I was meeting with a client last week discussing their needs for what they termed "management development", and another meeting yesterday with a different client, who wanted "leadership training".
The focus of competencies were almost identical:
Communication skills
Developing others
Coaching
Team leadership
Now I consider these to be 'leadership', but there is crossover of course, does it matter what we call this development? or should we seperate what is leadership and what is management?
What do you think?
People do indeed tend to equate management development with leadership development. I am a fan of the approach where there is a clear distinction between the 2. Kets de Vries identifies architectural and charismatic roles of the leader. The architectural role has typically to do with what is normally seen as management functions. The charismatic role has to do with what is normally referred to as leadership.
Having said this, I would tend to agree with you that those competencies are typically leadership competencies, with a crossover somewhere, as people with predominantly architectural functions should also be competent in a number of them.
Have you had a look at Elliotte Jaques on managerial leadership?
Excellent thoughts Johan - I agree that whatever 'management' role one has, leadership capability plays a part. and thanks for the tip on Elliotte Jacques.
Have a good one