The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

LODJ
27,3 Leadership, management, and
derailment
A model of individual success and failure
190
William W. McCartney and Constance R. Campbell
Department of Management, Marketing & Logistics, Georgia Southern
Received April 2005
Revised September 2005 University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA
Accepted October 2005

Abstract
Purpose – This paper examines the relationship among leadership skills, management skills and
individual success and failure in formal organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – A model is presented depicting the interactive relationship
among the three variables and explaining why some high potential employees suffer derailment while
other individuals with similar skills continue to develop and achieve organizational success.
Findings – The model indicates that there is not one combination of management and leadership
skills related to individual success.
Practical implications – Developmental activities should be ongoing regardless of the individual’s
level in the organization.
Originality/value – This paper synthesizes several streams of research into a coherent model that
can be used as a guide for leadership development activities.
Keywords Leadership, Leadership development, Management shills, Human failure
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Over 40 years ago, Koontz (1964) noted that the problem of semantics was one of the
major entanglements in the “management theory jungle,” particularly with respect to
the definitions of the commonly used terms “leadership” and “management.” Koontz
(1964) stated that, “leadership, often made synonymous with managership by some, is
analytically separated by others.” Despite the passage of decades, debate continues
concerning the concepts of “management” and “leadership” and their relationship to
executive success.
As Koontz noted, one perspective on this issue is that leadership and management
are distinct skill sets, which differ from each other to such an extent that they are
unlikely to coexist in a single individual (Zaleznik, 1977). Zaleznik’s (1977, p. 10)
distinctions between management and leadership are both sharp and broad, indicating,
for example, that leaders and managers “differ in motivation, personal history and in
how they think and act.” Hickman’s (1990) viewpoint also provides implicit support for
the unlikely intrapersonal concurrence of leadership and management in his
Leadership & Organization suggestion that embracing the natural tension between leaders and managers gives
Development Journal organizations a competitive advantage. Current textbooks, especially in the area of
Vol. 27 No. 3, 2006
pp. 190-202 leadership, support this position, as they quote the early work of Bennis, presenting
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
opposing lists detailing the differences between “Leaders” and “Managers” (Hughes
DOI 10.1108/01437730610657712 et al., 2002; Shriberg et al., 2005).
 Another view of management and leadership is that one construct is a subset of the Leadership,
other such that one individual could possess both leadership and management skills.
Koontz (1964), for example, believed that managers must have leadership skills but
management,
that leadership is just one of the several functions of the manager. Shriberg et al. (2005, and derailment
p. 138) contend that leadership is a part of the management pie, but that “there is a
good part of leadership that cannot be considered a subset of management.” In
contrast, Bennis and Nanus (1985, p. 21) viewed leadership as the more comprehensive 191
concept of the two and, further, presented leadership as the preferred alternative to
management. For example, they suggest that, “managers are people who do things
right and leaders are people who do the right thing.” Their position is evidenced in
more recent writings in cases in which management skills are downplayed with
statements such as, “in today’s business organizational operations, people want to be
led - not managed!” (Shelton and Darling, 2001, p. 265).
Still others believe that leadership and management are complimentary skill sets
that are both necessary for executive success (Kotter, 1990). Consistent with this idea, it
has been claimed that it is the person’s ability to accept, embrace and enact the
paradoxical skills of management and leadership that distinguishes successful
individuals from high-potential individuals who fail (Abramson, 1997). Russell’s (2001)
exploration of executive success indicated that both problem- and people-oriented
competencies were factors in determining success. Calling a person who possesses both
leadership and management skills a “leader-manager” Hitt (1988) describes them as
individuals who are visionary (i.e. leaders) as well as being capable of implementing
their vision (i.e. managers). Nonetheless, the nature of these combinations of skills and
their relationship to an individual’s success has not been specified.
However, distinctions in the definitions of the two terms persist in the current
literature. Principles of management textbooks generally define management as a
series of activities (one of which is leading) that are performed for the good of an
organization. For instance, Griffin (2002, p. 7) defines management:
. . . as a set of activities (including planning, decision making, organizing, leading and
controlling) directed at an organization’s resources (human, financial, physical and
information) with the aim of achieving organizational goals in an efficient and effective
manner.
In contrast, definitions of leadership tend to focus on the interpersonal relationships
that exist between the leader and the follower, or the group of followers. Hughes et al.
(2002, p. 7), in the introduction to their text, present eight different definitions of
leadership before settling on one by Roach and Behling that defines leadership as “the
process of influencing an organized group toward accomplishing its goals.”
Given this variety of perspectives, it appears that the controversy concerning
whether leadership and management skills are distinct interpersonally or whether they
can coexist intrapersonally has not yet been fully resolved (Yukl, 2002). However,
Daft’s (2003, p. 520) very broad statement that, “a person can be a manager, a leader,
both, or neither” provides an inclusive framework for addressing the controversy
concerning management and leadership. Daft’s statement effectively incorporates all of
the positions presented above, although there is still little specification as to how these
positions relate to individual success.
The purpose of this paper is to expand upon Daft’s ideas by presenting a model of
individual success and failure that incorporates the constructs of leadership and
LODJ management. The primary contribution of the model is an attempt to specify the
27,3 relationship between leadership and management skills and individual success.

A model of individual success and failure

The model presented in Figure 1 represents Daft’s (2003) position that it is possible for
an individual to be a leader, a manager, both or neither. While drawing on Daft’s work,
192 the model does not classify individuals as being either managers or leaders but as
having various combinations of management or leadership skills. It further assumes
that both leadership and management skills are necessary, in varying degrees, for
individual success, and that developmental activities can be used to improve the
likelihood of success, given the existence of certain foundational skills. While the model
is based on the assumption that neither skill will ensure success without some
component of the other, it does recognize that sufficiently high levels of either
management skills or leadership skills are reason for a person to be designated as a
high-potential employee. The model provides the framework for the discussion that
follows.

Low skill levels – candidates for derailment

As Figure 1 shows, individuals with very low levels of management and leadership
skills are not successful simply because they are unlikely to be selected for
leader/manager positions. That is, they do not possess the requisite skills that are the
threshold for selection. The assumption is that individuals are only selected for
positions of responsibility if there are indications of potential in at least one of the two
areas.
Individuals who have moderate skills in one area, either leadership or management,
with low skills in the other area are identified as candidates for derailment. Kellerman
(2004) notes that stories of leader failure can be as instructive as are stories of leader
success. Yet in the decade since Hogan et al. (1994, p. 498) noted, “derailment is
curiously understudied given the frequency with which it occurs,” there are still few
academic treatments of the topic or theoretical developments explaining
leader-manager derailment (McNally and Parry, 2002).

Candidate Successful Successful

H for Combination Combination
Development of Skills of Skills

Candidate Successful
Managerial Likely
M for Combination
Skills Derailed
Development of Skills

Candidate
Likely not Likely
L for
Selected Derailed
Development
Figure 1.
L M H
A model of individual
success and failure Leadership
Skills
Derailment occurs when individuals who are perceived to have high potential for Leadership,
success become plateaued at a lower level than expected, are demoted, or leave the management,
organization either voluntarily or involuntarily (Lombardo and McCauley, 1988;
McNally and Parry, 2002). It may be that at one time these individuals were recognized and derailment
as having potential, but somehow did not continue to develop. Examples of derailment
include individuals who have demonstrated self-defeating behaviors, those who have
not learned from previous experience, or those whose area of strength is not sufficient 193
to offset a critical weakness in another area.
The studies of individual derailment, summarized in the lower two quadrants in
Table I, provide support for the notion that both management and leadership skills are
necessary for executive success and failure. As shown in the portion of Table I related
to failure in organizations, there are four studies pointing out a deficiency of
management skills that contribute to failure and nine studies that relate failure to a
deficiency of leadership skills.
Of all the contributing factors shown in the lower two quadrants of Table I,
failing to maintain positive interpersonal relationships is the most commonly cited
reason leading to derailment (Hogan and Hogan, 2001; Lombardo and McCauley,
1988; McNally and Parry, 2002; Van Velsor and Leslie, 1995). Specific problems
cited in this regard include abrasive behavior toward others (Lombardo and
McCauley, 1988) as well as appearing cold, aloof and arrogant (McCall and
Lombardo, 1983). Individuals with these problems have also been found to lack the
ability to balance and maintain interpersonal relationships with a variety of
constituencies simultaneously (Hogan and Hogan, 2001). A particular category of
problems related to interpersonal relationships includes the inability to build a team
due to poor selection of team members, the inability to mold the staff into a team,
and the inability to resolve conflicts among team members (Hogan and Hogan, 2001;
Lombardo and McCauley, 1988; McNally and Parry, 2002; Van Velsor and Leslie,
1995).
A second leadership deficiency related to derailment (shown in the bottom right
quadrant of Table I) is the inability to adapt to changes when confronted with new
situations (Van Velsor and Leslie, 1995). Van Velsor et al. (1993) discovered that
fluidity, teachability, humility, and recognition of the need to learn more are all
characteristic of effective leaders. In contrast, rigidity appears to be a common
characteristic of executives who derail.
A particular deficiency related to the problem of rigidity is the inability to adapt to
the boss’s style or to the culture of the organization. Failure to adapt can result in
strategic differences between the individual and the organization and/or its
administration (Hogan and Hogan, 2001; McCall and Lombardo, 1983; Morrison et al.,
1987). This may be an area where success in middle management engenders patterns
of leadership that are actually harmful to use in executive positions. Specifically, an
individual may have achieved success in a middle management position based on his
or her exercise of a particular set of behaviors. When role definitions change as the
individual moves into upper management, the individual may continue to rely upon the
same set of behaviors, resulting in reactive rather than proactive leadership styles
(Hogan and Hogan, 2001).
Another factor in derailment that is thematic in the literature falls under both the
management and the leadership skills areas. Focusing upon the personality of the
LODJ
Factors influencing success and failure
27,3 Factors related to
management skills Factors related to leadership skills

Factors related to success in Resources problem-solving skills Interpersonal skills (Richards and
organizations (Russell, 2001) Inskeep, 1974; Lombardo and
194 Specialized knowledge (Boyatzis, McCauley 1988; Russell, 2001)
1982) Idealism in the form of vision
Achievement orientation (Spencer (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kouzes
and Spencer, 1993) and Posner, 1993)
Directing subordinates (Posier andChallenging processes (Kouzes
Kouser, 1993) and Posner, 1993, 1988)
Goal achievement (Boyatzis, 1982) Strategic vision (Lombardo and
Implementing a vision (Hitt, 1988)McCauley, 1988)
Synergistic thinking (Kotter, 1990)
Emotional maturity (Lombardo
and McCauley, 1988)
Nurturing growth and
development (Wheatey, 1999)
Factors related to failure Failure to meet objectives (Hogan Poor interpersonal relationship
in organizations and Hogan, 2001; Leslie and Van (Hogan and Hogan, 2001; Leslie
Velsor, 1996) and Van Velsor, 1996; McNally
Over managing (McCall and and Parry, 2002)
Lombardo, 1983) Abrasive behavior (Lombardo and
Lack of follow through (Lombardo McCauley, 1988)
and McCall, 1988) Appearing cold, aloof, and
Inability to prioritize (Hogan and arrogant (McCall and Lombardo,
Hogan, 2001) 1983)
Inability to build a team and
resolve conflict (Hogan and Hogan,
2001; Leslie and VanVelsor, 1996,
1995; Lombardo and McCauley,
1988; McNally and Parry, 2002)
Inability to adapt and change (Van
Velsor and Leslie, 1996)
Inability to adapt to boss’ style or
culture change (Hogan and Hogan,
2001; Leslie and Van Velsor 1996;
Table I. McCall and Lombardo, 1983;
Factors related to Morrison et al., 1987)
individual success and Reactive rather than proactive
failure (Hogan and Hogan, 2001)

leader as the cause of derailment, Hogan and Hogan (2001) suggest that derailment can
be due to the presence of undesirable personality characteristics rather than the
absence of desirable ones. Labeling these undesirable traits:
. . . dysfunctional and using derailment literature and the personality disorders described
in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – IV as a guide, they
enumerate eleven personality dimensions related to derailment.
Factor analysis of the eleven dimensions indicated that they clustered around three Leadership,
themes: “moving away from people” “moving toward people” and “moving against management,
people.”
The first theme, “moving away from people” included the dimensions of cautious,
and derailment
reserved, skeptical, leisurely, and excitable. These personality characteristics appear to
be consistent with individuals who rely upon management skills for success. The
theme, “moving toward people” consists of the characteristics of being dutiful and 195
diligent, which also seem to pertain to the performance-related aspects of management.
The category, “moving against people” which includes characteristics such as bold,
imaginative, colorful, and mischievous fits descriptions of individuals with a high level
of leadership skills.
Barrick and Mount (1993) found that two dimensions of personality,
conscientiousness and extraversion, had a moderate positive relationship on job
performance. Their study indicated that the impact of these two personality
variables depended upon the degree of leader autonomy, with the two variables
being more important for leaders with high autonomy than those with low
autonomy.
Several researchers (Kaplan and Norton, 1996; Murensky, 2000) have attempted to
explain organizational performance through the use of global measures such as those
contained in a balanced scorecard. For example, Murensky (2000, p. 3) reported that
several traits (i.e. altruism, feelings and straightforwardness) were negatively related
to manager’s performance on balanced scorecard measures, but concluded that, while
these measures are “useful for assessing organizational performance, they may not
effectively differentiate among individual leaders.” While personality traits obviously
are important in explaining success and failure, the derailment literature generally
focuses on the manifestation of various personality traits through leader behavior,
rather than the individual components of personality.
In terms of management skills related to derailment, McCall and Lombardo’s (1983)
interviews of top executives who had observed derailers indicated that the
explanations for why high potential individuals were derailed tended to focus on
managerial inadequacies. Kellerman (2004), in discussing the “dark side” of
leader-manager behavior, provides exemplars of managerial skills that contribute to
executive derailment. For instance, one of her “dark-side” behaviors is the problem of
focusing too much on performance.
As can be seen in the lower left quadrant of Table I, performance issues appear to be
a common explanation for derailment. The issue is sometimes described only generally
as “performance problems” (McCall and Lombardo, 1983; Morrison et al., 1987) or as a
“failure to meet business objectives” (Hogan and Hogan, 2001). More specific
performance issues involved in derailment include lack of follow through (Lombardo
and McCauley, 1988), an inability to prioritize (Hogan and Hogan, 2001), or
“overmanaging” (McCall and Lombardo, 1983).
It is clear from the derailment literature that individuals with leadership and/or
management skill deficiencies are likely to fail. The three quadrants in the lower left
corner of the model represent those most at risk.
LODJ Moderate skill levels – candidates for development
27,3 The next group of cells in the model, along the diagonal from the top left to the bottom
right, describes individuals who are strong candidates for development. These are
candidates who have either exceptional leadership or management skills or those who
have a promising level of skills in both areas. Even though these individuals may have
been identified as “high potential” employees, they are not likely to be fully capable
196 under challenging conditions, nor are they likely to be successful at the executive level.
It is possible that these individuals may be successful in the short-run or may be able to
perform adequately at the lower levels of an organization without development, but it
is unlikely that will maximize their potential without developmental intervention.
Michael Shenkman makes the case for development by writing that “potential
leaders need to be recognized and nurtured.” He goes on to say that being “called” to
leadership is not enough, “the called leader then must develop the needed skills”
(Shenkman, 2005, p. 42). The importance of developmental activities in formal
organizations is further illustrated in research reported by Burns and Morgan (2005).
Their study summarized substantial research that identified six unique levels of
managerial work. The results of their study indicated that 95 percent of managers
spend their entire careers within the first four levels of a hierarchy and that
development, while different for each level of management, is essential to avoid
derailment (Burns and Morgan, 2005).
Individuals in these three quadrants of the model are characterized by having some
of the factors for success presented in the top portion of Table I. Those in the top left
quadrant of the model are individuals who have demonstrated substantial
management skills but are lacking in leadership skills. The importance of leadership
skill development for these individuals is widely understood. Several researchers (as
shown in the top right quadrant of Table I) have identified the leadership skill of
interpersonal relations, sometimes described as the need to build and maintain a broad
range of interpersonal relationships, as being critical to success (Kotter, 1990;
Lombardo and McCauley, 1988).
Developing visioning capabilities is another leadership skill that is commonly
associated with effectiveness. This capability consists of a leader being able to develop
a strategic vision (Lombardo and McCauley, 1988) and to inspire others to adopt and
share the vision (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kouzes and Posner, 1993). Bennis and
Thomas conclude that individual success is partially related to a leader’s ability to
“engage others in shared meaning” and that effective leaders are able to “mobilize
employees” in a “distinctive and compelling voice” (Bennis and Thomas, 2002, p. 39).
In addition to visioning skills, Kotter (1996) identified aligning and communicating
direction, motivating and inspiring employees, and producing useful change as
important leadership skills to be acquired.
In contrast, individuals residing in the bottom right hand quadrant of the model are
characterized as having substantial leadership skills but lacking the management
skills necessary to reach their potential. Therefore, developmental activities for these
individuals should necessarily focus on improving their management skill deficiencies
and in developing the skills related to success, shown in the top left quadrant of Table I.
An important managerial skill impacting success is the requirement for effective
leaders to possess specialized knowledge (Boyatzis, 1982). The specialized knowledge
of the individual managerial role becomes especially important when directing
subordinates. However, it is important that the focus is on directing subordinates Leadership,
toward being enabled themselves, instead of waiting for direction (Kouzes and Posner, management,
1993).
Obviously, goal achievement is also important (Boyatzis, 1982). However, and derailment
performance needs to be redirected toward strategic skills (Lombardo and
McCauley, 1988), directed at implementing a vision (Hitt, 1988), rather than overly
focusing on technical skills (Lombardo and McCauley, 1988). According to Burns 197
(2002), leaders must keep people focused on core values and mission, and encourage
perpetual transformation of the organization as a means of pursuing its core mission.
Support for developing the individual with a moderate level of both leadership and
management skills follows from the previous discussion of the other two quadrants.
Research tells us that separation from the organization is not the only form of
derailment. Approximately 25 percent of individuals identified as high-potential
employees are derailed because they become plateaued at a lower level in the
organization (McCall and Lombardo, 1983). We can assume that they no longer are
being considered for promotion because of some perceived skill deficiency.
Having the appropriate mix of management and leadership skills is critical. For
example, Russell’s (2001) analysis indicated that resource-problem-solving skills
(management skills) were key to initial success, however, people oriented skills
(leadership skills) were key to long-term success. As stated earlier, some skills that lead
to success in middle management jobs could actually contribute to derailment in
higher-level jobs. For example, Kouzes and Posner (1993) suggest that effective
top-level executives must challenge the processes that exist in the organization,
whereas lower level managers are responsible for enacting processes. Therefore, it
becomes fairly obvious that as one moves up in the organization adaptability becomes
more important. Successful individuals are not only the ones who can adapt but also
the ones with the diagnostics skills that lead them to the appropriate behavior based
upon the situation.

Top level skills – synergistic combinations

The final three components in the model depict individuals with a combination of
management and leadership skills that are likely to insure success at the executive
level. Note that the model recognizes the possibility that there is more than one
successful combination of leadership and management skills, based on the notion that
all successful executives are not the same.
A basic assumption of the model presented here is that leadership skills and
management skills are two distinct skill sets, which are sometimes even paradoxical in
nature, but that possessing the flexibility to effectively balance the paradox is an
essential feature of executive success (Vinten, 1992). Russell’s (2001) data led him to the
conclusion that a different set of performance skills are needed as one moves from
middle-level management to executive management. We argue that a key performance
skill needed for executive success is the flexibility to be a synergist; an individual who
is able to appropriately enact paradoxical skill sets to deal with complex issues.
According to individuals writing about complexity in organizations, the ability
to be flexible and adaptable is a key aspect of executive success (Wheatley, 1999).
As individuals move toward executive positions, their level of involvement with
the uncertainty of the system increases (Vinten, 1992), which in turn increases the
LODJ need to be adaptable. In a study illustrating the overlap between management and
27,3 leadership, as well as the need for adaptability, Caldwell (2003) found that change
leaders and change managers had three common characteristics; learning from
others, openness to new ideas, and adaptability and flexibility.
One of the areas in which both leadership and management skills are required
is cognitive activity. The cognitive activity related to leadership skills is
198 characterized by searches for new schemata, or organized knowledge structures
(Lord and Emrich, 2001), with the intent of finding creative and flexible new ways
to conceptualize the world (Yukl, 2002). Individuals with these skills, i.e. “leaders,”
not only look for new ways to solve problems, but also look for new problems to
solve (Zaleznik, 1977). The cognitive activity related to management skills centers
upon attempts to fit new information into existing schemata (Burns, 2002), with
the intent of focusing on presenting problems and maintaining stability and order
(Yukl, 2002). Steinberg and Vroom (2002) pointed out that cognitive skills are
important in all decision-making models and apply to both management and
leadership issues. Our model implies that effective leader/managers must be able
to create new schemata and use existing ones, as enacted in the creation a vision
for the organization and implementation of it too.
A second area in which synergy is needed between leadership and management
skills, is in the mode of interpersonal relations. Positive interpersonal relationships are
a foundation of leadership, which is generally defined as a social influence process
(Yukl, 2002). Leaders’ interpersonal relationships are generally characterized as human
and personal (Zaleznik, 1977), qualities that are needed if leaders are to instigate
change through noncoercive means and assist people in coping with change (Kotter,
1990). On the other hand, management skills involve working with people to
accomplish objectives, but their interpersonal interactions may sometimes be
characterized as impersonal (Zaleznik, 1977). It appears that management skills
primarily incorporate the notion of performance, in the form of accomplishing
objectives and completing role requirements (Bennis and Nanus, 1985). Rather than
focusing on people, management skills focus on maintaining and adhering to
established routines and procedures (Kotter, 1990). Again, we propose that successful
executives must be able to interact in both leadership and management modes of
interpersonal relations as appropriate.
One indicator that both leadership and management skills are critical for executives
is what can occur when either skill is too prevalent. When leadership overshadows
management, the organization can be led into a “Zone of Randomness” (Burns, 2002), a
volatile state of extreme change, resulting in anarchy and disintegration (Yukl, 2002)
and a system that devolves into chaos (Hickman, 1990). On the other hand,
management that overshadows leadership can lead an organization into a “Zone of
Stability” characterized by impersonal relationships, a lack of emotional connectedness
and a lack of interdependence (Burns, 2002; Zaleznik, 1977). The organization becomes
so stable that innovation and risk-taking is discouraged, such that current cultures are
maintained even when ineffective (Burns, 2002; Yukl, 2002).
The over-reliance on one skill, to the exclusion of the other, can manifest itself at the
highest levels of even the largest organizations. Recently, Fortune magazine reported
on the firing of one of most respected female executives in the USA. For six years
running, she had been listed at the top of Fortune’s list of the most powerful women in
America. The reason given for her dismissal by the board of directors was her failure Leadership,
to implement the strategic vision of the corporation, a skill most closely related to management,
management activities (Loomis, 2005). Conversely, several years ago when Jack Welch
stepped down as CEO of General Electric, the individual he described as “the best and derailment
operating executive I’ve ever seen” was not chosen as his replacement presumably
because of perceived shortcomings on the leadership side of the equation (Sellers,
2002). While these two cases seem to illustrate polar opposites on the 199
leadership-management skill continuum, they are actually fairly typical examples of
the reasons for CEO’s failure. Charan and Colvin (1999), in a article, examined the
failure of 38 CEO’s of some of the largest companies in the world and concluded that
the cause of failure was almost equally split between an absence of leadership skills
(people problems and lifer syndrome) and the absence of management skills (decision
gridlock and bad earnings news). One must presume that development of both
management and leadership skills is a continuous process if one is to be successful,
regardless of organizational level.

Conclusion
In this paper, we have proposed a model for explaining the relationship among
leadership skills, management skills, and individual success and failure. We believe
that an appropriate mix of leadership and management skills are necessary for success
in formal organizations and that the optimal mix may change as one moves up in an
organization. We also contend that there is a certain qualifying level of skill that must
be present in each of the two areas for an individual to be selected for a
leadership/management role or to avoid premature derailment. This means good
selection techniques are very important when organizations strive to identify their
“high potential” employees. However, once an individual has met the initial
expectations or has been identified as “high potential,” organizational development
activities will still be necessary to avoid derailment. Practitioners need to find ways to
assess the skill deficiencies of leader-managers and design developmental plans that
enhance the opportunities for success. Finally, we believe there is more than one
successful combination of leadership and management skills that ensures long-term
success, and regardless of organizational level, development should be a continuous
activity.
One of the issues that this paper identifies, but does not resolve, is the ongoing
semantics problem in the field. The terms “management” “leadership” and “executive”
are still confusing to most people, especially among practitioners. Some writers use the
terms interchangeably, others argue that the terms are substantially different and
draw distinct comparisons. Organizations use all three terms with little explanation of
meaning. Terms such as “regional manager” “group leader” and “operating executive”
are commonly used in organizations. Can we assume that a “regional manager” does
not lead and motivate employees, or that a “group leader” does not plan, organize, or
control activities? And what about the term “executive?” Is it an appropriate title for a
middle-level manager? The semantics problem really becomes an issue when one is
searching for a term to describe an individual possessing a combination of
management and leadership skills that may reside at various levels in an organization.
There is no obvious solution to this problem other than a convoluted hyphenated
hybrid such as manager-leader-executive, which does not appear to be an optimum
LODJ solution. We believe the term “manager” is the more inclusive term but it is unlikely to
27,3 be accepted by writers and researchers in the behavioral sciences. Therefore, we
believe the term “leader-manager” is the most logical solution to the problem.
Finally, an issue that deserves much more attention from serious researchers is the
topic of managerial derailment. There have been few studies with still fewer details.
We suspect that the scarcity of research is due to the fact that the topic lends itself to a
200 longitudinal study. However, the current state of the research raises as many questions
as it answers. Is derailment a consistent phenomenon across all levels of an
organization? Is the derailment rate same regardless of gender? Is the rate of
derailment the same in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations? These questions
deserve attention in a continuing effort to understand individual success and failure in
organizations.

References
Abramson, M.A. (1997), “Managing paradox”, Government Executive, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 49-50.
Barrick, M. and Mount, M. (1993), “Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the
big five personality dimensions and job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 111-8.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
Bennis, W. and Thomas, R. (2002), “Crucibles of leadership”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80
No. 9, p. 39.
Boyatzis, R. (1982), The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Burns, G. and Morgan, R. (2005), “Mastering the new, letting go of the old”, Canadian HR
Reporter, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 9-12.
Burns, J.S. (2002), “Chaos theory and leadership studies: exploring uncharted seas”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 42-57.
Caldwell, R. (2003), “Change leaders and change managers: different or complementary?”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 285-93.
Charan, R. and Colvin, G. (1999), “Why CEO’s fail”, Fortune, p. 145.
Daft, R.L. (2003), Management, 6th ed., South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.
Hickman, C.R. (1990), Mind of a Manager Soul of a Leader, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hitt, W.D. (1988), The Nature of Leadership, Battele Press, Columbus, OH.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J. and Hogan, J. (1994), “What we know about leadership: effectiveness and
personality”, American Psychologist, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 493-504.
Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (2001), “Assessing leadership: a view from the dark side”, International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 40-51.
Hughes, R., Ginnett, R. and Curphy, G. (2002), Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience,
4th ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Kellerman, B. (2004), “Leadership warts and all”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 40-5.
Koontz, H. (1964), Toward a United Theory of Management, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, NY.
Kotter, J.P. (1990), “What leaders really do”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 103-11. Leadership,
Kotter, J.P. (1996), A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, The Free management,
Press, New York, NY.
and derailment
Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (1993), “The credibility factor”, The Healthcare Forum Journal, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 16-23.
Lombardo, M.M. and McCauley, C.D. (1988), “The dynamics of management derailment”,
Technical Report Number 34, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. 201
Loomis, C.J. (2005), “How the HP board KO’d Carley”, Fortune, p. 151.
Lord, R.G. and Emrich, C.G. (2001), “Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box:
extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 551-79.
McCall, M. and Lombardo, M. (1983), “Off the track: why and how successful executives get
derailed”, Technical report, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
McNally, B. and Parry, K. (2002), “A phenomenological examination of chief executive
derailment/failure”, paper presented at ANZAM-IFSAM 6th World Congress. Gold Coast,
Australia, July 10-13.
Morrison, A., White, R. and VanVelsor, E. (1987), “Executive women: substance plus style”,
Psychology Today, Vol. 21 No. 8, p. 18.
Murensky, C. (2000), “The relationship between emotional intelligence, personality, critical
thinking ability and organizational leadership performance at upper levels of
management”, doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Russell, C.J. (2001), “A longitudinal study of top-level executive performance”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 560-73.
Sellers, P. (2002), “Something to prove”, Fortune, p. 148.
Shelton, C.K. and Darling, J.R. (2001), “The quantum skills model in management: a new
paradigm to enhance effective leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development,
Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 264-74.
Shenkman, M. (2005), “Born to be recognized”, Training, Vol. 42 No. 1, p. 42.
Shriberg, A., Shriberg, D. and Kumari, R. (2005), Practicing Leadership: Principles and
Applications, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Steinberg, R. and Vroom, V. (2002), “The person versus the situation in leadership”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 301-23.
VanVelsor, E. and Leslie, J.B. (1995), “Why executives derail: perspectives across time and
cultures”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 62-72.
Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S. and Leslie, J.B. (1993), “An examination of the relationships among
self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos 2-3, pp. 249-64.
Vinten, G. (1992), “Thriving on chaos: the route to management survival”, Management Decision,
Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 22-9.
Wheatley, M. (1999), Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zaleznik, A. (1977), “Managers and leaders – are they different?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 55 No. 3, p. 67.
LODJ Further reading
27,3 Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work, Prentice-Hall International Inc., London.

About the author

William W. McCartney is a Professor of Management at Georgia Southern University. His
primary research interests include leadership and motivation, managerial derailment, and
202 entrepreneurial leadership. McCartney teaches in the area of leadership and strategic
management. William W. McCartney is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
bmccart@georgiasouthern.edu
Constance R. Campbell is an Associate Professor of Management at Georgia Southern
University. Her primary research interests include intra-individual perspectives on leadership,
leader-member exchanges, and attribution theory. Campbell teaches in the area of international
management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints