PANTALEON Song

Individual report: The manager face of leadership

PART ONE: Presentation

On the chapter 4 of the book (Hatch; Kostera; Kozminsky, 2005), authors feature

different faces of leadership according to the most famous mythological characters.

Characters matching with the manager face of leadership are: Athena, Hephaestus and

Zeus (Ibid). Athena is the most relevant character for the manager face of leadership

(ibid). Indeed, she is a very rational and smart person, good at planning and strategy

and at making decisions (ibid). More, she is a disciplined person (ibid). In fact, the

goddess of war has never challenged her father, Zeus, to get at the top(ibid).

Nevertheless, her extreme rationality lets her emotionless even if she taught people

skills (ibid). She can only apply scientific knowledge (ibid). Hephaestus, the second

relevant character for the manager face of leadership, has the particularities to be

perfectionist, technique-oriented and down-to-earth (ibid). Then, the last mythological

character sharing characteristics with this face of leadership is Zeus, because of his

habit to be willing to control everything all the time (ibid).

The manager face of leadership is all those stated facets plus, the sense at organizing

things and tasks (ibid).

PART TWO: Personal Reflection

Even if the manager face of leadership is essential, it appears to be too restrictive

(ibid). According to authors, this face of leadership is only the first-level of efficient

leadership (ibid). Indeed, efficient leaders need rationality, organization, intelligence

but also values, emotions and creativity (Gill, 2012)(ibid). A leader that has only the

manager face of leadership looks more alike an automaton (Hatch; Kostera;

Kozminsky, 2005). But, as Smith (1937) said when rejecting Taylors rationality

(1911), rationalism only allows leaders to do the bare minimum (Hatch; Kostera;

Kozminsky, 2005)(Smith, 1937). More, leaders having only this face of leadership

can be changes blocker since they are not even challenger, risk-taker and creative

(Hatch; Kostera; Kozminsky, 2005).

Managing human beings and organizations cannot be only about control system

(ibid). Indeed, each organizations actors and trend are not necessary predicable

(ibid). And so, everything cannot be known, ruled and controlled perfectly (ibid).

Even more, human beings behaviors are not only ruled by statistics and rational

theories (ibid). It is also ruled by emotions (ibid)(Gill, 2012).

Another issue with this face of leadership comes from its pragmatism (Hatch;

Kostera; Kozminsky, 2005). Its pragmatism results in down-to-earth given

information, lacking emotion and dreams (ibid). Though, to motivate people at

purpose e.g. vision; story telling has a greater impact than saying things as they are

(ibid)(Gill, 2012). People need dreams to escape from reality and to be motivated and

inspired for achieving things (Gill, 2012)(Hatch; Kostera; Kozminsky, 2005). So,

telling them in a dry and dull way to work harder to increase organization

productivity, will not allow them to feel the needs (ibid).

PART THREE: The manager face of leadership is appropriated when

As said in the first part of our work, the manager face of leadership is about

rationality and pragmatism (ibid). This means that usually when they use story telling

to share information, they are more on a non-storytelling mode than a real playwright

(ibid). Even if storytelling is full of advantages, authors (2005) remind us that in the

past, theater was used to teach people worship but it failed since people were more

concerned in the playwright than in the worship service itself. In fact, theater art is

synonym of divertissement (ibid)(Collins, 2012). And so, people dont necessary

understand the hidden message behind the play (Hatch; Kostera; Kozminsky, 2005).

Here comes the first reason of why pragmatism can be useful. A down-to-earth, clear,

not flowery message has much more chance to be understood by people, since it does

not require particular skills, reflection and sensitivity to be understood (ibid). Even if

dull and dry, the essential message will be shared by everyone (ibid).

Another part of the answer will be about one of the main organizations core theme:

trust values (Gill, 2012). To get a positive atmosphere in an organization, we need

trust and so transparency (ibid). Transparency is about being frank and not hiding

information (Collins, 2012). Though, impersonal talks and storytelling can be

misunderstood as an elaborated way to hide information (Hatch; Kostera; Kozminsky,

2005)(Gill, 2012). A contrario, leaders that do not make uses of such talks would be

more easily trusted because of their frankness (Hatch; Kostera; Kozminsky, 2005).

The manager face of leadership is appropriate to settle and control if security or

quality policies are respected (Gill, 2012) (Hatch; Kostera; Kozminsky, 2005). In

addition to this, the manager face of leadership is appropriate depending the type of

work or people in charge (McGregor, 1960) (Gill, 2012) e.g. Clerk of works required

to check if work done meets specifications. Moreover, in case of insufficient

competencies but sufficient motivation of employees, the manager face of leadership

should be use to order, organize and control or train employees before empowering

them (McGregor, 1960).

REFERENCES:

v Hatch M.J.; Kostera M.; Kozminsky A.K. 2005. The Three Faces of

Leadership: Manager, Artist, Priest: Blackwell Publishing

v Gill R. 2012. Theory and Practice of Leadership: Sage Publication

v McGregor D.M. 1957-1960. The Human side of entreprise: Management

Review

v Collins. 2012. Concise English Dictionary: Collins

v Smith A. 1937. The Wealth of Nations: The Modern Library

v Taylor F.W 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management: Harper &

Brothers Publishers