# data[].attributes.body
Module 8
Production and operation  managers are involved from the design of the product until the controlling of the operation.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 8
Managers need to have sufficient data to make informed business decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Data Storage and Management Technologies

# data[].attributes.body
Module 7
When learning about leadership styles I questioned how would be the difference between a female CEO vs male CEO. I found this chart very interesting and I mostly agree with the differences.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 7
This picture gave me a better understanding of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 6
I learned that to be a great communicator first you have to be a good listener.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 6
Performance appraisal are essential to any job, this suggest any change needed in behavior, skills or attitude

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Conduct Employee Performance Appraisals (Performance Reviews)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about employee performance reviews and appraisals in this topic from the Free Management Library.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 4
This is a very informational webpage about the importance of communication in your business. I think is really important  because clear communication create a sense of trust in your organization and between all levels of employees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
importance of communication in an organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Importance of Communication in an Organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Communication is significant for managers in an organizations so as to perform the basic functions of management, i.e., Planning, Organizing, Leading and Controlling. Communication helps managers to perform their jobs and responsibilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Accountability in the workplace is something every manager wants to have. Accountability has a clear link to higher work performance, but experts indicate that it also results in improved competency and commitment to work, increased employee morale, and work satisfaction (Source: ). It's also known to improve creativity and innovation because the employee is more invested in the future of the organization. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management

However, a ccording to a study (Source: AMA Enterprise, 2013), leaders recognize a significant lack of accountability on the part of employees. In fact, 21 percent of respondents stated that unaccountable employees make up 30-50 percent of their workforce.

What exactly is accountability in the workplace, and why is it essential to high performance? What can leaders do to make accountability part of their organization's culture?

Accountability in the Workplace

High performance teams and organizations empower employees to take ownership, they foster a accountability, and they have a high levels of trust between all levels of the organization. Furthermore, there's a strong link between these three values and characteristics of high performance.
Ownership is about taking initiative and doing the right thing for the business. It's about taking responsibility for results and not assuming it's not someone else's responsibility. At minimum, taking ownership means that if you recognize something is material to achieving results, that you take the initiative to bring it to the attention of the right people. If ownership is about taking initiative, accountability is about follow through and getting done what you said you'd get done. It's recognizing that other team members are dependant on the results of your work and not wanting to let them down. It's about good, open, pro-active communication to keep team members informed on the status of your commitments because you respect that the results of your work has a direct impact on their ability to make their own commitments. Ultimately, when team members consistently demonstrate ownership and accountability, trust is formed.

Why accountability is essential

Without accountability, execution suffers. This happens in two ways.

The first is that when we don't hold ourselves accountable to getting work done well and on time, there's a tendency to become even more lenient and forgiving for slippages. A day becomes a week, a week a month. If it happens once, it's that little bit more acceptable for it to happen again.

The second is that when we don't hold ourselves accountable, the impact is exponential. Your delay becomes your team's delay. The work they had planned gets impacted and that work potentially has further downstream effects. The post, The Importance of Accountability on Teams , explains the lesson of punctuality on the Canadian ski team: when 10 people are waiting for you, if you are 2 minutes late - it's not just 2 minutes lost - the team has lost 22 minutes

Similarly, lack of accountability can snowball in a team, department and organization. Tolerating missed deadlines, lack of punctuality and un-finished work has the tendency to make this behaviour "no big deal". People learn that the real deadline is a week from the published one; that consistently being 10 min late for a meeting is the norm; that sub-par work is acceptable in the interest of "getting it done" (which should not be confused with pushing yourself to ship and not over-work a project). The cumulative impact across an organization can be substantial. One clear way to understand the impact of poor accountability is to imagine accountability in the context of the military. This HBR post, " What Ever Happened to Accountability ", Thomas Ricks covers the impact that a move away from accountability had in the United States Army during the Vietnam war. Ultimately, lack of accountability at the top level trickled down to many levels and had disastrous consequences.

How to Make Accountability Part of Your Culture

Here are some of the things leaders can do to help make accountability a key value.

Make accountability a lived value

Make accountability a part of your team's normal way of operating. Talk about it, share ideas, come to a common consensus about what accountability means in the workplace, and then use that as a foundation everyone works from as they make accountability an organizational goal.

Most importantly, make sure that accountability is more than a stated characteristic of how your team operates. Accountability needs to have consequences which are both positive and negative and those consequences need to be consistently applied. Research consistently contends that business leaders lose the most kudos when poor performance isn't dealt with and poor performers are able to continue without repercussion.

Goals are at the heart of accountability

An important step here is to break things down into meaningful goals and measurable metrics for everyone in the organization. Without proper goals, it's also going to be nearly impossible to effectively enforce accountability.

Goals provide clear expectations for everyone on what's expected. The less room for ambiguity the better - so goals need to be specific and measurable. In a team environment, this is especially important because of the dependency on each others' work and the exponential impact of not meeting expectations.

Another important outcome of having goals is defining what is NOT going to be a priority. One of the biggest reasons we fail to live up to our commitments is because we put too much on our plate and become de-focused on key priorities. So goals need to be realistic. We can't create accountability if what we're asking people to be accountable for isn't realistic or achievable.

Show the numbers

There are 3 ways that showing key metrics creates workplace accountability .

First, showing the number declares ownership. Every goal should be measurable and sharing this is a great way to demonstrate commitment to the result and communicate a clear expectation to other team members.

Second, showing the numbers creates some healthy workplace competition. Achieving goals and receiving recognition is a positive consequence of accountability. Missing a goal that's openly shared with the team has the effect of making us double down the next period to do better.

Third, showing goals helps keep people focused on priorities. It's easy to get distracted by new projects, but showing goals helps you hold yourself accountable and helps others hold you accountable as well.

Make accountability everyone's responsibility

Ownership is about taking responsibility and taking initiative whether or not the responsibility is clearly yours. There's a tendency in group settings for whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present. In the context of accountability, this may mean you don't see yourself as responsible for holding others accountable for timeliness, quality and strong communication. Perhaps it isn't your responsibility - there's someone more senior in the meeting or team, but this is where taking ownership becomes important. Resist the temptation to ignore when someone on your team needs to be held accountable. Owning this aspect of your culture is key so that others can adopt the same attitude. diffusion of responsibility

In terms of having the dialogue, there are likely going to be uncomfortable moments. These two posts from HBR have good tips on how to handle difficult conversations and conflict strategies for nice people .

Build trust through support and encouragement

Trust is an important factor that contributes to accountability. In low-trust environments, people are quick to focus on the blame, not the solution. In high trust environments, people focus on the solution, not the blame.

A key reason people avoid accountability is as a self-defence mechanism, because they're worried about what might happen if things go wrong. A person with low self-confidence - and perhaps bad past experiences - will fear accountability due to fear of messing things up and the imagined consequences, while a person naturally more confident knows they can get up and try again if things go wrong. So give praise where praise is due, to build up confidence in your staff, so people aren't afraid to take things on.

One thing you can do to help individuals that resist accountability is to help them understand the difference between accountability and making a judgement about how well they're doing their job. Failure to meet an objective is OK if the individual let the team know with as much notice as possible, why it happened, how they intend to correct it and to ask for help if it's needed. Approaching failure in this way is demonstrating accountability. There's an opportunity to learn from it and seek coaching or support to ensure future success. In this case, the individual is doing their job well. It's OK to fail from time to time. You just need to be upfront and proactive in your communication of it.

Creating accountable employees delivers numerous business benefits: better execution, lower employee turnover and more creativity and innovation. Overall, shifting to constructive accountability may require a culture change within your team or organization, but leaders, managers and employees will find the results well worth the effort.

About SoapBox

SoapBox Innovations creates software that helps managers engage with employees in a way that increaseses commitment and engagement. We make software that allows an organization to scale how they collect employees ideas and feedback. Recently, we also launched a beta of a one-on-one application called GoodTalk. GoodTalk makes it easier to build agendas and track action items. This increases accountability and helps to make one-on-one meetings more productive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Create a Culture of Accountability in the Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Accountability in the workplace is something every manager wants to have. Accountability has a clear link to higher work performance, but experts indicate that it also results in improved competency and commitment to work, increased employee morale, and work satisfaction (Source: ).

# data[].attributes.body
Module 3
This is a visual to better understand the difference between multinational corporations and transnational corporations. They may seem the same, but they differ greatly. Once the managers understand the differences, they can have better tools to deal with cultural adaptation, logistical information, respect human rights and many others.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 4

# data[].attributes.body
Module 5

# data[].attributes.body
Module 2

# data[].attributes.body
Module 4

# data[].attributes.body
Module 3

# data[].attributes.body
Module 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Created using PowToon -- Free sign up at http://www.powtoon.com/youtube/ -- Create animated videos and animated presentations for free. PowToon is a free tool that allows you to develop cool animated clips and animated presentations for your website, office meeting, sales pitch, nonprofit fundraiser, product launch, video resume, or anything else you could use an animated explainer video.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 4

# data[].attributes.body
Module 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
International Expansion Risk Factors | Pinkerton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Click to learn about security measures, like a risk assessment, to ensure safety when your company considers international expansion.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Principles of Effective Leadership Communication - Terry Pearce

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1

# data[].attributes.body
Module 2

# data[].attributes.body
Module 2

# data[].attributes.body
Module 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today's executives are dealing with a complex and unprecedented brew of social, environmental, market, and technological trends. These require sophisticated, sustainability-based management. Yet executives are often reluctant to place sustainability core to their company's business strategy in the mistaken belief that the costs outweigh the benefits. On the contrary, academic research and business experience point to quite the opposite.

Embedded sustainability efforts clearly result in a positive impact on business performance. Drawing from our own research and our colleagues' research in this area, we have created a sustainability business case for the 21 st century corporate executive. Hoping to alleviate their concerns, this article also provides concrete examples of how sustainability benefits the bottom line.

For the purpose of this article, we define sustainable practices as those that: 1) at minimum do not harm people or the planet and at best create value for stakeholders and 2) focus on improving environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance in the areas in which the company or brand has a material environmental or social impact (such as in their operations, value chain, or customers). We exclude companies with a traditional CSR program that supports employee volunteering in the community - this does not by itself qualify as sustainability.
Driving competitive advantage through stakeholder engagement
Traditional business models aim to create value for shareholders, often at the expense of other stakeholders. Sustainable businesses are redefining the corporate ecosystem by designing models that create value for all stakeholders, including employees, shareholders, supply chains, civil society, and the planet. Michel Porter and Mark Kramer pioneered the idea of "creating shared value," arguing that businesses can generate economic value by identifying and addressing social problems that intersect with their business.

Much of the strategic value of sustainability comes from the need to continually talk with and learn from key stakeholders. Through regular dialogue with stakeholders and continual iteration, a company with a sustainability agenda is better positioned to anticipate and react to economic, social, environmental, and regulatory changes as they arise.

When firms fail to establish good relationships with their stakeholders, it can lead to increased conflict and reduced stakeholder cooperation. This can disrupt a firm's ability to operate on schedule and budget. A study of the gold mining industry, for example, found that stakeholder relations can heavily influence land permitting, taxation, and the regulatory environment, thus playing a substantial role in determining whether a firm has the right to transform gold into shareholder capital - therefore, as the study authors wrote, stakeholder engagement "is not just corporate social responsibility but enlightened self-interest."
Improving risk management
Supply chains today extend around the world, and are vulnerable to natural disasters and civil conflict. Climate change, water scarcity, and poor labor conditions in much of the world increase the risk. McKinsey reports that the value at stake from sustainability concerns can be as a high as 70% of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.

In the largest study on climate change data and corporations, 8,000 supplier companies (that sell to 75 multinationals) reported on their level of climate risk. Of the respondents, 72% said that climate change presents risks that could significantly impact their operations, revenue, or expenditures.

Unlike traditional forms of business risk, social and environmental risks manifest themselves over a longer term, often affect the business on many dimensions, and are largely outside the organization's control. Managing risks therefore requires making investment decisions today for longer-term capacity building and developing adaptive strategies.

In the agriculture, food, and beverage sector, the impacts of climate change have the potential to alter growing conditions and seasons, increase pests and disease, and decrease crop yields. Disruptions in the supply chain may affect production processes that depend on unpriced natural capital assets such as biodiversity, groundwater, clean air, and climate. These unpriced natural capital costs are generally internalized until events like floods or droughts cause disruption to production processes or commodity price fluctuation.

For example, Bunge, an agribusiness firm, reported a $56 million quarterly loss in its sugar and bioenergy segments due to drought in 2010. Flooding in 2011 in Thailand, harmed 160 companies in the textile industry and halted nearly a quarter of the country's garment production, increasing global prices by 28%.

To address these threats along their supply chain, companies like Mars, Unilever, and Nespresso have invested in Rainforest Alliance certification to help farmers deal with climate volatility, reduce land degradation, and increase resilience to drought and humidity-all of which ensure the long-term supply of their agricultural products. Certification also improves productivity and net income: According to an independent study by COSA, Rainforest Alliance reported that certified cocoa farmers in Cote d'Ivoire, for example, produced 1,270 pounds of cocoa per hectare, compared with 736 pounds per hectare on non-certified farms. Net income was also significantly higher on certified cocoa farms than noncertified: $403 versus $113 USD per hectare.

Companies are also experiencing risks in their manufacturing due to resource depletion - particularly water. Water has largely been considered a free raw material and therefore used inefficiently, but many companies are now experiencing the higher costs of using the resource. Coca-Cola, for example, faced a water shortage in India that forced it to shut down one of its plants in 2004. As the 24 th biggest industrial consumer of water, Coca Cola has now invested $2 billion to reduce water use and improve water quality in the communities in which it operates. SabMiller has also invested heavily in water conservation, including $6 million to improve equipment at a facility in Tanzania affected by deteriorating water quality.

Water-related risks threaten to strand billions of dollars for mining, oil, and gas companies. "Stranded assets" are investments that become obsolete due to regulatory, environmental, or market constraints. For example, social conflict related to disruptions to water supplies in Peru has resulted in the indefinite suspension of $21.5 billion in mining projects since 2010.
Fostering innovation
Investing in sustainability is not only a risk management tool; it can also drive innovation. Redesigning products to meet environmental standards or social needs offers new business opportunities. 3M, for example, integrates sustainability into its innovation pipeline through its "Pollution Prevention Pays" program, which aims to proactively minimize waste and avoid pollution through product reformulation, equipment redesign, process modification, and waste recycling. 3M's Novec fire suppression fluids are the first viable, sustainable alternative to hydrofluorocarbons.

Nike embedded sustainability into its innovation process and created the $1 billion-plus Flyknit line, which uses a specialized yarn system, requiring minimal labor and generating large profit margins. Flyknit reduces waste by 80% compared with regular cut and sew footwear. Since its launch in 2012, Flyknit has reduced 3.5 million pounds of waste and fully transitioned from yarn to recycled polyester, diverting 182 million bottles from landfills.

Recognizing the growing consumer interest in sustainable products and looking to solve consumer challenges such as high energy costs, CPG companies have developed new products to gain access to this market. Proctor & Gamble, for example, conducted a life cycle assessment of its products and found that U.S. households spend 3% of annual electricity budgets on heating water to wash clothes. In 2005, they launched a U.S. and European line of cold-water detergents that require 50% less energy than warm water washing.

Facing strict regulation on chemical release and competition from flowers from Africa, the Dutch flower industry developed a closed-loop system that grows flowers hydroponically in greenhouses, lowering risk of infestation and reducing the use of fertilizers and pesticides. The system also improves product quality by creating regulated growing conditions. Their innovative system has increased productivity and quality, reduced environmental impact and costs, and increased global competitiveness.
Improving Financial Performance
Many business leaders have the erroneous perception that one can have profits or sustainability, but not both. This probably has its roots in Milton Friedman's 50-year old, but still influential, thesis that the only business of a business is profit as well as a hangover from the 1970s and 80s, when low quality, high priced environmental products failed in the market and early socially responsible investing delivered low returns. That conventional wisdom has now reversed.

In addition to the financial benefits that accrue from increased competitive advantage and innovation as discussed earlier, companies are realizing significant cost savings through environmental sustainability-related operational efficiencies. Moreover, investors are now able to track the high performers on ESG (environmental, social and governance factors) and are correlating better financial performance with better ESG performance.

Significant cost reductions can result from improving operational efficiency through better management of natural resources like water and energy, as well as minimizing waste. One study estimated that companies experience an average internal rate of return of 27% to 80% on their low carbon investments.

Since 1994, Dow has invested nearly $2 billion in improving resource efficiency and has saved $9.8 billion from reduced energy and wastewater consumption in manufacturing. In 2013, GE had reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 32% and water use by 45% compared to 2004 and 2006 baselines, respectively, resulting in $300 million in savings.

A focus on sustainability can also unlock opportunities for process and logistics savings. Wal-Mart, for example, aimed to double fleet efficiency between 2005 and 2015 through better routing, truck loading, driver training, and advanced technologies. By the end of 2014, they had improved fuel efficiency approximately 87% compared to the 2005 baseline. In that year, these improvements resulted in 15,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions avoided and savings of nearly $11 million.

Mounting evidence shows that sustainable companies deliver significant positive financial performance, and investors are beginning to value them more highly. Arabesque and University of Oxford reviewed the academic literature on sustainability and corporate performance and found that 90% of 200 studies analyzed conclude that good ESG standards lower the cost of capital; 88% show that good ESG practices result in better operational performance; and 80% show that stock price performance is positively correlated with good sustainability practices.

Here are some other datapoints to consider: Between 2006 and 2010, the top 100 sustainable global companies experienced significantly higher mean sales growth, return on assets, profit before taxation, and cash flows from operations in some sectors compared to control companies. During the 2008 recession, companies committed to sustainability practices achieved "above average" performance in the financial markets, translating into an average of $650 million in incremental market capitalization per company. Additionally, companies with superior environmental performance experienced lower cost of debt by 40-45 basis points. Studies also suggest that companies with strong corporate responsibility reputations "experience no meaningful declines in share price compared to their industry peers during crises" versus firms with poor CSR reputations whose reputations declined by "2.4-3%; a market capitalization loss of $378M per firm."

Investors are paying attention. According to the 2015 EY Global Institutional Investor Survey, investors are increasingly using companies' nonfinancial disclosures to inform their investment decisions. In its survey of over 200 institutional investors, 59.1% of respondents view nonfinancial disclosures as "essential" or "important" to investment decisions, up from 34.8% in 2014. Some 62.4% of investors are concerned about the risk of stranded assets (i.e. assets that lose value prematurely due to environmental, social, or other external factors) and over one-third of respondents reported cutting their holdings of a company in the past year because of this risk.
Building Customer Loyalty
Companies are skeptical about consumer interest in sustainable products - especially where willingness-to-pay is concerned. Some of that is self-inflicted, as early on companies tended to increase "sustainable" product prices substantially and in some cases sold inferior products (e.g. pricy natural cleaning products that did not work).

However, a shift is occurring in the minds of consumers. Today's consumers expect more transparency, honesty, and tangible global impact from companies and can choose from a raft of sustainable, competitively priced, high quality products. In fact, one study found that among numerous factors surveyed, the news coverage regarding environmental and social responsibility was the only significant factor that affected respondents' evaluation of a firm and intent to buy.

Nearly two-thirds of consumers across six international markets believe they "have a responsibility to purchase products that are good for the environment and society" - 82% in emerging markets and 42% in developed markets. In the food and beverage industry, a growing number of consumers are considering values beyond price and taste in their purchasing decisions, such as safety, social impact, and transparency.

Far from feeling skittish about buying sustainable products, today's consumers perceive a higher level of product performance in products from sustainable companies and sustainability information has a significantly positive impact on consumers' evaluation of a company, which translates into purchase intent. The results of these studies support that consumers in a post-Recession era are shifting purchasing decisions to brands with integrity, social responsibility, and sustainability at their core. In fact, Unilever claims its "brands with purpose" are growing at twice the rate as others in their portfolio.

Companies can also charge higher price premiums based on positive corporate responsibility performance. These premiums can reach 20% according to some estimates. Moreover, some studies show that overall sales revenue can increase up to 20% due to corporate responsibility practices.

Another study found that revenues from sustainable products and services grew at six times the rate of overall company revenues between 2010 and 2013, among the 12 members of the S&P Global 100 sampled (Singer, 2015). GE's Ecomagination division, for example, has generated $200 billion in sales since 2005. IKEA's line of sustainable products like LED bulbs and solar panels from its Products for a More Sustainable Life at Home now generate a billion dollars.
Attracting and Engaging Employees
Corporate sustainability initiatives aimed at improving ESG performance and proving value to society can increase employee loyalty, efficiency, and productivity and improve HR statistics related to recruitment, retention, and morale.

Research is finding that 21 st century employees are focusing more on mission, purpose, and work-life balance. Companies that invest in sustainability initiatives tend to create sought-after culture and engagement due to company strategy focusing more on purpose and providing value to society. In addition, companies who embed sustainability in their core business strategy treat employees as critical stakeholders, just as important as shareholders. Employees are proud to work there and feel part of a broader effort.

One study found that morale was 55% better in companies with strong sustainability programs, compared to those with poor ones, and employee loyalty was 38% better. Better morale and motivation translate into reduced absenteeism and improved productivity. Firms that adopted environmental standards have seen a 16% increase in productivity over firms that did not adopt sustainability practices.

Corporate responsibility performance also positively impacts turnover and recruitment. Studies show that firms with greater corporate responsibility performance can reduce average turnover over time by 25-50%. It can also reduce annual quit rates by 3-3.5%, saving replacement costs up to 90%-200% of an employee's annual salary for each retained position.

***

The preponderance of evidence shows that sustainability is going mainstream. Executives can no longer afford to approach sustainability as a "nice to have" or as solid function separated from the "real" business. Those companies that proactively make sustainability core to business strategy will drive innovation and engender enthusiasm and loyalty from employees, customers, suppliers, communities and investors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Comprehensive Business Case for Sustainability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today's executives are dealing with a complex and unprecedented brew of social, environmental, market, and technological trends. These require sophisticated, sustainability-based management. Yet executives are often reluctant to place sustainability core to their company's business strategy in the mistaken belief that the costs outweigh the benefits.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For years we were taught that management has to do with forecasting, budgeting, planning and controlling. Managers were taught to manage, not to lead.

New supervisors and grizzled management veterans were taught how to assign work to subordinates, how to evaluate their teammates' work, how to counsel people on performance problems and how to hire and fire staff members. Everything we were taught about management assumed that the manager would know what to do and was calling the shots.

These days we understand that the old-fashioned view of a manager's duties is wholly insufficient for the new-millennium workplace.

Responsibility for a team of people and its success -- not to mention each team members' well-being and professional development -- is a big assignment to take on. Leadership has very little to do with controlling, budgeting and so on. It has little overlap with assigning work and evaluating it.

Our traditional view of management is task-based and mechanical. In that worldview, we don't think about topics like "How are my teammates holding up? Are they stressed out? Are they feeling good about the future and about the energy on the team?"

For years we pretended that human energy isn't a factor in a team's success, even though anybody who has ever been on any kind of team knows that the team energy, also known as trust level, is the whole ballgame!

We can use the carrot and the stick to get people to perform for a while but eventually, if they don't care about the mission, about their leader and/or about one another, the team will fracture and lose steam. It's inevitable! Today we know that empathetic, trust-based human leadership is not only the most effective way to lead a team but also the most profitable way to run a company.

Here are five enormous differences between managers and leaders. If you hold a leadership role now or aspire to do so in the future, think about steps you can take in each of these areas.
Mission
The traditional view of management assumes that a manager's job is to run an apparatus -- perhaps a corporate Credit Department or a team of programmers. There are clear inputs and outputs and expected results from the engine each manager is responsible for. The manager's job is to keep the machine running smoothly.

In that worldview, the people on the manager's team are essentially machine parts. They are interchangeable. Once they are hired into a role, their job is to perform that role (to run their piece of the machine) according to goals and standards that preceded them and that will outlast their tenure in the job. The presumption is that the machine is more important and more powerful than anyone who helps to run it.

Leadership takes just the opposite view! The energy on your team powers everything you will accomplish.

The machine can change whenever it makes sense to change it, even many times a day. Maybe your machine should change, or maybe it's time to junk the machine and invent something totally new. People are creative. Machines in general are not.

Leaders allow people to design their own jobs as much as possible and to put their own stamp on their jobs.

A leader is not working to achieve machine-like process perfection to be repeated over and over until the end of time.

A leader and his or her team have a mission. They all know what the mission is and they know their piece in it. Maybe at one point your mission is to replace your outdated Credit Department procedures with new procedures that are faster and simpler. Apart from the fact that they have a job and need the paycheck, your teammates know what the Credit Department modernization means for customers, for themselves and for the company.

A mission has a beginning, a middle and an end, no matter what the mission is. When you complete the mission, you'll start a new one.

Maybe your mission is to produce an off-Broadway play or to invent a better mousetrap. Leadership is inextricable from a specific mission that people are excited about. Without a mission, there is no place to lead your team toward! Without a mission, where are you headed?

Who can get excited about doing the same things day after day, year after year, to no visible end except to make a few executives rich? There has to be more to the mission than that, and part of a leader's job is to explore and exalt the connections between his or her team's mission and each team member's personal mission.

This is why I write about plugging into your power source at work, whether that means using a different part of your brain or getting to teach what you know or another element that important to you. We all need that power jolt at work. We all deserve it, too!
Self-Awareness
The old-fashioned, command-and-control view of management did not require that a manager look in the mirror, but leadership requires that activity of a leader every day.

A leader is someone who get outside his or her busy brain to see him- or herself rather than being controlled by his or her emotions, especially fear.

Fear is the emotion that makes managers freak out and bring the hammer down. It makes some of them yell at subordinates or put the fear of termination into them so that people skulk around in terror that they'll make a mistake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Management Vs. Leadership: Five Ways They Are Different

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For years we were taught that management has to do with forecasting, budgeting, planning and controlling. Managers were taught to manage, not to lead. New supervisors and grizzled management veterans were taught how to assign work to subordinates, how to evaluate their teammates' work, how to counsel people on performance problems and how to hire and fire staff members.