Leadership

What is leadership? And does our understanding of it need to change for today's world?
When we think of leadership we visualize a larger-than-life individual in charge of some group - team, company or country. We try to define leadership by thinking about great leaders, which means that leadership is glorified. Unfortunately, this approach overlooks everyday kinds of leadership. There are numerous ways to define leadership. Conventional leadership is about being in charge of people, but leadership defined as an influence process explains how it can be shown bottom-up, not just top-down. Which concept of leadership most appeals to you?
Conventional leadership
Leaders, as normally conceived, take charge of groups. Most definitions of leadership don't do a very good job of differentiating between leadership and management, or else leadership is glorified and management rejected. In most definitions, both leaders and managers occupy positions of authority. Leadership is a formal role in which leaders make strategic decisions, are good at managing people and have emotional intelligence. They sell the tickets for the journey AND take us to the destination, according to popular conceptions.
Where do you want to go from here?

Read about conventional leadership style Read about a new way of defining leadership: see the rest of this page. Do a leadership style quiz. See tips on how to be a leader. Share your leadership story - how you showed leadership to your colleagues or boss.
Odd kinds of leadership - what is leadership today?

There is a lot of leadership that can't be accounted for in terms of being in charge of people: Green leadership - promoting green practices to the world at large - having a leadership impact on far-flung communities. Bottom-up leadership - convincing management to adopt a new product or change a process. Thought leadership - showing the way for colleagues across an industry sector with innnovative thinking.
Leading by example - working smarter than your colleagues and influencing them to follow your lead. Martin Luther King having a leadership impact on the U.S. government and the general population. Market leadership - leadership of one group, like Apple, over its competitors.
We need a broader definition of leadership to account for these diverse kinds of leadership: showing the way for others, either by example or by advocating a new direction.
Leadership reinvented
Leadership = promoting new directions by example or advocating by a better way. It works through influence, not by making decisions for people. Management = getting things done in a way that makes best use of all resources. All employees can promote new directions. Leadership can be shown bottom-up or sideways. Green leaders, for example, are activists. So was Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. Activists become leaders when they gain a large following, most often through non-violent protest, having the courage to challenge the status quo and stand up for what they believe in. Surely, this is the real meaning of leadership. Activists, like green leaders, have two kinds of followers - those who join their camps and those who adopt their proposals without joining their group. Hence, a community in Australia could follow a green leader in Norway without the two even knowing each other. The second type of follower shows that leadership is possible without the leader being in charge of those who follow. We need to understand this kind of leadership to explain how leadership can be shown upwards by front-line employees who promote new products or services. See Thought Leadership or Bottom-up Leadership for more on this theme. Leadership, as defined here, does not manage people - that's management. Leaders don't make decisions. The ACT of leadership is pure influence. Leaders, like green leaders, sell the tickets for the journey. Managers drive the bus to the destination. By defining management as a process of achieving goals efficiently, we include selfmanagement, managing your time, money and career. Management is like investment, the desire to get the best return on all of our resources. Hence, management is not by definition a role. The same principles of management are applied by all employees, including managers. Similarly, leadership should not be seen as a role either. People in positions of authority occasionally SHOW leadership, but then so does everyone else.
The changing meaning of leadership

Our definition of leadership needs to change for a knowledge driven world that is no longer rigidly hierarchical, stable or static but one that is fluid, fast changing and less formally structured. Leadership has always been based on power. For the conventional view, this means the power of personality to dominate a group.
But in our knowledge driven world, business is a war of ideas where the power to innovate and promote new products is the new basis of leadership. This is in tune with Richard Florida's book, "The Rise of the Creative Class" which argues that more and more work requires creative thinking. This is the power on which leadership will be based in the future. Such leadership can only be occasional influence, because no one can monopolize good ideas. The idea that leadership means occupying the dominant position in a hierarchy is a dinosaur because anyone with critical knowledge that could alter business direction can show leadership. This is thought leadership and it can be shown by front line employees who don't manage anyone. It can be bottom-up as well as top-down. It can even come from outside. It can be shown between organizations too as in market leadership. Only management is a formal role. Conventional leadership theories paint a distorted picture of leadership by focusing narrowly on people in positions of power. These theories are in crisis today because they face an unpalatable dilemma: either they have to say that CEOs no longer lead, because the world is too complex for them to know it all or they have to change the meaning of leadership. The latter option defines leadership as being a facilitator, like the level 5 leaders of Jim Collins in his book Good to Great, who grill top people with questions to elicit ideas for new directions from them. This option preserves the idea that CEOs are leaders. Another option is to retain the notion that leaders promote new directions but to say that CEOs no longer have a monopoly on leadership. By saying that leadership means promoting new directions, such as new products and services, everyone can show leadership. This means that CEOs manage as much as lead. But, we need to upgrade management to make it a more positive concept. At present, management is cast in a negative light. How does our definition of leadership depend on followers? Do we need a concept of followership to understand leadership?
Leadership Types
Most common Leadership Types Autocratic leadership. Bureaucratic leadership. Charismatic leadership. Democratic leadership or participative leadership . Laissez-faire leadership. People-oriented leadership or relations-oriented leadership. Servant leadership. Task-oriented leadership. Transactional leadership. Transformational leadership.
Autocratic Leadership Autocratic leadership is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where a leader exerts high levels of power over his or her employees or team members. People within the team are given few opportunities for making suggestions, even if these would be in the team's or organizations interest. Most people tend to resent being treated like this. Because of this, autocratic leadership usually leads to high levels of absenteeism and staff turnover. Also, the team's output does not benefit from the creativity and experience of all team members, so many of the benefits of teamwork are lost. For some routine and unskilled jobs, however, this style can remain effective where the advantages of control outweigh the disadvantages. Learn more...
Bureaucratic Leadership Bureaucratic leaders work by the book, ensuring that their staff follow procedures exactly. This is a very appropriate style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances or at heights) or where large sums of money are involved (such as cash-handling). In other situations, the inflexibility and high levels of control exerted can demoralize staff, and can diminish the organizations ability to react to changing external circumstances. Learn more... Charismatic Leadership A charismatic leadership style can appear similar to a transformational leadership style, in that the leader injects huge doses of enthusiasm into his or her team, and is very energetic in driving others forward. However, a charismatic leader can tend to believe more in him or herself than in their team. This can create a risk that a project, or even an entire organization, might collapse if the leader were to leave: In the eyes of their followers, success is tied up with the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and needs long-term commitment from the leader. Democratic Leadership or Participative Leadership Although a democratic leader will make the final decision, he or she invites other members of the team to contribute to the decision-making process. This not only increases job satisfaction by involving employees or team members in whats going on, but it also helps to develop peoples skills. Employees and team members feel in control of their own destiny, and so are motivated to work hard by more than just a financial reward. As participation takes time, this style can lead to things happening more slowly than an autocratic approach, but often the end result is better. It can be most suitable where team working is essential, and quality is more important than speed to market or productivity. Learn more... Laissez-Faire Leadership This French phrase means leave it be and is used to describe a leader who leaves his or her colleagues to get on with their work. It can be effective if the leader monitors what is being achieved and communicates this back to his or her team regularly. Most often, laissez-faire leadership works for teams in which the individuals are very experienced and skilled self-starters. Unfortunately, it can also refer to situations where managers are not exerting sufficient control. Learn more... People-Oriented Leadership or Relations-Oriented Leadership This style of leadership is the opposite of task-oriented leadership: the leader is totally focused on organizing, supporting and developing the people in the leaders team. A participative style, it tends to lead to good teamwork and creative
collaboration. However, taken to extremes, it can lead to failure to achieve the team's goals. In practice, most leaders use both task-oriented and people-oriented styles of leadership. Servant Leadership This term, coined by Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s, describes a leader who is often not formally recognized as such. When someone, at any level within an organization, leads simply by virtue of meeting the needs of his or her team, he or she is described as a servant leader. In many ways, servant leadership is a form of democratic leadership, as the whole team tends to be involved in decision-making. Supporters of the servant leadership model suggest it is an important way ahead in a world where values are increasingly important, in which servant leaders achieve power on the basis of their values and ideals. Others believe that in competitive leadership situations, people practicing servant leadership will often find themselves left behind by leaders using other leadership styles. Task-Oriented Leadership A highly task-oriented leader focuses only on getting the job done, and can be quite autocratic. He or she will actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, plan, organize and monitor. However, as task-oriented leaders spare little thought for the well-being of their teams, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, with difficulties in motivating and retaining staff. Task-oriented leaders can benefit from an understanding of the Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid, which can help them identify specific areas for development that will help them involve people more. Transactional Leadership This style of leadership starts with the premise that team members agree to obey their leader totally when they take a job on: the transaction is (usually) that the organization pays the team members, in return for their effort and compliance. As such, the leader has the right to punish team members if their work doesnt meet the pre-determined standard. Team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction under transactional leadership. The leader could give team members some control of their income/reward by using incentives that encourage even higher standards or greater productivity. Alternatively a transactional leader could practice management by exception, whereby, rather than rewarding better work, he or she would take corrective action if the required standards were not met. Transactional leadership is really just a way of managing rather a true leadership style, as the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations for knowledgebased or creative work, but remains a common style in many organizations.
Transformational Leadership A person with this leadership style is a true leader who inspires his or her team with a shared vision of the future. Transformational leaders are highly visible, and spend a lot of time communicating. They dont necessarily lead from the front, as they tend to delegate responsibility amongst their teams. While their enthusiasm is often infectious, they can need to be supported by detail people. In many organizations, both transactional and transformational leadership are needed. The transactional leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done reliably, while the transformational leaders look after initiatives that add value. The transformational leadership style is the dominant leadership style taught in the "How to Lead: Discover the Leader Within You" leadership program, although we do recommend that other styles are brought as the situation demands. Using the Right Style Situational Leadership While the Transformation Leadership approach is often highly effective, there is no one right way to lead or manage that suits all situations. To choose the most effective approach for you, you must consider: The skill levels and experience of the members of your team. The work involved (routine or new and creative). The organizational environment (stable or radically changing, conservative or adventurous). You own preferred or natural style.
A good leader will find him or herself switching instinctively between styles according to the people and work they are dealing with. This is often referred to as situational leadership. For example, the manager of a small factory trains new machine operatives using a bureaucratic style to ensure operatives know the procedures that achieve the right standards of product quality and workplace safety. The same manager may adopt a more participative style of leadership when working on production line improvement with his or her team of supervisors
Three Classic Leadership Styles One dimension of has to do with control and one's perception of how much control one should give to people. The laissez faire style implies low control, the autocratic style high control and the participative lies somewhere in between. The Laissez Faire Leadership Style The style is largely a "hands off" view that tends to minimize the amount of direction and face time required. Works well if you have highly trained and highly motivated direct reports. More info... The Autocratic Leadership Style The style has its advocates, but it is falling out of favor in many countries. Some people have argued that the style is popular with today's CEO's, who have much in common with feudal lords in Medieval Europe. The Participative Leadership Style It's hard to order and demand someone to be creative, perform as a team, solve complex problems, improve quality, and provide outstanding customer service. The style presents a happy medium between over controlling (micromanaging) and not being engaged and tends to be seen in organizations that must innovate to prosper. Determining the Best Leadership Style Situational Leadership. In the 1950s, management theorists from Ohio State University and the University of Michigan published a series of studies to determine whether leaders should be more task or relationship (people) oriented. The importance of the research cannot be over estimated since leaders tend to have a dominant style; a leadership style they use in a wide variety of situations.
Surprisingly, the research discovered that there is no one best style: leaders must adjust their leadership style to the situation as well as to the people being led. The Emergent Leadership Style Contrary to the belief of many, groups do not automatically accept a new "boss" as leader. We see a number of ineffective managers who didn't know the behaviors to use when one taking over a new group. The Transactional Leadership Style The approach emphasizes getting things done within the umbrella of the status quo; almost in opposition to the goals of the transformational leadership. It's considered to be a "by the book" approach in which the person works within the rules. As such, it's commonly seen in large, bureaucratic organizations. The Transformational Leadership Style The primary focus of this leadership style is to make change happen in: * * * * Our Self, Others, Groups, and Organizations
Charisma is a special leadership style commonly associated with transformational leadership. While extremely powerful, it is extremely hard to teach. Visionary Leadership Visionary Leadership, The leadership style focuses on how the leader defines the future for followers and moves them toward it. From the short review above, one can see that there are many different aspects to being a great leader; a role requiring one to play many different leadership styles to be successful. Other leadership styles include: Strategic Leadership Strategic Leadership is practiced by the military services such as the US Army, US Air Force, and many large corporations. It stresses the competitive nature of running an organization and being able to out fox and out wit the competition. Team Leadership Team Leadership. A few years ago, a large corporation decided that supervisors were no longer needed and those in charge were suddenly made "team leaders." Today, companies have gotten smarter about teams, but it still takes leadership to transition a group into a team.
Facilitative Leadership Facilitative Leadership. This is a special style that anyone who runs a meeting can employ. Rather than being directive, one uses a number of indirect communication patterns to help the group reach consensus. Leadership Influence Styles Leadership Influence Styles. Here one looks at the behaviors associated how one exercises influence. For example, does the person mostly punish? Do they know how to reward? Cross-Cultural Leadership Cross-Cultural Leadership. Not all individuals can adapt to the leadership styles expected in a different culture; whether that culture is organizational or national. Coaching Coaching. A great coach is definitely a leader who also possess a unique gift--the ability to teach and train. Level 5 Leadership. Level 5 Leadership. This term was coined by Jim Collins in his book Good to Great: Why Some Companys Make the Leap and Other Dont. As Collins says in his book, "We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the types of leadership required for turning a good company into a great one." Servant Leadership. Servant Leadership. Some leaders have put the needs of their followers first. For example, the motto of the Los Angeles Police Department, "To Protect and Serve." reflects this philosophy of service. One suspects these leaders are rare in business.
References http://www.legacee.com/Info/Leadership/LeadershipStyles.html http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_84.htm
Bass and Colleagues Five Styles Of Leadership

Bernard M Bass developed this model for types of leadership based on two simple objectives; which is task orientation and people orientation. The leadership styles proposed below reflect different levels of task and people orientation. Directive leadership style The directive leader tells his followers what to do, and how to do it exactly. He specifics standards required of his followers and exercise firm authority over them. Consultative leadership style The consultative leader seeks the counsel of the whole team before making a decision on what the team should do. He is also task oriented, but he seeks the opinion of his followers as well. Participative leadership style The participative leader puts himself as a member of the team and discusses possible decisions with the team. He seeks consensus before coming to a decision and everyone is supposed to take ownership in the final decision. Negotiative leadership style The negotiative leader employs a more political approach to leadership. He has a personal interest in his decisions and he uses incentives to entice his followers to do certain things. Delegative leadership style He takes back seat toward decision making, and allows his team to take their own course of action. He only sits down together with the team to discuss possible decisions that could be adopted.
The Contingency Theories of Leadership

The contingency theories of leadership basically state that there is no best style of leadership. Rather, it is the situation that will decide what kind of style would be the most effective in achieving the organizational objectives. Fiedlers contingency theory Fred Fiedler was one of the foremost proponents of contingency leadership. He stated that the effectiveness of types of leadership styles was determined on three factors. Path-goal theory The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by House, Evans and Mitchell. It proposes that a persons motivation to complete any task was dependent on three factors
Situational Leadership theory Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard developed the situational model of leadership relates four different leadership styles to the followers confidence and ability to carry it out.
The Importanceof Choosing the Right Leadership Style

By Murray Johannsen, Feel free to connect with the author on Linkedin or by email
"A groom used to spend whole days in currycombingand rubbing down his Horse, but at the
same time stole his oatsand sold them for his own profit. Alas! said the Horse, if you really wish me to be in good condition, you should groom me less,and feed me more. Aesop's Fables
Moralof the Story: Looking good is never good enough. When developing your leadership skills, one must soon confront an important practical question, "What leadershipstyles work best for meand my organization?" To answer this question, it's best to understand that there are many from which to chooseand as partof your leadership developmenteffort, you should consider developing as many leadershipstyles as possible. This page focuses on an aspectof leadership we commonly don't think much aboutstyle. But it is also about leadership. Many think is all about fashion. In fact, choosing the right style, at the right time in the right situation is a key elementof leader effectiveness. That's not what most people do they have one style used in all situations. It's like having only one suit or one dress, something you wear everywhere.Of course, allof us would agree that having only one setof clothes is ridiculous. So to is having only one leadership style.
16 Major LeadershipStyles
"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Karl Popper, Austrian philosopher
There is some overlap between thestyles (i.e. charismaand transformational); some can be used together (facilitativeand team building); while others might be implemented less frequently (strategicand cross-cultural);and some are polar opposites (autocratic & participative). One dimensionof has to do with controland one's perceptionof how much control one should give to people. For example, the laissez faire style implies low control, the autocratic style high controland the participative lies somewhere in between. The Autocratic Leadership Style The autocratic stylehas its advocates, but it is falling outof favor in many countries. Some people have argued that the style is popular with today's CEO's, who have much in common with feudal lords in Medieval Europe. A basic setof leadershipstyles have to do with controlhow much you are willing to give to othersand how much to give to others. Partly, it is a matterof personal choice. For example, despite the best effortsof management theoriest, many CEOs are simply control freaks who want to "firm hand on the helm"and will not tolerate differenceof opinions. Kurt Lewin called thesestyles: authoritative, participative (democratic) or delegative (Laissez Faire). Take an on-line Quiz on these LeadershipStyles
The Charismatic Style The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell.
The Importance of Leadership in Today's World

We should never underestimate the importance of leadership. Everything rises and falls on leadership. If an organization is flourishing, their members developing, achieving breakthrough after breakthrough, then you can be sure about one thing: there is a strong leader at the helm of the organization. On the other hand, if an organization is failing, the problem is the leader of the organization as well. Its almost never about anything else. Everything rises and falls on leadership. And that is why you need to be an authentic and effective leader today. You need to be the one who would lead your family, your church, or your company from strength to strength. You need to be strong so that your family, your church, your company can be strong. You need to be the one who makes the difference in your environment. Nope, dont look to the left or the right. You really need to be one.
The Importance of Leadership in the Workplace

By Christy Eichelberger
Leadership is a valuable skill, especially in the workplace. Some people seem to be born to lead, and others have to work at it. Whichever category you fall under, you can be sure that the ability to effectively lead others will improve your work environment and help you get the best out of your employees and coworkers.
Even if you arent in a specific position of leadership in your job, leadership skills can benefit you. In dealing with coworkers, leadership skills can help you develop strong working relationships and earn the respect and support of your peers. Even if its not your job to manage others, by demonstrating leadership skills in your day-to-day activities, others will be willing to help you and will learn that they can count on you and turn to you for assistance, advice or support.
People are naturally drawn to leaders. The following are some of the characteristics that leaders commonly have. If these characteristics dont all come naturally to you, make an effort to improve your areas of weakness. Leadership skills can be developed through practice and experience.
Leaders have direction. They are focused on their job and they arent easily distracted. Leaders work proactively, seeking new ideas and ways to improve things. They dont get bogged down with smaller problems and they provide others with direction as well. When people see a good leader and their dedication to the job, it inspires them to be dedicated too.
Effective leaders inspire and motivate others. They help others see the importance of what they are doing and motivate them to do their best. A good leader understands that everyone works differently and takes note of others preferred work methods. They are able to use this knowledge to get more out of their employees and coworkers and show that they value them for their contributions.
Leaders are good communicators. They interact well with others despite different personality types and they know how to confidently and effectively convey messages to others. In addition, effective leaders make an effort to remember bits of personal information about others, take note of their interests, skills and experience. Taking a personal interest in someone strengthens their working relationship and encourages them to be more dedicated.
Leaders are positive. They dont focus on the negative, but inspire others by letting them see how important their contributions are. This doesnt mean they never have any problems to deal with, but when they do, they do not get wrapped up in the negative- they look for the best solution and focus on reaching it.
Successful leaders are solutions-driven. They see the problem and work for a solution, and they encourage others to help them. Leaders see the bigger picture and are constantly moving toward a specific goal.
Whether you have a disability or not, people are drawn to the same leadership characteristics. When others see leadership potential in you, it is likely to lead to greater opportunities and career growth. Even if you are not currently in a position where you have to be a leader, do your best to demonstrate these characteristics. You dont have to be a natural leader- you just have to know what it takes, and be willing to work at it.
What is the difference between leadership and management?

In: Human Resources, Human Behavior, The Difference Between [Edit categories] Leadership Development executive-education.nus.edu Intensive executive education for leaders and senior managers Leaders Leadership Styles DailyCrowdsource.com Influential articles from crowdsourcing executives & founders Ads
Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > Business & Finance > Business > Human Resources > What is the difference between leadership and management? Answer:
Answer
management is ahead of everyone and everything leadership just represents a specific part of something. Example: a manager at frich's runs and operates everything but there is a leader for serving a leader for drive thru a leader for cooking... Another point of view is that, Managers are people who do things right and Leaders are people who do the right things. Management is about being ultimately responsible for a department, group, section, facility, center, etc. Leadership is the ability to inspire those who work for you to do something they wouldn't necessarily do without your leadership. Leadership is about values, ethics, principles, and making the right choices based on those principles, whereas management is about ensuring your team performs the tasks they are suppose to perform, they way they're suppose to perform them, in the time allotted to perform them. You can be a good leader without being a manager, but you can't be a good manager without being a good leader. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_leadership_and_manageme nt#ixzz1hvgung9Q
Management is a science that revolves around your employees, but leadership is personal and all about you. A 27 year old manager named Justin who attended my seminar at the University of Wisconsin asked why his employees didnt accept his authority, even though he had been given the official title of General Manager . He was taking over a trucking company from his father and thought it was because of his age, or the fact that his father founded the company. It was neither. Bill Fords great grandfather, Henry Ford, founded Ford Motor Company. Yet Bills employees accept his authority regardless of his family ties. Bill Gates was a teenager when he co-founded Microsoft, yet his employees accepted his authority regardless of his age. Justins employees didnt accept his authority because while he was a manager, he had not yet become a leader. The title of management can be given to anyone regardless of qualification, and employees have no choice but to comply with a managers orders if they wish to continue receiving a paycheck. People will comply with a manager, but will only commit to a leader. The title of leader, however, cannot be given. It only comes once employees respect the manager, and respect cannot be given or ordered. It must be earned. Former U.S. Secretary of State Colon Powell characterized it best when he said, "Leadership is the art of getting people to accomplish more than the science of management says is possible". When managers face the unpleasant task of firing an employee who they personally like but whose performance just doesnt cut it, we often try to ease the discomfort by telling the employee "This isnt personal. Its just business". Leadership, however, is very personal. As John Maxwell put it in his best selling book, "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership", people must buy into the leader before theyll buy into the leaders mission. Steve Jobs is a perfect example of this. After co-founding Apple Computer when he was only a teenager, he was fired as CEO at age 30. When he was brought back in as CEO in 1997, he began to lead the company in new directions. He was not, however, immediately recognized as the visionary leader that he is today. In fact, some thought he had lost it altogether because of some seemingly bizarre decisions he made. He settled a lawsuit with Microsoft because he realized that Apple, which was losing market share rapidly, could not fight the 800 pound gorilla that Microsoft had become. He realized that if you cant beat them, you join them. He then went on to reinvent every product Apple offered, and reinvigorated their employees with a leaders most powerful tool - momentum. He got his employees so accustomed to change that they expect it now. Reinventing over and over again, such as with the Apple iPod, iPod Mini, Nano, Shuffle, and iPod Video, has become a way of life for his company. Steve Jobs could walk into Apple tomorrow and announce that they are going to stop making MP3 players and computers, and start making toaster ovens. No one would think hed lost it this time. Instead, his employees would collectively say, "Lead the way, boss. Show us how to make the best toaster ovens anyone has ever made".
About the Author :
The Difference Between Management & Leadership

Qualities of An Effective Manager Versus An Effective Leader

May 10, 2009 Susan Brown
What Makes a Leader Different to a Manager? - aloshbennett Is it possible to have a good manager who does not possess any leadership skills? Find out what qualities distinguish a skilled manager from a good leader. Often the lines of effective management and effective leadership get blurred. Though there is in fact some overlap between the two roles, they actually draw on different, and sometimes contradictory, qualities. Here is how typical management and leadership styles differ across several categories: personality, goals, strategy, qualifications and experience, and relationship to employees.
Personality Type
Good managers tend to seek comfort and stability both in their personal and professional lives. They are generally adverse to risk and prefer to preserve the status quo. Finally, those who do well in a management position tend to be detailed-oriented and good at things that require organization. Effective leaders, on the other hand, are quite comfortable with significant amounts of risk and change as long as it helps them pursue their goals. They also naturally embrace the difficulties and challenges that they must overcome in order to achieve these goals. Finally, those who excel in leadership positions tend to be charismatic free-thinkers who are more comfortable thinking outside of the box instead of in it.
Ads by Google
Are you a true leader? Take our test and find out how YOU rate against top execs...
www.BeCoachable.com
BCI Training Course Business Continuity Management BCI Certificate examination.

www.jbtglobal.com.au/Index.
Goals
The goal of an effective manager is to maximize production within the current system of an organization through careful organizing, planning, and controlling. In other words, managers are trying to get the job at hand done. The goal of an effective leader is to work
on a system instead of in it. They are not just concerned with getting the job done, they seek to enhance the whole process in a way that will benefit both the employees and the company as a whole.
Qualifications and Experience

Generally, the management ranks are filled with people who have slowly worked their way up the corporate ladder. Good managers tend to bring to their positions a lot of technical experience and a solid understanding of how the systems in their company work. On the other hand, it is possible that an effective leader will lack much of the experience that management has acquired. What leaders bring instead is a fresh outlook, new ideas, and inspiration.
Strategy
Success in management means sticking to company policy and working on maximizing output while reducing inefficiency. Managers take a formal and rational approach to their jobs. They rely heavily on their own abilities to analyze data, delegate work, and in general control the flow of production and performance.
Read This Next

Are You a Manager, a Leader, or Both? Tips for Good Business Leadership and Management Leadership Skills in Senior Management
Success in leadership is defined by the leader's ability to transform the business and empower its employees. Leaders are radical thinkers who follow their own intuition to seek out new opportunities. In order to be successful, leaders will enlist the help and support of the employees in their charge.
Relationship to Employees
Managers generally take an authoritarian approach when it comes to their subordinates. In other words, a manager says and the employees are expected to do as they are told. At the end of the day, it is also the manager who takes the credit for a job well done. A leader, on the other hand, seeks to inspire, coach and empower; people will naturally and loyally follow. Unlike the manager, a leader's approach to employees is less formal. As mentioned above, leaders are more open to enlisting the help and support of of their followers and bestowing credit on others where credit is due.
Where Do Management and Leadership Meet?

Though they may seem to come from different ends of the spectrum, the qualities of good management and leadership compliment and enhance each other. The best managers
generally possess some leadership qualities, and the most effective leadership often comes from someone who also has strong managerial skills. In short, though management and leadership may differ in approach, if they are brought together correctly they can greatly enhance one anther.
Ads by Google
Jobs in Australia au.jobrapido.com/Australia Search through over 200,000 jobs. Find your Job with Jobrapido! Leadership Development executive-education.nus.edu Intensive executive education for leaders and senior managers Human Capital Management www.apihealthcare.com Improve outcomes using integrated workforce management solutions. Copyright Susan Brown. Contact the author to obtain permission for republicatio Read more at Suite101: The Difference Between Management & Leadership: Qualities of An Effective Manager Versus An Effective Leader | Suite101.com http://susanbrown.suite101.com/the-difference-between-management-leadershipa116336#ixzz1hvi6JfwO
The Difference Between a Leader and a Manager

By Dr. Rick Johnson Tuesday, 6th November 2007
Make no mistake - to maximize your own effectiveness you have to be able to function both as a leader and as a manager. The trick is to know precisely when to go into the manager mode and when to become that servant type leader. I once read a quote on the difference between a manager and a leader that stated: "A Manager "does the thing right" and a Leader "does the right thing." How Do You Become a Who? I dont know who said that but it is quite a simplification. First of all, a manager doesnt always do the thing right and conversely leaders dont always do the right thing. Oh sure, most leaders do the right thing most of the time, but what the right thing is can cause quite a debate and who gets to decide what the right thing really is? And who decides who and what is actually right. How does one get to become a who? Doing the Right Thing Doing the right thing doesnt sound very complex for a person of character and integrity but think about this for a second. During my ten years as a turn-a-round specialists there were several occasions when I had to sacrifice the jobs of many to save a company and the jobs of others. Was that the right thing to do in the eyes of those that lost their job, their income, their security? If you were the wife, the husband or the child of one of those employees that were sacrificed for the sake of survival of the company would you think that it was the right thing to do? We are not talking about malcontents, under performers and employees with issues. Were talking about pure innocent sacrifice here. All of a sudden, the right thing gets a little more complicated. Thats why I quit being a Turn-A-Round specialist after ten years. I got tired of being the Darth Vadar of Distribution.
Leaders Inspire Others to Greatness True leaders inspire others to greatness. In spite of what may seem the contrary, being a true leader in times of sacrifice and turbulence is even more important than in normal times? However, its equally important to adapt to the role of manager as well when sacrifice is necessary. I often talk about compassion as both a strength and a weakness when it comes to individual leadership models. I have met numerous CEOs that boast of long tenure employees. However, there are some that earn that tenure simply due to the compassion of ownership. Certainly compassion for people is a strength but it can become a weakness if it stands in the way of accountability and maximizing the effectiveness of the organization. The Balance of Compassion and Performance So how does an effective leader balance compassion with performance and accountability? A leader must demonstrate the need for maximizing performance to the team. This is communicated more by action than words. Tolerance for the lack of excellence or sub par performance sends a distinct message. The wrong message. A leader must lead by example whereas a manager uses direction and enforcement of policy and procedure to accomplish specific tasks. Of course, a manager must also be able to lead as well. Sound confusing? It is There is a fine line between leadership and management. A line that is often shifting according to circumstance. If you are going to maximize growth and profitability in your organization that means that every manager must become an effective leader. A leader encourages, leads by example, cares about the team and gives regular feedback. People need to be recognized and praised. A leader influences and inspires others to believe in themselves and to follow a vision for the future. Communication is essential, knowing when to go into the manager mode and become less a servant is also necessary. This mode should be the exception but it does exist for even the greatest leaders and it is necessary at times. In fact, a true test of an effective leader is knowing when to go into the manager mode. Effective communication can stir emotions and emotions can become a powerful motivator.
Confidence, Self Esteem or Ego? We all have egos but effective leaders control their own egos and understand how to utilize their understanding of people to inspire peak performance. They are confident and have high self esteem without demonstrating arrogance. Leadership can not be ego driven but good leaders command a presence when they walk into the room. They are not only compassionate but they are passionate about success and they make every effort to coach and mentor their team. However, a leader can't afford to waste too much time in the minutiae of the team. In fact a functioning team will solve many of its own problems and they are expected to. This happens when the right people are on the team. Leaders lead by example, they delegate and empower people. They also seem to have a keen sense about selecting and developing the right people. That in itself is a key difference in transcending from being just a manager to becoming an effective leader. Selecting the right people with potential to excel and then developing those people through the coaching and mentoring process to achieve greatness is a primary responsibility of leadership. Effective leaders know precisely when to coach, when to mentor and when to manage. So whats the Difference? In reality if you are going to be responsible for the actions and results of others it just isnt good enough to be only a manager. Effectively, managing is about leadership. Personally, I believe to be really effective, there is no difference. An effective leader must be a good manager and a good manager effectively must be a good leader. The results will speak for themselves in the long run... E-mail rick@ceostrategist.com if you would like a copy of the Lead Wolf Leadership Creed. Rick Johnson, expert speaker, wholesale distributions Leadership Strategist, founder of CEO Strategist, LLC a firm that helps clients create and maintain competitive advantage. Need a speaker for your next event, E-mail rick@ceostrategist.com. Dont forget to check out the Lead Wolf Series that can help you put more profit into your business.www.ceostrategist.com
--> Brand Awareness ~ Editorial ~ Marketing ...[ Click for More]
Steve Jobs Apple Inc. Yun Jong-Yong Samsung Electronics Alexey B. Miller Gazprom John T. Chambers Cisco Systems Mukesh D. Ambani Reliance Industries John C. Martin Gilead Sciences Jeffrey P. Bezos Amazon.com Margaret C. Whitman Ebay Eric E. Schmidt Google Hugh Grant Monsanto Robert L. Tillman Lowe's William E. Greehey Valero Energy Gareth Davis Imperial Tobacco Group William J. Doyle PotashCorp Benjamin Steinbruch Companhia Siderrgica Nacional
Bart Becht Reckitt Benckiser Group Masahiro Sakane Komatsu Terry Leahy Tesco John W. Thompson Symantec Graham Mackay SABMiller
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Top_20_ceo's_in_the_world#ixzz1hvkGlp3U
teve Jobs was born February 24, 1955, to two University of Wisconsin graduate students who gave him up for adoption. Smart but directionless, Jobs experimented with different pursuits before starting Apple Computers with Stephen Wozniak in the Jobs' family garage. Apple's revolutionary products, which include the iPod, iPhone and iPad, are now seen as dictating the evolution of modern technology.
CONTENTS

Synopsis Early Life Apple Computers Departure from Apple Reinventing Apple Pancreatic Cancer Recent Innovations Personal Life Final Years
QUOTES
I would trade all of my technology for an afternoon with Socrates. Steve Jobs With iPod, listening to music will never be the same again. Steve Jobs prev1 / 2next
Early Life
Steven Paul Jobs was born on February 24, 1955, to Joanne Simpson and Abdulfattah "John" Jandali, two University of Wisconsin graduate students who gave their unnamed son up for adoption. His father, Abdulfattah Jandali, was a Syrian political science professor and his mother, Joanne Simpson, worked as a speech therapist. Shortly after Steve was placed for adoption, his biological parents married and had another child, Mona Simpson. It was not until Jobs was 27 that he was able to uncover information on his biological parents. As an infant, Steven was adopted by Clara and Paul Jobs and named Steven Paul Jobs. Clara worked as an accountant and Paul was a Coast Guard veteran and machinist. The family lived in Mountain View within California's Silicon Valley. As a boy, Jobs and his father would work on electronics in the family garage. Paul would show his son how to take apart and reconstruct electronics, a hobby which instilled confidence, tenacity, and mechanical prowess in young Jobs. While Jobs has always been an intelligent and innovative thinker, his youth was riddled with frustrations over formal schooling. In elementary school he was a prankster whose fourth grade teacher needed to bribe him to study. Jobs tested so well, however, that administrators wanted to skip him ahead to high schoola proposal his parents declined. After he did enroll in high school, Jobs spent his free time at Hewlett-Packard. It was there that he befriended computer club guru Steve Wozniak. Wozniak was a brilliant computer engineer, and the two developed great respect for one another.
Apple Computers
After high school, Jobs enrolled at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. Lacking direction, he dropped out of college after six months and spent the next 18 months dropping in on creative classes. Jobs later recounted how one course in calligraphy developed his love of typography. In 1974, Jobs took a position as a video game designer with Atari. Several months later he left Atari to find spiritual enlightenment in India, traveling the continent and experimenting with psychedelic drugs. In 1976, when Jobs was just 21, he and Wozniak started Apple Computers. The duo started in the Jobs family garage, and funded their entrepreneurial venture after Jobs sold his Volkswagen bus and Wozniak sold his beloved scientific calculator. Jobs and Wozniak are credited with revolutionizing the computer industry by democratizing the technology and making the machines smaller, cheaper, intuitive, and accessible to everyday consumers. The two conceived a series of user-friendly personal computers that they initially marketed for $666.66 each. Their first model, the Apple I, earned them $774,000. Three years after the release of their second model, the Apple II, sales increased 700 percent to $139 million dollars. In 1980, Apple Computer became a publically traded company with a market value of $1.2 billion on the very first day of trading.
1 2 |
Next Page
Jong-Yong Yun served as a Company Adviser of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. since May 2008. Mr. Yun served as Chief Executive Officer of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. until May 2008. Mr. Yun served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., since 1996 and Co-Chief Executive Officer since 2000 and served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Samsung Japan Headquarters since 1995. He served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Samsung Display Devices Co., Ltd., since 1993; President and Chief Executive Officer of Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd., since 1992; President and Representative Director of Consumer Electronics Business Group since 1991; Vice President Representative Director, Consumer of Electronics Business Group since 1990 and Vice President of Electronics Group since 1988. Mr. Yun served as Chief Executive Officer, Vice Chairman and Director of Samsung C&T Corporation (formerly Samsung Corp.). He entered The Samsung Group in 1966. Since November 1981 he served as Head of The Video Business Division. Mr. Yun serves as Chairman of The National Academy of Engineers. He served as Vice Chairman of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. from 2000 to May 2008 and of it's Director until May 14, 2008. Mr. Yun received Asia's Businessman of the Year (Fortune), in 2000, The Top 25 Managers of the Year (Business Week), in 1999, The Prize for The Most Successful Chief Executive Officer in Korea (Korea Management Association), in 1998, Outstanding Achievement in Management (IIE), in 1995, The Prize for The Honorable Engineering Alumnus Graduated from Seoul National University, in 1992, Gold Medal for Contribution to Industry by the Government, in 1990, Bronze Medal for Contribution to Industry by the Government. Mr. Yun completed Graduation from MIT Sloan School Senior Executive Course in1988, B.A. in Electronics and Graduated from Seoul National University in 1966.
Jong-Yong Yun
Jong-Yong Yun ferried Samsung Electronics through one of its most successful decades ever. As Samsungs chief executive from 1996 until 2008, he saved a company that in Fortune magazines words, seemed near death. In Harvard Business Reviews ranking of the worlds best CEOs, Jong-Yong Yun came out no. 2, trailing Apples Steve Jobs. Jong-Yong Yun topped the list, published 2009, for a good reason; his tenure saw Samsung kill the electronics competition worldwide. Under him, the company grew to become the worlds top maker of flat-screen TVs and memory chips. It has also become the worlds second-largest cellphone maker. At the same time, he led the phase out of loss-making lines like pagers, dishwashers and juicers. Fresh with an engineering degree from Seoul National University, Jong-Yong Yun joined Samsung in 1966. He has since steeply ascended the companys hierarchy, becoming vice president of its electronics group in 1990; CEO and president of the consumer electronics business group in 1991; and CEO and president of its Japan office in 1995. Finally, in December 1996, Jong-Yong Yun became president and CEO of Samsung Electronics. He came in at a time of great financial crisis though. Hastily, he started selling off Samsungs assets by twice a billion dollars, raising their turnover rate. He also cut payrolls and inventories by a third. Moreover, he replaced many division executives with younger recruits. He accomplished all of this while stepping up the use of industrial engineering (IE) concepts, which he has successfully instated in the company since 1985. By the end of 1997, Jong-Yong Yun saw a 100% productivity jump at Samsung. With that, the company began its phenomenal upward motionwhile many of Yuns fellow chaebols crashed. Koreans highly praise Jong-Yong Yun for his efforts. In 1990, the South Korean government awarded him the Bronze Tower for Contribution to Industryhe received the gold equivalent two years later. The government gave him another gold award in 2003, for his Contribution to Science & Technology. In 1999, he was named Koreas Most Successful CEO by the Korea Management Association. In 2000, Fortune acclaimed Jong-Yong Yun as Asias Businessman of the Year. Four years later, as Samsung trumped Sony and Nokia in market value, the magazine included him in its list of Asias Most Powerful People in Business. In 2002, CNBC gave him an Asia Business Leader Award, while BusinessWeek proclaimed him one of the worlds best managers a year after.
John T. Chambers
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Cisco Systems, Inc. San Jose , CA Sector: TECHNOLOGY / Networking & Communication Devices Officer since January 1991 61 Years Old Mr. Chambers, 61, has served as a member of the Board of Directors since November 1993 and as Chairman of the Board since November 2006. He joined Cisco as Senior Vice President in January 1991, was promoted to Executive Vice President in June 1994 and to Chief Executive Officer as of January 31, 1995. He also served as President from January 31, 1995 until November 2006. Before joining Cisco, he was employed by Wang Laboratories, Inc. for eight years, where, in his last role, he was the Senior Vice President of U.S. Operations. Forbes Rankings
9th on the Forbes Executive Pay in 2011 350th on the Forbes Executive Pay in 2010 Cisco Systems - 75th on the Forbes Global 2000 in 2010 345th on the Forbes Executive Pay in 2009 Cisco Systems - 69th on the Forbes Global 2000 in 2009 See All Rankings >
Compensation for 2010 Salary Bonus Restricted stock awards All other compensation Option awards $ Non-equity incentive plan compensation Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred $382,212.00 $0.00 $8,190,000.00 $11,025.00 $5,688,638.00 $4,600,000.00 $0.00
compensation earnings Total Compensation Options Granted

All other stock awards (# of shares of stocks or units) 350,000 135,000 Number of securities underlying options 1,300,000 Percent of Exercise total or base options price granted in fiscal year $23.40 $$$32.21 $23.01 $17.86 Grant date fair value of stock See and option More awards
$18,871,875.00
Grant Date
11/12/2009 11/12/2009 09/11/2008 09/20/2007 09/21/2006 09/29/2005 Expiration date
0% $5,688,638.00 0% $8,190,000.00 0% $3,111,750.00 0% $8,938,260.00 0% $8,944,000.00 0.65% $09/29/2014 $12,800,739.00 $31,528,829.00 $$$Close
Value of options potential value 5% Value of options potential value 10% Estimated future payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards (threshold $) Estimated future payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards (target $) Estimated future payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards (maximum $) Estimated future payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards (threshold #) Estimated future payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards (target #) Estimated future payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards (maximum #)
08/23/2004 Expiration date
1,500,000
$19.18
0.65%
$08/23/2013 $15,861,713.00 $39,068,155.00 $$$Close
Expiration date
2,000,000
$16.15
0.71%
$04/05/2011 $17,807,901.00 $43,861,710.00 $$$Close
Expiration date
$-
0% $8,712,900.00 $$$$$78,750 315,000 378,000 Close
Expiration date
4,000,000
$50.37
1.34%
$11/13/2009 $111,092,636.00 $273,626,460.00 $$$Close
Expiration date
2,000,000
$18.57
0.67%
$05/14/2010 $20,476,330.00 $50,434,177.00 $$$Close
Expiration date
$-
0%
$$$$$$100,000 200,000 240,000 Close
Expiration date
$-
0%
$$$$$2,073,850.00 $9,290,848.00 Close
Expiration date
4,000,000
$54.53
1.33%
$01/24/2009 $120,258,577.00 $296,202,611.00 $$$Close
Expiration date
2,000,000
$13.04
1.03%
$04/10/2012 $14,378,640.00 $35,415,276.00 $$$Close
Expiration date
$-
0%
$$$$$2,253,300.00 $6,759,900.00 Close
Expiration date
2,000,000
$18.51
1.03%
$07/15/2012 $20,410,171.00 $50,271,224.00 $$$Close
Expiration date
2,000,000
$16.01
0.71%
$08/21/2010 $17,653,529.00 $43,481,485.00 $$$Close
Expiration date
2,000,000
$20.53
0.71%
$01/07/2011 $22,637,537.00 $55,757,332.00 $$$Close
Expiration date
$-
0%
$$$$$2,508,600.00 $11,238,528.00 Close
Options Exercised Number of securities underlying options exercisable Number of securities underlying options unexercisable Value of unexercised options, currently exercisable Value of unexercised options, currently unexercisable Shares acquired on exercise Value Realized 25,316,667 4,533,333 $34,149,856.00 $3,882,999.00 5,850,000 $69,674,752.00
RSS Feed on John Chambers Forbes.com Headlines Cisco: Undervalued and on the Move Again - P/E Very Rational John Furrier At the peak of the dot.com boom Cisco became the world's most valuable company at roughly $550B. Investors couldn't get enough Cisco and drove its market cap skyward to 5X where it is today just under $100B as of this writing. Subsequent to that bubble bursting, enterprise tech has been a mixed bag with stalwarts [...] The United Nations Says Broadband Is Basic Human Right Randall Lane With little fanfare two weeks ago, a key United Nations commission made a remarkable statement: it declared, unambiguously, that broadband access is a basic human right, right up there with the right to healthcare, shelter and food. Not merely dial-up Internet connection (the U.N. has decreed that before), but the kind of fast, seamless service [...] Cisco FY Q1 Beats Estimates (Updated) Eric Savitz Cisco Systems this afternoon reported better-than-expected results for its fiscal first quarter ended October 29. For the period, the networking equipment giant reported revenue of $11.26 billion, up 4.7% from a year ago, and ahead of the Street consensus at $11.02 billion. Non-GAAP profits of 43 cents a share topped the Street at 39 cents. [...] Cisco: What To Watch Today Trefis Team
Cisco pointed out concerns in its last quarter earnings that the hike in the U.S. debt ceiling and the ongoing European debt crisis could weigh on its revenues in Q1 2012 and projected a low single digit growth for the quarter Tim Cook's Leadership Determines Whether Apple Hits $100 or $1,000 Next Nigam Arora Apple has a large runway for continued growth. Apple has a reputation for being cohesive and everyone working toward a shared vision. The big danger is that without the tight fisted control of Jobs, Apple may fall into a trap where competing visions and competing agendas make it impossible to produce products with the simplicity and elegance Apple is known for. All Forbes.com Headlines >
John T. Chambers 1949
Ads by Google Want to change the world? - Under 20 with an idea to change the world? Apply for a $100k grant. - www.thielfellowship.org New Resolution Geophysics - Specialist airborne gravity and magnetic contractor - www.airbornegeophysics.com Grinding Plants - SBM- Coal grinding&Hard mineral milling Grinding Plants designed for you - www.uniSBM.com/Grinding-Plant
Chief executive officer and president, Cisco Systems Nationality: American. Born: August 23, 1949, in Cleveland, Ohio. Education: West Virginia University, BS; JD; Indiana University, MBA. Family: Son of an obstetrician/gynecologist and a psychologist (names unknown); married Elaine (maiden name unknown); children: two. Career: IBM, 19761983, salesman; Wang Laboratories, 19831990, various positions, became executive vice president; Cisco Systems, 19901994, senior
vice president of Worldwide Operations; 19941995, executive vice president; 1995, CEO and president. Awards: Lifetime Achievement Award, Smithsonian Institute, 2000; Distinguished Industry Leader Award, IEEE, 2002; Ron Brown Award for Corporate Leadership, The Business Council, 20022003; Most Powerful Person in Networking, Network World , 2003. Address: Cisco Systems, 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, California 95134; http://www.cisco.com. John T. Chambers rose from the ranks of computer salesmen at IBM to lead Cisco Systems, one of the most innovative and aggressive companies of the technological age. Serving as CEO since 1995, Chambers's tenaciousness and ambition were a major reason why Cisco owned the infrastructure through which over 75 percent of the world's data traveled in 2004. When others shrank in fear during the dot-com collapse of 2000, Chambers's nerves of steel and unflagging optimism allowed Cisco to emerge from the crisis stronger than ever. While many faulted Chambers for his ruthlessness and penny-pinching, none could deny that Cisco Systems would have been a less dominant company at the turn of the century without him at the helm.
John T. Chambers. Alan Levenson/Corbis .
A BORN LEADER
John Chambers was raised in Charleston, West Virginia, in the 1950s, with a background that could hardly be described as provincial. His father was a wealthy obstetrician/ gynecologist who delivered all of the children of Governor Jay Rockefeller; his mother was a psychologist. Chambers's family also owned a restaurant in Charleston, and it was there that the boy first thought of someday running his own business. Though Chambers's father recalled him showing leadership skills at a very early age, his study was often made torturous by dyslexia. Although in the 1950s a child could be stigmatized by a learning disorder, Chambers's parents were enlightened, sophisticated people who had faith in their son and obtained the help he needed. The reading specialist they hired, Lorene Anderson-Walters, recalled, "He had this very optimistic attitude about everything. He was just not going to fail. One thing I notice as I hear him now on TV is that he still has that attitude" (Waters, 2002). With the single-mindedness for which he would later be famous, Chambers applied himself all the more diligently in school in response to his disability, eventually earning both an undergraduate and a law degree from West Virginia University. His determined, competitive nature showed itself through his participation in intramural sports, his favorite being basketball. Ever the team player, Chamber later remarked that even when he played tennis, he almost always played doubles. He married his high-school sweetheart and frequent doubles partner, Elaine, and for a time thought his life would be centered in his home state. But things had changed in West Virginia since Chambers was a boy. With the government regulating coal mining and chemical plants and the state gaining a reputation as an area of poverty and dissipation, the economy suffered and the population fell. Chambers decided to leave the insular cocoon of his
youth and head for Indiana University in Bloomington, where he earned a business degree and lost interest in practicing law. Knowing that his future would be in business, Chambers accepted a job offer from IBM in 1976. At the time IBM was the giant of the computer industry, massive, powerful, and known as Big Blue. Though the Justice Department was investigating suspected antitrust violations, IBM had just released what would become their most successful computer ever: the System 360. Chambers, who was about to become a father for the first time, claimed he had no desire to become a salesman. But once he started, he found he was quite good at the task; his unrelenting drive was tempered by his smooth Southern gentility, and customers responded. Chambers was aware of IBM's shortcomings, such as its focus on business computers and typewriters while more adventurous start-ups such as Apple led the way into the personal-computer era. In John Waters's book, John Chambers and the Cisco Way: Navigating through Volatility , Chambers was quoted as saying, "I learned an awful lot about what not to do. You could see management getting further and further from the customer, telling the customer that they knew what he needed better than the customer did" (2002). Chambers did well in the sales department but feared his lack of an engineering degree and research experience would prevent him from moving higher up the ladder at IBM. After seven years with Big Blue he decided to move on to Wang Laboratories. Chambers had seen the company's Chinese American founder, An Wang, give a business lecture and came away impressed with his vision for the future of technology. Wang's company was experiencing explosive growth, with so much demand that supply often fell short. Ever ambitious, Chambers soon convinced Wang that he was the right man to lead Wang Labs' Asian sales team. Though at first the assignment might have seemed like a poor fit, Chambers's easygoing Southern manners worked well in the Asian marketplace, where customers could at times be offended by loud, hard-driving American salesmen. Chambers had a great deal of respect for his boss. In Jeffrey Young's book, Cisco Unauthorized: Inside the High-Stakes Race to Own the Future , Chambers
remarked, "The most impressive man I've ever known, other than my father, was An Wang. It was the trust he put in me, that he gave me, the belief he had in me, that I'll never forget" (2001). When Wang died of cancer in 1990, the company's prospects took a turn for the worse. In the Chinese tradition Wang had appointed his son, Fred, as his successor, and stock in Wang Labs plummeted as nervous investors jumped ship. In reality the rocky transition was only the straw that broke the camel's back; Wang Labs had continued stubbornly producing expensive office workstations while the rest of the market was moving toward PCs. As executive vice president at the time of Wang's death Chambers was forced to lay off five thousand employees just before the Christmas holidays. He then resigned and began looking for another job.
A NEW BEGINNING AT CISCO

No one in business had been unaware of the fact that Wang had gone from a $2 billion dollar profit in 1989 to a $700 million loss in 1990. Out of dozens of letters Chambers sent out in search of an executive position, only one company even bothered to respond: Cisco Systems. Cisco had been founded in 1983 by the married couple of Len Bosack, the head of Stanford's computer-science department, and Sandy Lerner, who held a master's in business administration from the same school. Bosack and Lerner had begun looking for a way to allow all of the Stanford computer systems to communicate with one another. Bill Yeager, who worked at the Stanford Department of Medicine, had created something he called a "router," a device built around a microcomputer which made it possible for the medical-department system to "talk" to the business-school system and the computer-science system in one language: Internet Protocol (IP). Bosack and Lerner built their new company around the router, and by 1986 the company was pulling in $10 million a year. When the venture capitalist Don Valentine came aboard with $2.5 million, he was given one-third of the company, and the threesome took Cisco public on February 16, 1990. Just six months later, amid much squabbling with Valentine and the president John Morgridge, Bosack
and Lerner quit Cisco and sold their shares back to the company for $170 million. The founders were gone, but their devotion to customer service would live on. Morgridge, the energetic, no-nonsense veteran of both Honeywell and Stratus, chose John Chambers to be Cisco's senior vice president of Worldwide Operations in the fall of 1990. Chambers was no easy fit in Silicon Valley. In a place where "geeks" in jeans and T-shirts laid sleeping bags next to their desks so that they could work around the clock, the buttoned-up Chambers seemed like a relic of another age in his conservative suits and with his talk about customer service. Yet Morgridge, who had also started out in sales, knew that Chambers's more traditional traits could effectively temper a business sector that at times seemed to be moving so fast that it was out of control. Morgridge and Chambers also shared a thriftiness that most CEOs would balk at: Morgridge was one of the lowest-paid executives in the business, worked in a 12-by-12 office like everyone else at Cisco, and never flew first class. Chambers proved himself to Morgridge almost immediately by accepting and refining Cisco's policy of "technological agnosticism." Cisco had had incredible success in the router business, but both Morgridge and Chambers believed that any "religious mind-sets" needed to be put aside when making decisions about the future of the company and technology in general. Neither believed that routers were the only game in town; in 1993 Cisco made its first acquisition, that of the switching company Cresendo Communications for $95 million. Switches gave power users and power devices better access to servers and made for easier networking. Analysts were skeptical, since Cresendo at that time had only $10 million in revenue, but Cisco knew that such customers as Boeing and Ford had expressed intense interest in switching products. The Cresendo takeover proved to be a huge success, initiating an acquisitions strategy that Chambers would continue to use in the future. The former Mergers and Acquisitions leader at Cisco, Barry Eggers, commented in Ed Paulson's book, Inside Cisco: The Real Story of Sustained M&A Growth , "Without that first one having a lot of success, it might have slowed down the pace at which they did
everything else. When you have one like that to start out with, it makes it a lot easier to do all the others" (2001). Cisco went on to aquire other small switching companies such as Kalpana, Lightstream, and Grand Junction, chipping away at the switching competition piece by piece. Don Valentine was not happy when in 1993 Morgridge announced his intention to retire in two years. Both Valentine and Cisco's board did all they could to entice Morgridge to stay on with the company, but he had made up his mind. It was no secret that Morgridge wanted his number-two man, John Chambers, to succeed him as CEO; that was what happened in January 1995. Under Morgridge's watch, Cisco had experienced explosive growth, going public and eventually raking in over $1 billion a year. When Morgridge had taken over, the company had 34 employees; 2,260 people were on the payroll in 1995. But Morgridge knew that Chambers was not a man to rest on the laurels of others, and Chambers was determined to leave his own mark and take the company further than many industry analysts thought possible.
TAKING THE REINS

If Chambers had learned one thing at IBM, it was that customers liked the onestep concept of technology. Most executives were grateful for anything that would make their busy lives easier and disliked having to hunt around for various components. Chambers was determined to provide Cisco's customers with a full array of data solutions in order to prevent them from searching out competitors. This meant expanding from routers, packets, and switches and moving into the world of ATM (asynchronous transfer mode). With the telecom market exploding, Chambers felt that ATM, which divided data into fixed-size cells and allowed for faster transmission, would be the key to Cisco's continued growth. Chambers wasted no time in acquiring StrataCom, a company that catered to the wide-area telecommunications transportation market, for $4.5 billion. As he had done in the Cresendo deal, Chambers offered StrataCom's president far more than the company's market value, ensuring as smooth a takeover as possible. As Chambers noted in Waters's book, "Cisco will become the first vendor to provide
advanced network infrastructure for the intranet and Internet environments and the only vendor to offer end-to-end connectivity across public, private, or hybrid networks" (2002). Under Chambers, Cisco began seeking out the best talent in the technology business with a very aggressive recruitment program. Though by the mid-1990s Cisco had a reputation as a vibrant, nurturing workplace, Cisco did not just wait for top people to come to them. Cisco recruiters targeted young, upscale gogetters by hanging out at art fairs, wine-and-cheese festivals, and home-andgarden shows. Also, of course, Cisco used the Internet in new and innovative ways. For example, they set up a Web page that matched each job seeker with their very own "friend" at Ciscosomeone who would give the job seeker a personal call and chat about his or her experiences at the company. This not only gave the job hunters an intimate, "insider's" glimpse of Cisco, it provided a way for Cisco employees to earn referral fees and perks. Over one thousand employees took advantage of the program. The cause that aroused the most passion in John Chambers was education. "There are two equalizers in life," he said many times, "the Internet and education." Chambers saw e-learning as something that could level the playing field for the rich and the poor, for the haves and the have-nots. For the man who told the San Francisco Chronicle, "The market always gets it right" (February 2, 2004), the Internet was the ultimate form of what George W. Bush once called "compassionate conservatism." In 1997 Cisco set up the Cisco Networking Academy to train and certify young people in computer design and maintenance. John Morgridge, who had remained on Cisco's board after stepping down as CEO, commented in Waters's book, "It's the first true partnership between schools, government, and business since the days of high-school 'auto shops.' The difference is, instead of auto mechanics, students learn the conceptual and practical skills necessary to design and manage networks" (Waters, 2002). Chambers worried about education not only for his own company but for the country as a whole. He felt that the lack of proper computer education in
America's elementary schools could spell doom with respect to global competition. With the help of the U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller and others in the government Cisco contributed $18 million in services and equipment to 57 educational institutions across the country. With the Cisco Networking Academy and its support of such youth programs as Internet Schools CyberFair and the Virtual Schoolhouse grant program, Cisco not only pulled off a major publicity coup but also ensured that it would attract a steady stream of well-trained prospective employees.
LISTENING TO THE CUSTOMER

Chambers believed that the most important thing that the CEO of a technological business could do was to stay ahead of the marketplace; the only way for Chambers to do that was to listen carefully to Cisco's customers. He needed to know not only what they were presently buying but what they would be looking for five, 10, or 20 years down the road. By acquiring as much of his competition as possible, he felt that he could ensure the best response to customers' needs. Since Chambers had always been more of a salesman than a technocrat, it was important that he had the very best talent in research and development. Still, he did not simply expect R&D to create breakthrough products. Rather, he wanted them to integrate the products from acquired companies into Cisco's existing infrastructure. Though he was always looking toward the future, Chambers knew that gobbling up the ideas of other companies would leave his team more time to sell its products. Though his strategies certainly paid off in the short run, some critics doubted their long-term effectiveness. In Cisco Unauthorized , Young argued, "The problem is all about a hollowed-out core of a company and an Elmer Gantry at its head who can talk about a city on the hill, but who can't tell you exactly where it will be pitched without consulting his customer. This kind of reactive leadership works fine when none of the competitors have any idea where the market is going either. But what happens when Cisco hits entirely new technology?" (2001).
Not everything Chambers touched at Cisco turned to gold. The StrataCom deal especially turned off some of the T-shirtand-jeans "geeks" who had come to Cisco because they wanted to work at an innovative, nonconformist company. With that deal, systems and procedures had to be put into place in order for the companies to mesh; some of Cisco's more free-spirited, brilliant people did not want to even try to fit in with the more buttoned-up, white-collar atmosphere. They knew that with all of Cisco's acquisitions money, their chances of making their mark in advanced engineeringof contributing something truly unique to the marketwere slim. In addition, there was no good reason for them to stay, with start-ups and dot-coms exploding throughout Silicon Valley. If one was looking for excitement and risk, one had to look beyond Cisco. Still, most of Cisco's employees were looking for security and stability, and they had found it. In the fast-changing Valley, where the average employee turnover rate was more than 40 percent per year, Cisco's turnover rate held steady at between 4 and 6 percent. Chambers' biggest challenge at Cisco came on July 20, 2000. For quite some time telecom and network companies had been overvalued; when the market finally turned against them, many analysts predicted a hard road for Cisco. Cisco at first seemed to ride above the fray, announcing its 14th consecutive very strong quarter in August 2000. But in early 2001 the fallout hit; Chambers responded by firing 15 percent of his workforce and cutting his own salary to $1 a year. Chambers stayed the course, continuing with what had worked for him in the past: acquisitions. Cisco acquired Linskys in 2003 for $500 million worth of stock; in 2004 it acquired Latitude Communications, a company that specialized in conferencing systems, for $80 million in cash. Chambers surprised many by leading Cisco to a stronger position than ever, though he cautioned that another tech boom in Silicon Valley might never materialize. With a rebounded Cisco looking healthy in 2004, Chambers was able to look back at a life filled mostly with success. Asked by the San Francisco Chronicle if his wealth and fame would make him a different person, Chambers replied, "I hope that it does not. Most of my friends would say it does not. My friends that I had
when I moved here to Silicon Valley are still my best friends. It didn't change dramatically. The most important thing to me in my life is my family. Money's never been a primary motivator in my life" (February 2, 2004). See also entry on Cisco Systems, Inc. in International Directory of Company Histories .
sources for further information

Burrows, Peter, "Cisco's Comeback," BusinessWeek , November 24, 2003, pp. 116118. Howe, Ken, "Cisco Systems/On the Record: John Chambers," San Francisco Chronicle , February 2, 2004. Maney, Kevin, "Cisco Born Again," USA Today , January 21, 2004. Paulson, Ed, Inside Cisco: The Real Story of Sustained M&A Growth , New York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, 2001. Waters, John K., John Chambers and the Cisco Way: Navigating through Volatility , New York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, 2002. Young, Jeffrey S., Cisco Unauthorized: Inside the High-Stakes Race to Own the Future , Roseville, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 2001. Kelly Wittmann
Read more: John T. Chambers 1949 Biography - A born leader, A new beginning at cisco http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/biography/AE/Chambers-John-T-1949.html#ixzz1hvmtiGOi
E-Mail |
del.icio.us |
Share |
RSS | Print
Mukesh D. Ambani
Independent Director Bank of America Corp Charlotte , NC Sector: FINANCIAL / Regional - Mid-Atlantic Banks 53 Years Old Independent Director since March 2011. Chairman and Managing Director of Reliance Industries Limited, India?s largest private conglomerate engaging in the exploration and production of oil and gas; petroleum refining and marketing; and petrochemical and retail businesses, since 2002, where he has served in a variety of key leadership positions since 1981. Member of the United Nations? Advocacy Group supporting the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals since 2010. Other Current Directorships: Reliance Industries Limited (India). Mr. Ambani?s role as Chairman and Managing Director of Reliance Industries Limited provides him with broad experience in the management and oversight of large, complex international businesses, and expertise in risk management and strategic planning. Mr. Ambani has significant experience relevant to our company through building Reliance?s leadership positions in refining, petrochemical exploration and production as well as organized retail. Mr. Ambani?s membership on the UN Advocacy Group supporting the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals provides him further experience with large international organizations.
Indian to the Core, and an Oligarch
Ruth Fremson/The New York Times
Mukesh Ambani, Indias richest man, with his daughter, Isha, at a cricket match of the Mumbai Indians, which he owns. His company, Reliance Industries, is shaping many facets of his nations life.More Photos >
TWITTER LINKEDIN
O O O O O
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL OR SAVE THIS PRINT
REPRINTS SHARE DIGG REDDIT TUMBLR PERMALINK
By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS Published: June 15, 2008
Mumbai
Multimedia
Graphic
Inside the Industrial Empire
Slide Show
An Indian Tycoons Tale
More Photos
Enlarge This Image
Jacob Silberberg for The New York Times
Shoppers at a supermarket owned by Reliance. It is building a network of hundreds of stores. More Photos >
Enlarge This Image
Mukesh Ambani, front left, and his younger brother, Anil, front right, at the funeral of their father, Dhirubhai. More Photos >
Enlarge This Image
Ambani Family
Dhiurbhai Ambani in his office in the early days of Reliance, which he opened in 1958. At first he exported spices, then entered the yarn trade. More Photos >
AT a recent cricket match here, Mukesh D. Ambani sat in his private box quietly watching the team he owns, the Mumbai Indians. He seemed oblivious to the others around him: his son cheering wildly, his wife draped in diamond jewelry and a smattering of guests anxiously awaiting the briefest opportunity to speak with him. A minor bureaucrat stood a few rows back, strategizing with aides about how to buttonhole the Chairman, as Mr. Ambani is sometimes called. Waiters in baggy tuxedoes took turns trying to offer him a snack, but as they drew near became too nervous to speak. In the last century, Mohandas K. Gandhi was Indias most famous and powerful private citizen. Today, Mr. Ambani is widely regarded as playing that role, though in a very different way. Like Mr. Gandhi,
Mr. Ambani belongs to a merchant caste known as the modh banias, is a vegetarian and a teetotaler and is a revolutionary thinker with bold ideas for what India ought to become. Yet Mr. Gandhi was a scrawny ascetic, a champion of the village, a skeptic of modernity and a man focused on spiritual purity. Mr. Ambani is a fleshy oligarch, a champion of the city, a burier of the past and a man who deftly and, some critics say, ruthlessly wields financial power. He is the richest person in India, with a fortune estimated in the tens of billions of dollars, and many people here expect that he will be the richest person on earth before long. Although he lacks a politicians silver tongue he can be a nervous public speaker, and his diction can be halting he talks more like a father of the nation than a corporate executive. Describing his goals, he says they are for Indias benefit as much as they are for his sprawling company, Reliance Industries. Can we really banish abject poverty in this country? he mused aloud in a rare interview at his headquarters here. Yes, in 10, 15 years we can say we would have done that substantially. Can we make sure that we create a social structure where we remove untouchability? Were fast moving to a new India where you dont think about this caste and that caste. As millions of Indians graduate from burning cow dung for energy to guzzling oil, Reliance is plowing billions of dollars into energy exploration and is building the worlds largest oil refinery. It has also opened a chain of nearly 700 stores selling food and various wares; Mr. Ambani promises that it will funnel money from the flourishing cities into the struggling agricultural heartland. He envisions Reliance, with $39 billion in revenue, as providing incomes to 12 million to 30 million Indians within the next five years by buying from farmers and employing new workers in its stores. And as Mumbai, Mr. Ambanis hometown and the commercial and entertainment capital of India, has grown ever more populous and
ever less livable, he has proposed that Reliance simply build a new, improved city across the harbor. MR. AMBANI, 51, who feuded with his younger brother after their father died six years ago, took control of roughly half of the divided company. Even as he enters new areas, he has maintained his familys dominance in its petrochemical, oil and gas and textile manufacturing businesses. He maintains a low public profile; even those close to him describe him as inscrutable. On one hand, he is seen as a man whose heart bleeds for India. He is motivated by the ability to change the face of the country, said K. V. Kamath, the C.E.O. of ICICI Bank and a longtime financier and friend of the Ambanis. That is the biggest kick anybody would get today that they could touch the lives of a large number of these billion people and make things better for them. On the other hand, Mr. Ambani is also known as someone who lets little stand in his or Reliances way. Remember: these guys all grew up in the License Raj, said a close friend of the tycoon, referring to Indias decades-long experiment with rigid state control over the economy. They grew up as lotuses from the filth. It makes them tough, it makes them suspicious, it makes them vindictive at times, and it makes them come out in a hurry. They always see life as, Oh God, better not miss an opportunity. When they were growing up, added the friend, who requested anonymity for fear of upsetting Mr. Ambani, you didnt get a second chance. Emblematic of his ascent is the towering residence he is building on what was once known as Altamount Road, one of the most exclusive streets here. Hundreds of feet tall, it will offer several levels of parking, a multi-tiered gymnasium, a ballroom, a theater, ample
living and guest quarters, and a helipad on the roof. (Although the price tag for the residence has drawn estimates as high as $2 billion, a Reliance spokesman said it would ultimately cost $50 million to $70 million.) For generations, Altamount was a favored address for Indias Anglicized elite, a group British imperialists groomed in their own image. To a 19th-century British official, Thomas Babington Macaulay, they were interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. As time went on, the elites were steeped in British culture, spoke with Oxbridge accents, pooh-poohed Bollywood films and danced only to British and American music. They dismissed those who spoke Indian languages at home as vernies, short for vernaculars. Then, in the 1990s, Bombay changed its name to Mumbai, and Altamount was renamed S. K. Barodawalla Marg. Neither name has stuck with everyone, but the changes were part of an emerging movement to purge India of its colonial legacy. Such changes accompanied the rise to power of a new class of Indians who want to live and work and raise their children in India, who are tethered to Indian values, food and popular culture and who are unapologetic about their indigenous tastes. The Ambanis are this classs first family. MANY other Indian business families have been rich for generations, and their scions don finely cut suits and flaunt fussy tastes. Ratan Tata cruises down Marine Drive on Sundays in fast cars and favors Herms ties with matching handkerchiefs. Vijay Mallya is said to be trailed in his home by a butler holding a silver tray with a cigar and a Scotch. Adi and Parmeshwar Godrej are famous for soires that attract Hollywood stars.
Mr. Ambani comports himself quite differently. Among family members, he prefers speaking Gujarati to English, friends say. He may ask colleagues to stop at the temple with him during business trips to partake in a ritual Hindu prayer. He loathes Western suits, preferring a white short-sleeved shirt, black trousers and black shoes that resemble sneakers cross-bred with office wingtips. His idea of entertainment is not ballet but Bollywood; he watches as many as three films a week at home in a private theater. You need some amount of escapism in life, he says. Those two or three hours give you relief. He has a legendary appetite, but mostly for the food of the bustling Mumbai streets. He has been known to walk out of fancy restaurants in search of dosas, south Indian crepes sold by the roadside. And he carries those preferences with him when he travels. One evening, when Mr. Ambani and a former Stanford classmate, Akhil Gupta, were in New York, they dined at Nobu, the popular Japanese restaurant. Mr. Ambani, a vegetarian, picked at the fare, finding it bland. At the end of the meal, Mr. Gupta recalls him saying: That was nice. Now should we go have dinner? For Mr. Ambani, its all a matter of comfort food. Personally, I still have to eat my dal, roti, chaval, he says, using the Hindi words for lentil soup, flatbread and rice. I just have not developed those tastes. He recalls a lot of emulation of Western ways surrounding him as a child. My view was: What the hell, man! We can do what we feel like. I think what has changed now, and it is changing in multiple generations, is this self-confidence and self-belief. His preferences reflect a wider cultural transformation in India, admirers say. If you look at his interests, theyre very rooted in India, says Nandan M. Nilekani, co-chairman of Infosys
Technologies, a leading outsourcing company in India. Hes not trying to impress anyone else. Its part of a broader shift in selfconfidence that is happening, where people are no longer looking at Westernized symbols of having arrived. The foundation of the Ambanis wealth was laid relatively recently, when Mr. Ambanis father, Dhirubhai, opened Reliances doors in 1958, the year after Mr. Ambani was born. The father started the company in a tiny, sparsely furnished trading office in Mumbai, first exporting spices to Yemen, then entering the yarn trade, a business that required special canniness. At that time, the government was severely restricting large-scale manufacturing, so importing yarn required hard-to-get licenses and creative maneuvering around the bureaucracy. Mr. Ambani and his younger brother, Anil, spent their childhoods in the down-market Bhuleshwar neighborhood, in a two-bedroom apartment in a humble building that Mumbai residents call a chawl: a tenement obscured from major roads by more attractive towers. Metal grates still cover the windows and, in a country where a maid is a hallmark of middle-class life, the neighborhoods chores fall to homemakers who flog mattresses clean and scrub dirty clothes in soapy buckets. It is customary in the chawls to live communally: anyones children are everyones children, and as a child Mr. Ambani would visit a neighbors house to feast on puris, small discs of fried wheat. In that house one day, a bathroom door slammed shut and severed half of his left pinky. Times were tight in his youth, and he went without an allowance. Friends say, and Mr. Ambani agrees, that growing up as he did gave him an edge over many business peers: While he would go on to enjoy all the privileges of a second-generation billionaire, his early childhood instilled the combative mentality of an outsider typically found among first-generation entrepreneurs.
All of us, in a sense, struggle continuously all the time, because we never get what we want, Mr. Ambani says. The important thing which Ive really learned is how do you not give up, because you never succeed in the first attempt. Reliance was thriving by the late 1960s, and the family moved out of the chawls and into one of Mumbais best neighborhoods. But his father, who had never finished high school and worried that his children might grow up too pampered, hired a tutor whose responsibility was to spend three hours a day taking Mukesh, and later his siblings, on working-class field trips: riding public transportation, buying tickets at the rail station. Once a year, the tutor arranged a visit to a village for about two weeks. It was one of the best things that happened to me in my life, Mr. Ambani said of the field trips. We never studied. We went out and learned how to play hockey. And we went by bus, and we went by train, and we said, This is what life looks like. Years later, when Mr. Ambani enrolled in an M.B.A. program at Stanford, his father clung to the belief that real learning came in the trenches, not in academic enclaves like Palo Alto. He summoned Mr. Ambani home in 1980, halfway through the two-year program, to take charge of a yarn manufacturing project. Working in an Indian village, he won high praise from some of those around him. He slept in a trailer on site and juggled an attention to detail with big dreams. I found him an extremely receptive listener who was learning all the time, said Mr. Kamath, a lender to the Ambanis at the time. He virtually camped out there. It is very unusual for any leader that I have dealt with. FRIENDS of Mr. Ambani say the plants completion, on schedule, marked his emergence as his own man in his fathers burgeoning corporate empire. By then, Reliance was already one of Indias boldest companies, combining a heady vision for the future with the brass-knuckle tactics required to get there.
In setting up the yarn factory, Mr. Ambani also displayed the first glimmers of his management style. The close friend who had spoken on the condition of anonymity compared Mr. Ambani to the momand-pop traders who populated his Gujarati caste ancestry: Hes a guy who likes to get his hands dirty, he says. He is a shopkeeper in many ways. He wants to sit at the till. He wants to see whats going on. His greatest talent, as Ravi Venkatesan, the chairman of Microsoft India, puts it, is for being in the clouds as well as in the details. In my life, Ive only met a few people who are able to think on a staggering scale and take the risks to match it, Mr. Venkatesan says. Bill Gates comes to mind. As Mr. Ambani grew older, Reliance entered a raft of new businesses, gaining more power and placing ever bigger bets on nascent industries. As the eldest son in a traditional Indian family, he helped oversee the companys diversification into petrochemicals, then energy, then cellphones. His father made him a board member at the age of 17 or 18, he says; and because he was involved with Reliance when it was just a textile company, he says he has always felt that he built it with his father, rather than simply inheriting it. My big advantage was to have my father accept me as firstgeneration, he says. He treated me like a partner, saying, O.K., lets go do this. And more than that, he gave me the full freedom, the ability to bet the house. So in 1980, he was saying, Here, take 80 crores of rupees about $100 million then and build a polyester plant. Over the years, Reliance morphed from a small family business into a publicly traded empire, adopting new standards of corporate governance, publishing glossy annual reports and signing up shareholders across the nation. By the time the elder Mr. Ambani died, in 2002, he had become a legend, mourned by throngs of ordinary Indians winding through Mumbais streets. The socialist,
Gandhian regime he challenged had yielded, beginning in the 1990s, to the kind of bare-knuckles capitalism he had zealously advocated. Arun Shourie, a politician and former cabinet minister who in his younger days as a journalist had publicly crusaded against Reliance and what he considered to be its heavy-handed business practices, acknowledged a year after the elder Mr. Ambanis death that he had made a 180-degree turn in his view of the company. They set up world-class companies and facilities in spite of those regulations, he said in a speech in 2003. By exceeding the limits and restrictions, they created the case for scrapping those regulations. They made a case for reforms. IN 2004, two years after the elder Mr. Ambani died, his sons began battling each other for control of Reliance. Their mother, Kokilaben, also a major shareholder, ended the squabble in 2005 by giving Anil control of Reliances newer service businesses like telecommunications, electric power and banking. Mukesh got the portfolio of industrial businesses. Each half now operates independently. Today, both brothers are respected chief executives, though they are said by friends to speak to each other rarely, if ever. Neither of the brothers publicly discusses the relationship. Anil Ambani, who friends say struggled to be taken seriously as Mr. Ambanis younger brother, has emerged on his own as a business leader, taking the cellphone business, in particular, to new heights. But it is his older brother, with his gargantuan, quasi-public projects in energy, retailing and urban renewal, who has become the most visible symbol of Indias visceral transformation. Ticking off one Indian problem at a time, Mr. Ambani has proposed for each a Reliance solution. While India was once largely self-sufficient in oil and gas, a swelling middle class is burning ever more energy, forcing India to become an
energy importer and straining the countrys development. So he is building a world-class oil refining and petrochemical complex in Jamnagar, in the western state of Gujarat. The $6 billion facility can already process 660,000 barrels a day, and it has helped India to become self-sufficient in producing finished gasoline though it still must import crude oil. It is one of the most profitable refineries in the world, and Mr. Ambani plans to double its capacity. Two-thirds of Indias 1.1 billion people still live off the land, and to combat the cycle of poverty that ensnares rural dwellers while presumably making a handsome profit for his company Mr. Ambani also wants to foment an agricultural revolution. He has begun building a nationwide network of hundreds of Westernstyle supermarkets and other retail outlets, hoping to connect them directly with farmers who have traditionally sold to middlemen, many of whom pay less than market prices and are widely regarded as deceitful and usurious. In some regions, Reliances supermarket push has caused grateful farmers to change their habits and become more productive. But in other areas, landowners have protested Reliances acquisition of their property; elsewhere, shopkeepers have staged violent rallies against a supermarket chain that they fear will decimate them. Some states, including Uttar Pradesh, have sought to block Reliance from their territory. However these challenges are resolved, some businessmen say Mr. Ambani has already established himself as Indias great transformer, with a legacy that has much in common with American industrialists of the 19th century. When we talk about Rockefeller and Carnegie and all these guys, they really each changed one industry, said Mr. Nilekani, the Infosys
co-chairman. But if you look at what hes doing, hes really changing three or four industries. Like Rockefeller and Carnegie, however, Mr. Ambani has also gone to great lengths and, critics say, used tough-minded, combative tactics to secure his companys fortunes, as well as its social and political influence. DRIVE past the Makers Chambers IV building in Mumbai on a Saturday night, where Reliances headquarters are housed, and you often see the lights blazing inside. Mr. Ambani routinely enters the office after 11 a.m. and stays as late as midnight even on Saturdays. Employees, eager to follow their leader, usually do the same. Reliance, like many of its peers, is something of a hierarchical, oldstyle Indian enterprise, despite its accomplishments. Companies like these are typically run by a big family, whose word is law and whose patriarchs photo, garlanded with flowers, is everywhere. They tend to have a layer of courtiers below the ruling family who are valued for loyalty as much as merit. Playful disagreements are tolerated, but the boss is often insulated from actual criticism. In addition to keeping a tight rein on employees, the old-style companies tend to work hard at managing government, as their executives call it. Sometimes that involves outright bribery of government officials; sometimes it might involve paying the American college tuition of a bureaucrats child. Although rumors that it actively engages in bribery swirl around Reliance, Mr. Ambani says it has never paid a bribe or broken a rule. These are all fables, he says, dismissing the rumors. But he concedes that there are indirect ways for Reliance to curry favor. Although he says Reliance never pays the tuitions of bureaucrats children, he also acknowledges that foundations controlled by or affiliated with Reliance sometimes have.
Some foundation would have given some scholarship maybe, but thats all out in the public domain, he says. In interviews, two former Reliance employees and other close associates of Mr. Ambani, all of whom requested anonymity because they were afraid of jeopardizing relationships with him, say the company also routinely engages in political lobbying and covert monitoring to gain a leg up on its rivals. To be sure, such practices are hardly uncommon in India. But people in the Indian business scene say few companies match Reliances record of having laws changed in its favor and of protecting itself from extensive outside scrutiny. Everyone is trying to bend the rules, said Deepak Talwar, a New Delhi lobbyist who has never worked for Reliance but described Mr. Ambani as a friend. They just do it better, with a combination of understanding, relationships and a bit of cash. Mr. Ambani, however, disagrees with at least one element of Mr. Talwars calculus. I dont think that payments per se work, he says. I personally think that money can do very little. And this has been my experience all across. Mr. Ambani doesnt dispute that Reliance tries to exert its influence when necessary, but says that influence-peddling is unimportant relative to its other strengths. I still think thats not a critical success factor, he says. What is a factor is relationships, a word that Mr. Ambani and his acolytes relish. We believe in relationships, he says. If someone helpful to Reliance needs an introduction, consider it done. If they need to use the private jet or gain access to a coveted temple to pray, consider it done. What most distinguishes Reliance from its rivals is what Mr. Ambanis friends and associates describe as his intelligence agency, a network of lobbyists and spies in New Delhi who they say collect
data about the vulnerabilities of the powerful, about the minutiae of bureaucrats schedules, about the activities of their competitors. Mr. Ambani said in the interview that all such activities were overseen by his brother before they split, and had since been expunged from his tranche of the company. We de-merged all of that, he says, breaking out in a belly laugh. A spokesman for Anil Ambani declined to comment. Nonetheless, Reliance, some observers say, still manages to stay very well informed. Their intelligence on government is very strong, Mr. Talwar says. If a meeting were to be held and the subject was affecting their business, they would know about it. Critics say Reliance has been especially effective at managing the press. Both former Reliance executives, who requested anonymity for fear of angering Mr. Ambani, say the company has actively curried favor with journalists to help it track the progress of negative articles. A prominent Indian editor, formerly of The Times of India, who requested anonymity because of concerns about upsetting Mr. Ambani, says Reliance maintains good relationships with newspaper owners; editors, in turn, fear investigating it too closely. I dont think anyone else comes close to it, the editor said of Reliances sway. I dont think anyone is able to work the system as they can. And the net result is plain: although Indias raucous news media have brought down many a powerful person and institution, Mr. Ambani and Reliance are rarely the subjects of hard-hitting Indian reporting. Reliance disagrees, regarding itself as the target of relentless media attacks. There is malicious and negative stuff being written all the time. So where is the influence? the Reliance spokesman said. Mr. Ambani has told me that he will never pick up the phone and talk to the owner of a publication to say, Write positive stuff or, Stop writing negative stuff.
IN the old days, if Mr. Ambani had anything to tell his father, it was done in the quiet, diplomatic way that an older generation expected. Now a father himself, he has found his own three children blunter. His teenage daughter, for example, questions her fathers environmental record. I think that all this is great, he remembers her saying of his vast empire. But you know, you should be careful. You are in the plastics business. Its not one of the greatest. It pollutes a lot. Id like you to re-evaluate your portfolio. Recounting the episode, he laughs, because, with billions of dollars in that business, it may be a little too late. But Mr. Ambani is indeed thinking beyond his current portfolio. One of the more intriguing ideas swishing around is a quixotic plan for making India a rival to China in manufacturing. The Chinese model consists of large factories in urban areas, populated by millions of migrant laborers who produce goods at cheap prices. Similar efforts have lagged in India, because it remains difficult to acquire land from farmers here, because corruption hinders large infrastructure projects, and because red tape remains so sticky. Mr. Ambanis vision is to turn Indias weakness on its head. If manufacturing remains small-scale and fragmented, let it stay that way, he says. The next big thing is how do you create manufacturing with decentralized employment, he says. The Chinese have got very disciplined top-down systems. We have our bottom-up creative systems. He mentions products like handmade leather sandals from the Sugar Belt a few hours south of Mumbai, tie-dyed Bandhani saris from Gujarat, artisanal pottery, clothes, jewelry and the like. These wares would be produced in rural areas, sometimes in a villagers own home. Reliance would forgo manufacturing them and instead teach residents what to make, gather the wares from disparate villages, oversee quality and market and distribute the products.
This is yet another sense in which Mr. Ambani, the most unlikely of Gandhians, is vaguely Gandhian. Mr. Gandhi was famous for his passion for small-scale rural production, symbolized by the spinning wheel. (It is, of course, unlikely that Mr. Gandhi would have endorsed Mr. Ambanis plan to profit on such goods.) How do you really bring about, in a country of a billion people, the individuality of every single individual? Mr. Ambani asks. How do you make sure that you create systems that empower everybody and bring them to their true potential? This is what actually Gandhi taught us. The optimistic part to me, he adds, is that now these goals look achievable. Given such passions, why not enter the political arena? I think I can do much, much more in my particular job, he replies

Leadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is leadership? And does our understanding of it need to change for today's world?

Where do you want to go from here?

Odd kinds of leadership - what is leadership today?

The changing meaning of leadership

References http://www.legacee.com/Info/Leadership/LeadershipStyles.html http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_84.htm

Bass and Colleagues Five Styles Of Leadership

The Contingency Theories of Leadership

The Importanceof Choosing the Right Leadership Style

The Importance of Leadership in Today's World

The Importance of Leadership in the Workplace

What is the difference between leadership and management?

About the Author :

The Difference Between Management & Leadership

May 10, 2009 Susan Brown

BCI Training Course Business Continuity Management BCI Certificate examination.

Qualifications and Experience

Read This Next

Where Do Management and Leadership Meet?

The Difference Between a Leader and a Manager

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Top_20_ceo's_in_the_world#ixzz1hvkGlp3U

compensation earnings Total Compensation Options Granted

11/12/2009 11/12/2009 09/11/2008 09/20/2007 09/21/2006 09/29/2005 Expiration date

08/23/2004 Expiration date

$08/23/2013 $15,861,713.00 $39,068,155.00 $$$Close

$04/05/2011 $17,807,901.00 $43,861,710.00 $$$Close

0% $8,712,900.00 $$$$$78,750 315,000 378,000 Close

$11/13/2009 $111,092,636.00 $273,626,460.00 $$$Close

$05/14/2010 $20,476,330.00 $50,434,177.00 $$$Close

$$$$$$100,000 200,000 240,000 Close

$$$$$2,073,850.00 $9,290,848.00 Close

$01/24/2009 $120,258,577.00 $296,202,611.00 $$$Close

$04/10/2012 $14,378,640.00 $35,415,276.00 $$$Close

$$$$$2,253,300.00 $6,759,900.00 Close

$07/15/2012 $20,410,171.00 $50,271,224.00 $$$Close

$08/21/2010 $17,653,529.00 $43,481,485.00 $$$Close

$01/07/2011 $22,637,537.00 $55,757,332.00 $$$Close

$$$$$2,508,600.00 $11,238,528.00 Close

John T. Chambers 1949

John T. Chambers. Alan Levenson/Corbis .

A NEW BEGINNING AT CISCO

TAKING THE REINS

LISTENING TO THE CUSTOMER

sources for further information

Indian to the Core, and an Oligarch

Ruth Fremson/The New York Times

SIGN IN TO E-MAIL OR SAVE THIS PRINT

REPRINTS SHARE DIGG REDDIT TUMBLR PERMALINK

By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS Published: June 15, 2008

Enlarge This Image

Jacob Silberberg for The New York Times

Enlarge This Image

Enlarge This Image

You might also like