are there to maintain the status quo and to steer the cooperation away from threats and potholes. You may need a leader to come in during times of crisis to execute new ideas and to change the paradigm. So in a sense, the author is correct in his assertion that managers are concerned about doing things right and leaders are concerned about what things mean to people. I agree that managers are always trying to improve the processes and organizational outputs. It is all about getting things done. I think that management is more important than leadership in certain contexts. In certain situations, you will only need someone to keep the ship sailing with very few problems. I read an article about the Los Angeles Lakers, who are bringing in analytical experts to help improve the franchise. I see this as a marker of leadership because Mitch Kupchack, who is the general manager of the team, wants to begin anew with new people. I think in times of crisis, managers are fired and leaders are brought in to lead the organization in a new direction.
ReplyDeleteI think athletic directors tend to manage because in some cases they do not trust the people who are subordinate to them. If your subordinate has the same skills as you, then why are you there? At some universities, athletic directors are brought in to bring leadership on an interim or a long-term basis. Mike Perrin is now the new athletic director at the University of Texas, a school he played for in the late sixties. In his press conference, he talked about repairing relationships, especially those with alienated donors. I say that to say whether an athletic director is a manager or a leader is a matter of circumstance. Some people are brought in to just make sure that the employees aren’t screwing things up. On the other hand, some individuals are brought in to “lead” the organization in times of change. I do agree that there is a cultural difference here in the states. You will discover that most countries around the developed world do not have intercollegiate scholarships. America is a sporty nation, so that is reflected in our passion for big time athletics. Because of how big the operation is at the University of Michigan or the University of Texas, the athletic director needs to delegate other duties to his or her subordinates. This will invariably enable the athletic director to lead the athletics department.