leaders or Managers?

[aryasatyadev]

Of late we are witnessing various threads and posts in which many members are discussing various aspects of our leaders. But have we ever gave a thought about who is a leader and whether leders are born or made?
It is said that Leader is he/she who with the help of process of social influence can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.
As per theory leaders are of two types Born and Made, Born leaders seems to have the desired skill set naturally in their thought process like a person that can play music by ear without ever having had one lesson. These born leaders came in various levels such as the informal leader in a group. Born leaders are often start off as recognized by a group of which they are a member as the “alpha” and are bestowed leadership by the other members in the group. From this point, born leaders further develop into future leaders hopefully acquiring the knowledge to become effective.

Made leaders often came to exist through experiences and often start as a manager but develop into leader. The path to leadership is not always first clear to these individuals but rather develops through circumstances and the desire to succeed. The made leader usually has the ability to be flexible in order to learn the skill set necessary to become an effective leader.

There is an interesting story from Stephen Covey (2004) “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” it goes like......
A group of workers and their leaders are set a task of clearing a road through a dense jungle on a remote island to get to the coast where an estuary provides a perfect site for a port. The leaders organise the labour into efficient units and monitor the distribution and use of capital assets – progress is excellent. The leaders continue to monitor and evaluate progress, making adjustments along the way to ensure the progress is maintained and efficiency increased wherever possible. Then, one day amidst all the hustle and bustle and activity, one person climbs up a nearby tree. The person surveys the scene from the top of the tree. And shouts down to the assembled group below… “Wrong Way!”
This story defines managers and leaders, “Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things”

So when we talk about the leaders are we actually talking baout the managers or we have some real leaders??

 

[yudhvirmor]

Of late we are witnessing various threads and posts in which many members are discussing various aspects of our leaders. But have we ever gave a thought about who is a leader and whether leders are born or made?
It is said that Leader is he/she who with the help of process of social influence can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.
As per theory leaders are of two types Born and Made, Born leaders seems to have the desired skill set naturally in their thought process like a person that can play music by ear without ever having had one lesson. These born leaders came in various levels such as the informal leader in a group. Born leaders are often start off as recognized by a group of which they are a member as the “alpha” and are bestowed leadership by the other members in the group. From this point, born leaders further develop into future leaders hopefully acquiring the knowledge to become effective.

Made leaders often came to exist through experiences and often start as a manager but develop into leader. The path to leadership is not always first clear to these individuals but rather develops through circumstances and the desire to succeed. The made leader usually has the ability to be flexible in order to learn the skill set necessary to become an effective leader.

There is an interesting story from Stephen Covey (2004) “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” it goes like......
A group of workers and their leaders are set a task of clearing a road through a dense jungle on a remote island to get to the coast where an estuary provides a perfect site for a port. The leaders organise the labour into efficient units and monitor the distribution and use of capital assets – progress is excellent. The leaders continue to monitor and evaluate progress, making adjustments along the way to ensure the progress is maintained and efficiency increased wherever possible. Then, one day amidst all the hustle and bustle and activity, one person climbs up a nearby tree. The person surveys the scene from the top of the tree. And shouts down to the assembled group below… “Wrong Way!”
This story defines managers and leaders, “Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things”

So when we talk about the leaders are we actually talking baout the managers or we have some real leaders??

Great topic sir ji..

I think we need leaders to decide the vision of our country and managers to implement those visions..
In current scenario, We have neither.. We have blood sucking bureaucrats and their bosses are illeterate and corrupt to the highest level possible.

Institutes like JNU are ideal ground to breed true leaders and IIMs are great place to create an army of Managers..

 

[aryasatyadev]

Great topic sir ji..

I think we need leaders to decide the vision of our country and managers to implement those visions..
In current scenario, We have neither.. We have blood sucking bureaucrats and their bosses are illeterate and corrupt to the highest level possible.

Institutes like JNU are ideal ground to breed true leaders and IIMs are great place to create an army of Managers..

Yudhvir bhai, it is not essential that the leaders are only political. They can be in any sphere of life, for example for me Mr. Murthy of Infosys, Vijay Mallaya of Kingfisher, Vijender Singh of boxing or Vishwanathan Anand of chess are also leaders, they had inspired many to follow them..... however, at one point they lack the definition and that is the aim of achieving a common goal......

 

[poonam17]

Of late we are witnessing various threads and posts in which many members are discussing various aspects of our leaders. But have we ever gave a thought about who is a leader and whether leders are born or made?
It is said that Leader is he/she who with the help of process of social influence can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.
As per theory leaders are of two types Born and Made, Born leaders seems to have the desired skill set naturally in their thought process like a person that can play music by ear without ever having had one lesson. These born leaders came in various levels such as the informal leader in a group. Born leaders are often start off as recognized by a group of which they are a member as the “alpha” and are bestowed leadership by the other members in the group. From this point, born leaders further develop into future leaders hopefully acquiring the knowledge to become effective.

Made leaders often came to exist through experiences and often start as a manager but develop into leader. The path to leadership is not always first clear to these individuals but rather develops through circumstances and the desire to succeed. The made leader usually has the ability to be flexible in order to learn the skill set necessary to become an effective leader.

There is an interesting story from Stephen Covey (2004) “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” it goes like......
A group of workers and their leaders are set a task of clearing a road through a dense jungle on a remote island to get to the coast where an estuary provides a perfect site for a port. The leaders organise the labour into efficient units and monitor the distribution and use of capital assets – progress is excellent. The leaders continue to monitor and evaluate progress, making adjustments along the way to ensure the progress is maintained and efficiency increased wherever possible. Then, one day amidst all the hustle and bustle and activity, one person climbs up a nearby tree. The person surveys the scene from the top of the tree. And shouts down to the assembled group below… “Wrong Way!”
This story defines managers and leaders, “Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things”

So when we talk about the leaders are we actually talking baout the managers or we have some real leaders??

Going by this thoery we are having only the managers....... but there are leaders in all the fields as I had told you........ and clear catagarisation also exists......
So, in my opinion presently we are talking about the managers of various parties........

 

[poonam17]

--------------------

 

[aryasatyadev]

Going by this thoery we are having only the managers....... but there are leaders in all the fields as I had told you........ and clear catagarisation also exists......
So, in my opinion presently we are talking about the managers of various parties........

Thanks for rebuke......
काल के अख़बार में आ रही थी अक आजकल हम लीडर ने रूलर (राजा) मानन लाग गे सैन, इब जे इसी बात सै ते फेर ते ये मेनेजर भी ना हुए अर्र लीडर ते कदे थे अ कोन्या

 

[spdeshwal]

Leadership and managerial skills are two different facets of one's personalty.
At some stage, in an individual's career, these two distinct traits may be over lapping.

A general assumption would be to have good managerial skills in a leader and good leadership qualities in a manager!

Generally, a leader's sphere of influence would be larger than that of a manager. A leader represents the organization to the outsiders and managers supposed to be working in the background.

Two Tier System :Management of a state's affairs would have two tier system, leaders and managers. At times their roles may be overlapping. Mostly, the politicians lead and the bureaucracy manages the affairs of the govt.

Now question is, whether a leader must possess good managerial qualities.
the answer can be, yes or not necessarily!

We can find numerous examples of very successful leaders but were not considered good managers. Tau Devilal is one such example. A born and 'jhuujharu' leader whose span of success varies from lowest to highest and highest to lowest, but sadly can't be considered a good manager. Whereas Chaudhry Omparkash Chautala can be classified not only a good leader but a good manager too. We have seen his total control on all departments of his party's affairs over a period of two decades that shows a good combination of leadership and managerial skills.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that, a leader to have longer lasting impact on the lives of his subjects, should have the combination of a fair amount of leadership and managerial qualities. These qualities could be inherited, developed in political field or learned in specialized institutions.




Cheers!

 

[aryasatyadev]

पर देशवाल साहब देवीलाल जी ते करिश्माई नेता थे, अर्र उनके कहे पे दुनिया चाल पड्या करती, आजकल के नेता में ना ते करिश्मा ना ए नयापन, बस पुराने विचारां की गाडी खींचन लाग रे सें

 

[anilsinghd]

Let me write a couple of things I noticed before I put forward my views:

1) No Kapil's essays ( sorry mate , just kidding , you know I really enjoy them! ).

2) The direction of the thread is something which I myself was thinking of ( see below for details).


The only lil book that I happened to read in the field of psychology is Edgar H. Schein's Organisational Psychology , a good book, recommended.

What I learnt was that the power/authority base(source) can have any of the following ways:

1) Tradition : e.g King , priests etc. Sadly still in 21st century we are having numerous cases of the same and are not able to recognise the ill-effects of the same. There are so many son's and daughter's entering the political arena.

2). Rational Legal Priniciples : Democratic ways , "common" people sharing the power , Panchayats were designed to fulfill this but they failed miserably because of 1) implied in them.

3). Charisma: Please do not mistake emotional attraction ( due to lack of a better word ! ) with charisma. Charisma refers to compelling personal qualities of an individual ( not because he/she is son/daughter of a famous filmstar , politician etc).

4). Expertness : Authority by virtue of experience in a desired field.


The above realms though are somewhat true and get their fare share in the "company" system but fail in the political context ( at least Indian!).


It would be a good deal to have a discussion on who do we want out leaders to be? Which kidn of person you would want to be your leader? ( 1 , 2, 3 , 4).



Satyepal's Sir comment on kind of mixing the leaders and the managers is good and I also have the same opinion that both the skills are essential.

 

[kapdal]

1) No Kapil's essays ( sorry mate , just kidding , you know I really enjoy them! ).

Hahaha..hohoho...lol...rotfl!!! (Main har type ka internet laughter dikha raha hoon, because you were kidding)

Par daaki, poora sentence likh diya karr. Do-chaar word aur laga deta to mujhe 15 minute dimaag pe zor nahin daalna padta ki ke kehna chaave se. Bahut haath pair maar ke main is nateeze pe pahucha hoon ki tera ishara is baat pe hai ki maine abhi tak is thread pe post nahin kiya...

 

[anilsinghd]

tera ishara is baat pe hai ki maine abhi tak is thread pe post nahin kiya...

ha ha ha ha ha ha , you got it mate !!! Exactly what I wanted to say!

 

[kapdal]

Anil, nyun ke tu naraaz kiya ja se...to yeh le post...

I think in Indian context, leaders are usually born and only occasionally made. But the phrase "born leaders" would be more of a pun in Indian context. If you are born or even married in a family of leaders, then you are born to be a leader, whatever your abilities are.

I believe that the ability to influence or to get followers is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a good leader. The world is full of leaders who have significant influence, but nothing good comes out of it. A good leader should leave behind some value addition on his "area of influence". In order to do that, he needs to be a good manager of people. He need not manage everything himself, but he needs to get good managers to work for him, and also manage/nurture these managers well.

I can't think of an example of a "good leader" worth quoting from current Indian politicians. From old leaders, Gandhi stands out. Nehru had charisma and vision, but he never got good managers to work for him, apart from some intial notable exceptions like Patel. Post Nehru, I don't think anyone even merits consideration.

In sports, I would consider Dhoni as a very good leader. In business, we had Dhirubhai Ambani. He was not a "good leader" for whole of India given his objectionable means. But for his shareholders, friends and employees, he was a good leader. He got lots of good managers to work for him, mostly people he used to work with in Aden. And he nurtured and managed these people well. Of course, he had the charisma and cunningness to influence not only his employees but the entire Indian ruling class.

 

[aryasatyadev]

What I learnt was that the power/authority base(source) can have any of the following ways:

1) Tradition : e.g King , priests etc. Sadly still in 21st century we are having numerous cases of the same and are not able to recognise the ill-effects of the same. There are so many son's and daughter's entering the political arena.

2). Rational Legal Priniciples : Democratic ways , "common" people sharing the power , Panchayats were designed to fulfill this but they failed miserably because of 1) implied in them.

3). Charisma: Please do not mistake emotional attraction ( due to lack of a better word ! ) with charisma. Charisma refers to compelling personal qualities of an individual ( not because he/she is son/daughter of a famous filmstar , politician etc).

4). Expertness : Authority by virtue of experience in a desired field.


The above realms though are somewhat true and get their fare share in the "company" system but fail in the political context ( at least Indian!).


It would be a good deal to have a discussion on who do we want out leaders to be? Which kidn of person you would want to be your leader? ( 1 , 2, 3 , 4).



Satyepal's Sir comment on kind of mixing the leaders and the managers is good and I also have the same opinion that both the skills are essential.

We are having a lot of traditional leaders in politics and also in the other fields (where it is OK because they inherit it), In politics it is a plight that generation next is not coming froward to take a plunge, they have their obvious reasons and also because there are sons and daughters of present or former politicians who will not let the new entrant get noticed.

For point no. 2 you yourself as stated that it is not a possibility and rightly so.

For point 3..... the charismatic leaders are mostly the religious leaders they have a great following and the people are ready to do anything fro these leaders..... in my opinion we have Lalu Prasad Yadav Ji and Modi Ji as charismatic leaders right now.... in recent past the death of YSR has shown that he was also on the path of becoming a charismatic leader.
In the firld of industries/Bussiness, In my opinion Mr. Subrato Roy of Sahara group can be classified as charismatic leader....

Expertness....... in the field of politics nobody is expert because there is no such thing as being expert in the field of politics....... but this type of leadership is common in industrial setup.....

So in the end, I think we are having managers who are managing the show as scripted by some leader earlier on as described by Kapil in below post..

I believe that the ability to influence or to get followers is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a good leader. The world is full of leaders who have significant influence, but nothing good comes out of it. A good leader should leave behind some value addition on his "area of influence". In order to do that, he needs to be a good manager of people. He need not manage everything himself, but he needs to get good managers to work for him, and also manage/nurture these managers well.

I can't think of an example of a "good leader" worth quoting from current Indian politicians. From old leaders, Gandhi stands out. Nehru had charisma and vision, but he never got good managers to work for him, apart from some intial notable exceptions like Patel. Post Nehru, I don't think anyone even merits consideration.

In sports, I would consider Dhoni as a very good leader. In business, we had Dhirubhai Ambani. He was not a "good leader" for whole of India given his objectionable means. But for his shareholders, friends and employees, he was a good leader. He got lots of good managers to work for him, mostly people he used to work with in Aden. And he nurtured and managed these people well. Of course, he had the charisma and cunningness to influence not only his employees but the entire Indian ruling class.

Value addition is really a great thought in context of leaders, but the followers arre also an import part and parcel of all this event...... if one don't have any followers, he cant be a leader..... for leader one should have somebody to lead to any specified direction. and as you have stated managing the managers is leadership......
On point of Ambani.... what is your take on Sahara, or the Deccan Aviation CEO (who started low fare war in Indian Skies)

 

[kapdal]

On point of Ambani.... what is your take on Sahara, or the Deccan Aviation CEO (who started low fare war in Indian Skies)

Aryaji, I don't know much about either of them to comment in detail. Sahara Shri Subroto Roy looks a very dodgy figure to me. Air Deccan guy did have a role in making the field competitive, but he had to eventually sell out as the business model was unsustainable.

Ambani came to my mind as I am currently reading the book "The Polyester Prince", which describes in detail how he became successful, using all sorts of means. One can see he had great leadership qualities as he not only had influence over people (his own employees, politicians, bureaucrats, shareholders, everyone), but also used the influence to achieve his goals. But as I said earlier, his leadership was good only for those under his area of influence. At a broader level, his legacy is highly debatable.

From business, better examples could be Murthy and Nilekani from Infosys. As far a I know, they built their IT empire using legitimate and moral business practises. Infosys itself has had a much better social and corporate record, unlike Reliance and Sahara.

 

[aryasatyadev]

Aryaji, I don't know much about either of them to comment in detail. Sahara Shri Subroto Roy looks a very dodgy figure to me. Air Deccan guy did have a role in making the field competitive, but he had to eventually sell out as the business model was unsustainable.

Ambani came to my mind as I am currently reading the book "The Polyester Prince", which describes in detail how he became successful, using all sorts of means. One can see he had great leadership qualities as he not only had influence over people (his own employees, politicians, bureaucrats, shareholders, everyone), but also used the influence to achieve his goals. But as I said earlier, his leadership was good only for those under his area of influence. At a broader level, his legacy is highly debatable.

From business, better examples could be Murthy and Nilekani from Infosys. As far a I know, they built their IT empire using legitimate and moral business practises. Infosys itself has had a much better social and corporate record, unlike Reliance and Sahara.

Kapil bhai obliquely you are hinting that Mr Subrato Roy is a manger but may not be a leader but in my opinion a leader is someone who people naturally follow through their own choice, whereas a manager must be obeyed. A manager may only have obtained his position of authority through time and loyalty given to the company, not as a result of his leadership qualities. A leader may have no organisational skills, but his vision unites people behind him. Managers think incrementally, whilst leaders think radically. and as I had already stated in my first post "Managers do things right, while leaders do the right thing.". This means that managers do things by the book and follow company policy, while leaders follow their own intuition, which may in turn be of more benefit to the company. A leader is more emotional than a manager . "Men are governed by their emotions rather than their intelligence". This quotation illustrates why teams choose to follow leaders.
Leaders should stand out by being different and they should question assumption and should be suspicious of tradition. They should seek out the truth and make decisions based on fact, not prejudice. They must have a preference for innovation.
These were the reasons why I termed Mr Subrato Roy of Sahara and Mr Gopinath of Deccan as leaders in there own field, and yes Mr Murthy and Nilkeni also fits in the same definition.....
And dear, these are the very reason why I stated that politicians are becoming managers without a vision

 

[samarkadian]

Guys, I burned my hands too with this topic a long back . I thought to reproduce the same. Warning: Its a long read and could be yawningly boring.

====

Whether effective leadership requires that a leader consistantly follow his/her principles and objective, is a complex issue- one that is tied up in defining effective leadership in the 1st place. in addressing the issue it is helpful toconsider, three distinct forms of leadership;business, political and social - spritiual.

In the business realm , effective leadership is generally, atleast in todays corporatee culture,, as that which achieves the goal of profit maximization for a firms shareholders or other owners. many disagree , however , that profit is appropriate measure of business leader's effectiveness. some detractors claim , i.e. that a truly effective business leader must also fulfill additional duties- i.e. not to do intentional harm to their customrs or to the society in which they operate.Other detractors go further- to impose on business leaders an affirmative obligation to yield to popular will, by propetecting consumers ,preserving natural enviornment, promoting educatiopn and otherwise taking steps to help alleviate society's problems.

Whether our most effective business leaders are theones who appease the general populace by contributingto popular social causes depends, of course, on own definition of business sucess.In my observation a business becomes subject to close scrutiny by the media and social activists, business leader will maximize profits in the long term only by taking reasonable steps to to minimiae the social and enviornmental harm, their business cause.Thus the two definitions merge of effective leadership and commitment to principles.

In the political realm the issue is no less com0plex.Defintion of effective political leadership are tied up in the means , a leader uses to wield his/her power and to obtain that in first place.Consider history's most infamous tyrantsand deposts- such as Genghis Khan,Stalin,Mao,and Hitler.No historian would disagreethat these individuals were remarkably great effective leaders, and that each one remains consistently committed to his tyrannical objectives and principles..Ironically, it was d stubborn adherence to objectives that ultimatly defeated all expect Khan. Thus in short term stubborn adherence to ones objective might serve a political leader's interest in preserving his / her power; yetin long term such behaviours invariably resluts in that leaders downfall-if the principles are not in accord with those of leader's would be followers.

Finally consider social-spritiual leadership.Few would disagrre their ability to inspire others and lift the human spirits,Mahatma Gandhi and Marin Luther King were eminently effective in leading others to effect social change through civil disobedience.It seems to me that this brand of leadership,in order to be effective , inherently requires that leader remainsteadfastly committed tothe principles.WHY?

It is commitment to principles that is the basis of this brand of leadership.For example , had Gandhi advocated civil disobedience, yet been persuaded by close advisors that an occasional violent protest might be effective in gaining independence,, no doubt result have neen immediate forfeiture of that leadership.Unfortunatly presently we r lacking this brand in our country.Politcs becomes party based instead of issue and development.Our leader enjoying trapeze on issueless issues such as temple.When they r supposed to act in condition of contry's esteem like Kandhar abduction of airlines ,they get perplexed and release the terrorists.In contrast u might not forget action of Russia towards Theater hostage drama. For them country esteem was more important than lifes of few civilians.Any way there must be change , definitly it will be ...

In sum strict adherence to principles and objectives is a prerequiste for effective social-spritiual leadership-both in short term and long term.In contrast political leadership wanes in long term unless the leader ultimatly yields to the willof followers.Finally, when it comes to business,leader must create a balncebetween profit maximization-- the measure of effectiveness ---- and yielding to dertain broader obligations that society is now imposing on them.

 

[aryasatyadev]

Guys, I burned my hands too with this topic a long back .
In sum strict adherence to principles and objectives is a prerequiste for effective social-spritiual leadership-both in short term and long term.In contrast political leadership wanes in long term unless the leader ultimatly yields to the willof followers.Finally, when it comes to business,leader must create a balncebetween profit maximization-- the measure of effectiveness ---- and yielding to dertain broader obligations that society is now imposing on them.

Thanks Samar for the valuable feed....

There is one common denominator among leaders of all types/fields mentioned by you: They possess a vision, and their vision does their thinking for them. Leaders are no different than any one else, they just make the decisions that no one else is willing to make when faced with the real life situations .
A clear-cut vision of the future is what all leaders possess. A sense of arrival never penetrates the thinking of a leader, because a place of arrival always exists, or else they couldn’t be who they are. Leaders are never without a destination.

And here is a quote that i cameacross and thought of sharing with all
Leadership is the ability to decide what is to be done, and then to get others to want to do it. ----President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[akshaymalik84]

Thanks Samar for the valuable feed....

There is one common denominator among leaders of all types/fields mentioned by you: They possess a vision, and their vision does their thinking for them. Leaders are no different than any one else, they just make the decisions that no one else is willing to make when faced with the real life situations .
A clear-cut vision of the future is what all leaders possess. A sense of arrival never penetrates the thinking of a leader, because a place of arrival always exists, or else they couldn’t be who they are. Leaders are never without a destination.

And here is a quote that i cameacross and thought of sharing with all
Leadership is the ability to decide what is to be done, and then to get others to want to do it. ----President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Good topic Arya ji...

What is leadership?

Every one have different defination. Some said it is about having followers, some said about having good vision for future, some said adding Value in the area of his influence.Samar classified them in three catagories of business, political and spiritual.
Arya ji said, "Leadership is the ability to decide what is to be done, and then to get others to want to do it. "

Now is leadership about the vision of a single person and forcement of his vision to people or followers(like hitler)? Or does the leader's vision creates the followers and followers follows the vision not leader?
Or is the leadership all about belonging to a leader ancesstors( as we have in India)?

Isn't leadership is about getting someone to do what they don't want to do, but to achieve what they want to achieve.

 

[anilsinghd]

In contrast political leadership wanes in long term unless the leader ultimatly yields to the will of followers.

Samar , I kind og disagree that political leadership has to yield in long term to the followers.

If everyone has the vision and the know-how of what they "need" and what is best for the common good , then we do not need leaders at all.

All politicains of this nation have st art ed with flash , Rajeev was no exception , but he becamse populist to get votes. Same is true with everyone else.

I am not saying that one does not have to inker with the view of foloowers but there are ways to make them believe that what you are doing is for their benefit.

A political leader and very much needed in Indian context must have a longer term vision with a short term capability to sell his "seemingly against the common good" ideas.
Difficult but nothing is easy in life!

 

[samarkadian]

Samar , I kind og disagree that political leadership has to yield in long term to the followers.

If everyone has the vision and the know-how of what they "need" and what is best for the common good , then we do not need leaders at all.

All politicains of this nation have st art ed with flash , Rajeev was no exception , but he becamse populist to get votes. Same is true with everyone else.

I am not saying that one does not have to inker with the view of foloowers but there are ways to make them believe that what you are doing is for their benefit.

A political leader and very much needed in Indian context must have a longer term vision with a short term capability to sell his "seemingly against the common good" ideas.
Difficult but nothing is easy in life!

Anil, you have every right to be disagreed.

Now on the highlighted lines , Like sidhu the sardar throws the adage:- Agar meri chachi ki mucche hoti to mai usse chacha kahta.

Everyone can't have vision as vision is not khaddar ka kurta payjama that any follower can posses. A world full of hierarchy have few visionaries and most others are followers. You are advocating something beyond the reach on this planet or exist in graveyard.

Managers are made, leaders are born.