A recent memo states that, "Your leadership will inform you of changes that affect...."

Curious. When did "leadership" change from describing a quality to becoming the actual thing? Will I need get used to seeing my sportsmanship playing ball on TV?

Actually, if you wanted to take that sentence literally, you could assume it to mean: "Your personal leadership qualities will let you know of the changes that affect..." Of course that is disingenuous, but that's what that phrase really means. I don't think "leadership" is usually used that way; I'd at least say "leaders." In either case, they are assuming that the managers and supervisors are in fact leaders; many times they aren't.

Isn't the leadership the boat that's in first place in a regatta?

We do say, "Your lordship/ladyship," and that sounds pretty stilted here in the US of A.

Asa, who really doesn't give a ship

There was a lot of talk in my MBA courses and textbooks about the leadership of this or that company. It's used interchangeably with "leaders" and "management" in business contexts. I am so used to hearing it that I didn't even notice why it should sound funny until I read this thread. The memo probably should have said that "your supervisor" would blah blah blah blah. Probably where you work, they also have teams or working groups or innovation circles, right?

Wordmatic

I predict this word will have great success in the business world. It suggests a somewhat regal quality (as in "kingship", "ladyship") while at the same time providing that distancing quality of which corporations are so enamoured (as opposed to the crass "leaders" which infers actual people-- the sort who might be liable for something!

I had a supervisor that was forever going on and on about the differences between being a leader and being a supervisor. Leaders get out in front, blah blah blah while supervisors check-up on people blah blah blah. I told her I don't want to have to be a supervisor at all, I just want to be a leader, and she was fine with that until one of my team needed to be written-up (her command, really) and then I knew that what I needed to be was Queen. Sometimes I'm leading, sometimes I'm checking up like a rule-nazi, and sometimes I can just sit in my office and direct things like a puppeteer.

Well, she is gone now (she got sick of our system) and I'm still here, leading and coaching instead of writing people up. Go figure.

Oh yea, the memo . . . well . . . I probably wouldn't have even blinked with that use of the word. Isn't that funny? I've been brain-washed by lingo-ism!

All hail to the Queen!

quote:

I had a supervisor that was forever going on and on about the differences between being a leader and being a supervisor.

Oh, heck, after all that I just hate to say this, but I do think there is a huge difference between leadership and managing or supervising. A good leader is visionary and sees how everyone can work together to make the business/company/university/whatever the very best, promoting excellence and quality. The managers/supervisers are involved in day-to-day operations, making sure policies and procedures are followed, but they are followers, for the most part.

Or am I a romanticist?

I would suggest that there is quite a difference between a leader and a supervisor. Kalleh has summed it up well. The armed forces use both. Their model has been successful for centuries and seems unlikely to change substantially in the future. Officers are the leaders, and NCOs are the supervisors.

I totally agree with that, too. There is a huge difference. My beef with my former boss is that she wanted to TALK about leadership, but she wanted me to spend all my TIME being a rule-nazi (a.k.a. over-controlling manager). I do think there needs to be some management going on, but not to that extent.