3 ms·

Good article, thanks. Employees want to feel fulfilled, and engaged in their work. A huge part of that starts with leaders, NOT managers. The world doesn't need

• Spearchucker 11y ago
  The world needs both. Consider an expedition making its way through a jungle. There are a bunch of people hacking out a path with machetes. The manager makes sure the machetes are sharp, that everybody has enough food and water, and generally ensures that hacking continues unimpeded. The leader climbs a tree and makes sure the hacking is taking place in the right place. Back to your point - yes, you're partly right, but at its root it's an agency issue - Shareholder (owner) cannot or doesn't want to run the company, and so employs someone (an agent) to do it on his/her behalf. These agents are leadership roles (typically CEO, CFO, COO and CTO roles). However, where these appointed leaders don't have a large-enough financial stake in the organisation, they will do things to better their own financial interests, rather than the interests of the shareholders. That disconnect is called agency cost. A side effect is that these leaders become managers because bettering your own interests requires finesse (aka management). Sh*t, of course, flows downwards, and needs more managers.