The Craft of Leadership: Reflections on the State of Management

Sometimes, I look at management today and think about how much has changed.

We have AI helping us make decisions, remote teams working across time zones, and entire industries transforming overnight.

But then I think about the conversations I have with other managers—about people, challenges, and finding balance—and I realize how little has changed.

At its core, management is still about working with people, making choices, and trying to build something that lasts.

The tools and trends may be different, but the heart of it remains the same.

Still, it feels like we’re at a crossroads.

On one side, there’s this incredible progress—new ways of working, smarter technologies, and more emphasis on collaboration and innovation.

On the other, I see a growing focus on business metrics, short-term results, and chasing the next big thing.

Are we losing sight of what management is supposed to be?

Are we so caught up in doing more and doing it faster that we’ve forgotten to ask why and how we’re doing it in the first place?

In this article, I want to take a closer look at where management has been, where it’s going, and what it means today. We’ll explore the evolution of management, from its industrial roots to the rise of Lean and Agile.

We’ll reflect on the wisdom of thinkers like Mintzberg and Drucker, who remind us of the human and ethical side of leadership.

And we’ll tackle the big challenges managers face today—technological shifts, generational changes, and the balance between business and humanity.

Most importantly, we’ll ask what it takes to manage well in a world that never stops changing.

The role of a manager, once rooted in predictable structures and traditional hierarchies, has transformed into something far more dynamic and multifaceted.

And we know that several forces are driving this transformation, right?

The political landscape is characterized by volatility, with trade wars, regulatory changes, and geopolitical tensions creating uncertainty for organizations.

Meanwhile, generational shifts in the workforce—marked by the rise of Millennials and Generation Z—have redefined expectations around work-life balance, inclusivity, and purpose.

On top of these cultural shifts, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, powered by artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and automation, is reshaping industries at an unprecedented pace.

Yet, with all these challenges come opportunities.

Modern management is a balancing act—between agility and stability, innovation and tradition, technology and humanity.

The question that arises is whether we, as managers and leaders, are equipped to meet these challenges while staying true to the core principles of management as a discipline.

Have we lost touch with the fundamental tenets that underpin effective management?

Are we prioritizing short-term gains at the expense of long-term sustainability?

The Evolution of Management: From Its Foundations to the Present Day

Management is closely connected to the history of modern industry. As societies transitioned from agrarian economies to industrial powerhouses in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the need for a systematic approach to organizing work became clear.

Factories and enterprises were growing larger, and with them came complexities that required structured ways to coordinate labor, allocate resources, and achieve efficiency.

This need marked the birth of management as a formal discipline, with pioneers like Frederick Winslow Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber laying the foundational theories that still resonate today.

Frederick Winslow Taylor’s Scientific Management was among the first attempts to bring order to the chaos of industrial work.

Published in 1911, Taylor’s ideas revolved around breaking tasks into their smallest components, analyzing them rigorously, and optimizing every motion for efficiency.

His time-and-motion studies became synonymous with productivity in the early 20th century, leading to significant gains in output across industries.

However, Taylor’s approach was not without criticism; it often reduced workers to mere instruments of production, ignoring their individuality and creativity.

Yet, his work provided a foundation for future advancements, emphasizing the importance of measurement and process improvement in management.

Building on Taylor’s ideas, Henri Fayol introduced a broader perspective that went beyond the factory floor. As a French mining engineer, Fayol focused on the administrative aspects of management, identifying functions such as planning, organizing, leading, and controlling.

His 14 Principles of Management, including division of labor, unity of command, and equity, became essential building blocks for understanding how organizations should operate.

Fayol’s emphasis on the role of managers as strategists and coordinators added a layer of sophistication to early management thought.

Meanwhile, Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy provided a structural lens through which organizations could be understood. Weber emphasized the importance of formalized rules, clear hierarchies, and role specialization. In a time of rapid industrialization, bureaucracy offered a framework for achieving consistency, accountability, and scalability in large organizations.

While bureaucracy has since become a term with negative connotations, its initial intent was to bring order and fairness to complex systems—a goal that remains relevant today.

The initial emphasis on efficiency and structure began to shift in the 1920s and 1930s with the emergence of the Human Relations Movement.

Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne Studies demonstrated that productivity wasn’t just a matter of mechanics; it was deeply influenced by social dynamics and workers’ psychological well-being.

Conducted at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works, the studies showed that simply paying attention to employees and involving them in decision-making could boost morale and output. This marked a turning point, as management began to recognize the importance of the human element in organizational success.

In the decades that followed, thinkers like Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor expanded on this human-centric view of management.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943) argued that employees are motivated not only by basic physiological and safety needs but also by higher-level desires for belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.

This perspective encouraged managers to look beyond wages and working conditions, fostering environments where employees could grow and thrive. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y (1960) further challenged assumptions about worker behavior.

While Theory X portrayed workers as inherently lazy and requiring strict supervision, Theory Y suggested that employees are naturally motivated and capable of self-direction when given the right conditions.

The mid-20th century also saw the rise of Peter Drucker, a thinker whose influence on management is difficult to overstate. In his seminal book The Practice of Management (1954), Drucker introduced the concept of management as a profession, much like medicine or law.

He emphasized the importance of knowledge workers—employees whose primary contribution is intellectual rather than manual—and championed decentralization as a means of empowering individuals and fostering innovation.

Drucker’s introduction of Management by Objectives (MBO) provided a framework for aligning individual efforts with organizational goals, laying the groundwork for many performance management systems still in use today.

As industries matured, so too did the understanding of organizations as complex, interconnected systems. The Systems Thinking approach, popularized in the 1960s and 1970s, encouraged managers to view their organizations as wholes rather than isolated parts.

This holistic perspective acknowledged that changes in one area often had ripple effects throughout the organization, highlighting the importance of adaptability and interdependence in managerial decision-making.

Thinkers like Ludwig von Bertalanffy and later Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline, 1990) championed this approach, offering tools to understand and address the dynamic nature of modern organizations.

The latter half of the 20th century brought additional refinements with the introduction of contingency theory, which argued that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to management.

Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch demonstrated that effective management depends on aligning organizational structures and strategies with the unique demands of the external environment.

This insight shifted the focus from universal principles to context-specific solutions, reflecting the growing complexity of global markets and diverse industries.

As the 21st century began, the rise of Agile and Lean methodologies brought new energy to the discipline.

Agile, with its emphasis on adaptability and customer-centricity, challenged traditional project management models, particularly in technology-driven sectors.

Lean, rooted in Toyota’s production system, combined efficiency with respect for people, inspiring organizations to continuously improve while empowering employees.

These approaches represented a return to some of management’s early ideals—balancing structure with human creativity—but adapted to the speed and scale of modern business.

Today, management continues to evolve, shaped by technological advancements, societal changes, and shifting expectations.

While the tools and theories have multiplied, the core challenge remains the same: how to lead people and organizations effectively in a world that never stops changing.

The journey of management from its industrial roots to its present-day complexity offers not just lessons in efficiency and structure but also enduring insights into the human spirit, creativity, and the art of leadership.

As we look forward, the question is not whether management will change but how managers will rise to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

The Lean Revolution

The story of Lean management begins with a simple but profound realization: true efficiency is about doing the right things in the right way.

Emerging in the mid-20th century, Lean principles transformed how organizations thought about productivity and value.

At its core was Toyota’s production system, developed by Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo Shingo, which introduced revolutionary ideas like eliminating waste (muda), streamlining value streams, and empowering frontline workers. Lean wasn’t just about reducing costs; it was about creating more value for customers by unlocking potential—both in processes and people.

What set Lean apart from earlier approaches, like Taylor’s Scientific Management, was its respect for human creativity.

The Toyota Way, Toyota’s guiding philosophy, emphasized two foundational principles: respect for people and continuous improvement.

By empowering workers to identify and solve problems, Lean shifted the responsibility for innovation from managers alone to everyone in the organization.

This wasn’t just a methodology for operational efficiency; it was a cultural movement that viewed employees as collaborators in the pursuit of excellence.

The best solutions, Lean argued, often come from those closest to the work.

As Lean thinking spread globally, its influence extended beyond manufacturing.

The publication of Lean Thinking by James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones in 1996 helped bring Lean principles to industries like healthcare, software development, and logistics.

Companies adopted practices like just-in-time inventory, Kaizen (continuous improvement), and visual management to improve workflows and enhance customer value. But more than a set of tools, Lean introduced a mindset—a way of seeing work as a system that could always improve through iteration and collaboration.

However, the rapid adoption of Lean often came with a misunderstanding of its deeper principles.

Many organizations embraced Lean superficially, treating it as a cost-cutting tool rather than a philosophy of empowerment and innovation.

Tools like Kanban boards or 5S were implemented without truly respecting or engaging the people expected to use them.

This led to short-term productivity gains but failed to achieve the cultural transformation Lean advocates.

The lesson was clear: without embedding respect and continuous learning into the organizational DNA, Lean becomes just another fleeting management trend.

Lean’s legacy lies in its ability to balance efficiency with empathy. It challenges us to think about people not as cogs in a machine but as the drivers of meaningful progress.

In a world increasingly dominated by automation and data, Lean’s emphasis on collaboration and respect remains a timely reminder that great organizations don’t succeed by processes alone—they succeed by empowering their people and reducing waste.

This foundational focus on continuous improvement and adaptability set the stage for a new paradigm that would emerge at the dawn of the 21st century: Agile.

The Agile Transformation

If Lean revolutionized how organizations approached efficiency and value, Agile took these principles and adapted them to an environment of constant change and uncertainty.

At the turn of the 21st century, traditional project management frameworks were faltering in the face of increasing complexity, particularly in the software industry.

Inspired by many of Lean’s core principles, Agile emerged as a response to these challenges, offering a mindset that emphasized adaptability, collaboration, and customer-centricity.

In 2001, the Agile Manifesto crystallized this movement, calling for a fundamental shift in how work was approached.

The values of Agile closely mirrored those of Lean but addressed the unique demands of knowledge work. Agile prioritized individuals and interactions over processes and tools, working solutions over comprehensive documentation, and responding to change over rigid planning.

Like Lean, it recognized that those closest to the work—developers, designers, and frontline team members—often held the insights needed to drive innovation.

Agile reframed uncertainty not as a barrier but as an opportunity to learn and adapt continuously.

The operationalization of Agile principles brought frameworks like Scrum and Kanban to the forefront.

These frameworks embodied Agile’s central theme: progress through iteration and collaboration.

Much like Lean, Agile’s rapid adoption revealed challenges. While many organizations embraced its tools and ceremonies, they often missed its core philosophy.

Terms like “Agile theater” emerged to describe environments where teams went through the motions of stand-ups and retrospectives without internalizing the mindset of adaptability and trust.

Just as with Lean, Agile’s effectiveness depended on a cultural shift, one that placed people, learning, and innovation at the center.

The connection between Lean and Agile becomes clear in their shared values: continuous improvement, respect for people, and a focus on delivering value to customers.

Where Lean emphasized eliminating waste and streamlining processes, Agile added a layer of flexibility, recognizing that the pace of modern work often demands a faster response to shifting conditions.

At its best, Agile is more than a set of frameworks; it’s a call to rethink management itself.

It challenges leaders to let go of control and embrace facilitation, empowering teams to experiment, learn, and grow.

Just as Lean taught us that efficiency and empathy can coexist, Agile teaches us that adaptability and alignment are not opposites but essential partners.

Together, these philosophies offer a roadmap for organizations striving to thrive in complexity—a reminder that the best work happens when we put trust, collaboration, and continuous learning at the heart of what we do.

Beyond the Framework: The Real Challenge of Becoming Agile

In the rush to adopt Agile, many organizations have fallen into a trap: using the framework as a label rather than a mindset.

It’s become a badge to display—proof that the company is modern and forward-thinking.

But too often, this adoption is shallow, focused on ticking boxes rather than driving meaningful change.

Teams run stand-ups, hold retrospectives, and work in sprints, but they aren’t truly empowered to solve problems or innovate.

The result is a surface-level agility that doesn’t deliver the promised benefits.

This isn’t an Agile transformation; it’s Agile theater.

The root of the issue lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of what Agile is meant to achieve.

Agile isn’t about following a prescribed set of rules or tools—it’s about embracing a way of thinking that prioritizes adaptability, collaboration, and delivering value. Which starts by understanding what value actually means for the business.

This requires a deep commitment to problem-solving and systems thinking.

Instead of focusing on rituals like sprint reviews or Kanban boards, organizations should be asking: What problems are we trying to solve? How can we create systems that help us adapt and improve continuously?

One of the most significant challenges is the gap between Agile culture and Agile methods.

Many organizations implement Agile frameworks like Scrum or SAFe without addressing the underlying cultural shifts required to make them work.

Agile methods rely on principles such as trust, autonomy, and open communication.

Without these cultural foundations, the frameworks become rigid processes rather than tools for enabling creativity and collaboration.

Teams may go through the motions of Agile, but they remain stuck in traditional hierarchies and command-and-control management styles.

This cultural mismatch often stems from management itself.

While Agile emphasizes decentralization and team empowerment, many leaders struggle to let go of control. They expect Agile teams to deliver results faster while still adhering to the same top-down structures and rigid accountability measures.

This creates tension between the principles of Agile and the old-school management styles that remain deeply ingrained in many organizations.

True Agile transformations require leaders to change not only how they manage but also how they think about their role within the organization.

The lack of systems thinking exacerbates the problem. Agile isn’t just about individual teams working iteratively; it’s about viewing the organization as an interconnected system where changes in one area affect others.

When companies adopt Agile frameworks without considering their broader organizational dynamics, they often create silos instead of breaking them down.

For example, one department may become highly Agile, while others stick to traditional approaches, leading to misalignment and inefficiencies.

Systems thinking helps organizations see the bigger picture, enabling them to align strategies, structures, and behaviors with their Agile goals.

To move beyond this shallow adoption, organizations need to focus less on appearances and more on substance.

They need to embrace Agile as a mindset that permeates every level of the organization—not just as a methodology for project teams but as a way of thinking about work, leadership, and collaboration.

This requires leaders to champion problem-solving and systems thinking, fostering a culture where teams feel empowered to experiment, fail, and learn.

Agile isn’t about doing Agile things; it’s about becoming Agile in how we approach challenges and opportunities.

In the end, the true power of Agile lies not in its frameworks but in its ability to create environments where people can thrive.

It’s a call to rethink how we work and lead, focusing on principles rather than practices, outcomes rather than outputs.

Companies that embrace this deeper understanding of Agile won’t just deliver projects more effectively—they’ll build organizations that are resilient, innovative, and ready for whatever the future holds.

It’s not about saying you’re Agile; it’s about living it in every decision, interaction, and system you create.

The Theory of Constraints

The Theory of Constraints (TOC), introduced by Eliyahu Goldratt in his book The Goal, is a powerful framework for understanding and improving organizational systems.

At its core, TOC emphasizes that every process or system has a constraint—a limiting factor that determines its overall output.

When companies start talking about Lean and Agile without understanding of this, some problems start to arrive.

For managers, this concept is essential because it shifts the focus from optimizing every part of a system to identifying and addressing the bottleneck that impacts the whole.

By doing so, managers can prioritize efforts and resources where they will have the greatest impact, driving efficiency and achieving better results.

Many managers fall into the trap of trying to improve everything at once or focusing on areas that may not significantly affect the organization’s performance.

TOC provides a structured way to identify the weakest link in a process, whether it’s a machine on a production line, a policy that slows decision-making, or even a skill gap within a team.

Once the constraint is identified, managers can apply targeted solutions, enabling the entire system to operate more effectively.

This approach not only maximizes efficiency but also fosters a culture of continuous improvement that actually makes sense for the business.

Perhaps the most important lesson of TOC is its broader perspective on systems thinking. It encourages managers to view their organizations holistically, recognizing that every department, process, or team is interconnected.

Optimizing one part of the system without addressing the constraint can lead to imbalances or inefficiencies elsewhere. For managers, this means stepping back from a siloed mindset and adopting a more strategic, cross-functional approach to problem-solving.

Understanding the Theory of Constraints (TOC) is essential before starting Agile and Lean transformations because it helps managers focus on what truly matters.

TOC teaches us that every system has a bottleneck—a specific point that limits its performance. If you jump into Agile or Lean without first identifying and addressing this constraint, you risk spending time and resources optimizing areas that don’t actually make a difference.

It’s like fine-tuning the engine of a car with a flat tire—until you fix the tire, the car still won’t go far.

TOC gives managers the clarity they need to direct their efforts where they’ll have the biggest impact.

When you combine TOC with systems thinking, it becomes even more powerful. Systems thinking helps managers see the big picture, understanding how all the parts of an organization connect and influence each other.

This mindset ensures that any changes made—whether through Agile, Lean, or both—don’t just fix isolated problems but actually improve the whole system. Without this foundation, transformations risk being shallow or short-lived.

But with TOC and systems thinking as a starting point, managers can make thoughtful, targeted changes that remove constraints, improve flow, and drive real, lasting results.

The Evolution of Leadership Styles

Leadership styles have undergone profound changes over the past century, evolving alongside societal, cultural, and technological transformations.

From the early days of hierarchical, authoritarian leadership models to the collaborative, people-focused approaches of today, the concept of leadership has continuously adapted to meet the needs of its time. Understanding this evolution provides valuable insights into what it means to lead effectively in the modern era.

The early 20th century was dominated by what we now refer to as “command-and-control” leadership.

Leaders were seen as the decision-makers, while employees were expected to follow instructions without question. While effective in industrial settings, this approach often stifled creativity and failed to account for the human aspect of work.

As the century progressed, the Human Relations Movement challenged this rigid approach. Leaders began to recognize that understanding and addressing employees’ psychological and emotional needs could significantly enhance productivity and satisfaction. This shift marked the beginning of more empathetic and inclusive leadership models.

The 1960s and 1970s saw the rise of participative leadership, influenced by thinkers like Douglas McGregor and his Theory X and Theory Y. McGregor argued that leaders’ assumptions about employees fundamentally shaped their leadership style.

By the late 20th century, the concept of transformational leadership gained prominence. Transformational leaders inspire and motivate their teams by articulating a compelling vision and fostering a sense of purpose.

Unlike transactional leaders, who focus on short-term goals and rewards, transformational leaders emphasize personal and professional growth. This style has proven particularly effective in navigating periods of change and uncertainty.

The turn of the 21st century brought further shifts, with the rise of servant leadership and Agile methodologies reshaping leadership practices.

This approach aligns with the collaborative and flexible nature of Agile, where leaders act as facilitators rather than authoritative figures. These models reflect a growing emphasis on empowerment, trust, and shared accountability.

Servant leadership flips the traditional leadership model on its head. Instead of focusing on authority, power, or hierarchy, servant leaders prioritize the needs of their team, striving to empower individuals and foster collaboration.

By putting people first, servant leaders create environments where trust, engagement, and innovation can thrive. This approach resonates deeply in today’s workplaces, where employees increasingly value inclusivity, empathy, and a sense of purpose.

One of the key principles of servant leadership is enabling others to grow. A servant leader sees their role as one of support, helping team members develop their skills and achieve their goals.

This often means listening more than talking, encouraging collaboration rather than competition, and fostering a sense of shared responsibility. Servant leaders understand that when their team succeeds, the organization succeeds.

This focus on growth and empowerment not only strengthens individual performance but also builds a culture of trust and accountability that benefits everyone.

It’s not about being the boss—it’s about being a guide, a supporter, and a catalyst for collective success.

Then we have one interesting movement around quiet leadership, a subtle yet impactful approach that focuses on influence, observation, and thoughtful action rather than overt authority or charisma.

Popularized by David Rock in his book Quiet Leadership, this style emphasizes the power of listening, asking questions, and guiding others to their own insights rather than dictating solutions.

Quiet leaders understand that effective leadership isn’t about being the loudest voice in the room—it’s about empowering others to think critically and act independently.

Quiet leaders excel at creating space for diverse perspectives, ensuring every voice is heard, and helping their teams navigate challenges with clarity and composure. They avoid micromanagement and instead focus on building relationships, asking thoughtful questions, and encouraging self-reflection.

Looking ahead, the evolution of leadership is likely to continue as new challenges and opportunities emerge. Understanding the journey of leadership’s evolution not only honors its rich history but also prepares us to embrace its future.

The Modern Manager: Reflections on Key Challenges

The role of the modern manager is more demanding than ever before. They are tasked with balancing operational efficiency with strategic innovation, all while navigating a landscape of unprecedented complexity.

One of the most significant challenges is the rapid pace of technological change, driven by advancements in AI, automation, and digital transformation. Managers must not only understand these technologies but also anticipate their implications for their teams, industries, and societies.

Generational shifts in the workforce add another layer of complexity. Millennials and Generation Z bring unique expectations to the workplace, valuing purpose, inclusivity, and flexibility.

This generational diversity challenges managers to rethink traditional approaches to motivation and engagement.

How does one create a work environment that resonates across generations, balancing the need for structure with the desire for autonomy?

Globalization has also redefined the boundaries of management. Managers today often lead teams spread across multiple countries and time zones, requiring cultural intelligence and the ability to navigate linguistic and contextual differences.

This global perspective is crucial not only for collaboration but also for understanding the broader economic and political forces that impact organizations.

The emphasis on mental health and well-being has reshaped managerial responsibilities. As burnout and stress become more prevalent, managers are expected to create environments that prioritize psychological safety and employee well-being. This shift requires empathy, active listening, and the ability to foster trust—all of which are critical but often overlooked skills.

One of the most persistent challenges is balancing agility with stability. The rise of Agile methodologies has underscored the importance of adaptability, but organizations also need continuity and resilience.

Managers must navigate this tension, fostering a culture of experimentation while maintaining a clear sense of purpose and direction.

Finally, the modern manager must grapple with ethical dilemmas that arise from technological and societal changes. Issues such as data privacy, algorithmic bias, and environmental sustainability require managers to make decisions that are not only financially sound but also ethically responsible.

This underscores the need for a values-driven approach to management, one that aligns organizational goals with societal well-being.

In reflecting on these challenges, it becomes clear that the role of the modern manager is as much about self-awareness and personal growth as it is about technical competence. The ability to lead in this environment requires not only skills but also courage, resilience, and a commitment to continuous learning.

Are Managers Preparing for the Future?

The question of how managers prepare themselves for the future is more relevant today than ever before.

In a reality of rapid technological advancements, shifting workforce dynamics, and global uncertainty, the ability to stay informed and adaptable has become a cornerstone of effective leadership.

Yet, despite the vast array of resources available, from books and academic research to articles and online courses, many managers seem to struggle with prioritizing continuous learning.

Are they truly engaging with the knowledge and tools that could shape their readiness for the challenges ahead?

One of the most striking observations is how rarely managers dive deeply into reading materials relevant to their field.

While it’s common to skim through articles or click on headlines, meaningful engagement with substantial texts—such as classic management books or in-depth analyses of emerging trends—seems to be in decline.

However, it also raises a critical question: if managers are not reading deeply, how can they develop the nuanced understanding required to make informed decisions and drive their organizations forward?

The issue isn’t just about reading books or articles; it’s about the quality and breadth of the content consumed. Management isn’t a static discipline—it evolves with advancements in technology, changes in societal expectations, and shifts in economic forces.

Managers who fail to stay up-to-date risk becoming obsolete, their strategies disconnected from the realities of the modern workplace. Publications like Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, and others provide invaluable insights into these changes, yet their readership among practitioners often falls short of their potential impact.

Reading isn’t just about gaining knowledge; it’s about cultivating a mindset of curiosity and adaptability.

Beyond traditional reading, there’s also the matter of understanding and adopting new technologies. AI, machine learning, and data analytics are transforming industries at a breakneck pace, and managers who remain technologically illiterate may struggle to lead effectively in this new landscape.

It’s not enough to delegate tech-related decisions to specialists—managers need at least a foundational understanding to ask the right questions, evaluate risks, and recognize opportunities.

The challenge here is not only one of education but also of mindset. Are managers willing to step outside their comfort zones and embrace the unknown?

Preparation for the future also requires an active engagement with interdisciplinary knowledge. The best managers don’t limit themselves to content strictly within their domain. Instead, they draw insights from psychology, sociology, economics, and even the arts.

These fields offer perspectives on human behavior, decision-making, and creativity—qualities that are critical for navigating complex and uncertain environments. Yet, interdisciplinary exploration requires a deliberate effort to break out of silos and seek diverse viewpoints, something that many managers overlook in their day-to-day routines.

Another important factor is the balance between consuming content and applying it. Reading and learning, while essential, are only the starting points. Managers need to translate insights into actionable strategies and test them in their unique contexts.

This requires not just intellectual engagement but also courage—the willingness to experiment, make mistakes, and refine approaches based on real-world outcomes.

Too often, managers become passive consumers of knowledge, failing to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

It’s also worth considering the role of mentorship and peer networks in shaping managerial readiness. Reading alone cannot provide the full spectrum of learning needed to navigate today’s challenges. Engaging with mentors, participating in industry forums, and collaborating with peers offer invaluable opportunities to exchange ideas, challenge assumptions, and refine perspectives.

Managers who combine self-study with active participation in knowledge-sharing communities are far better positioned to adapt to the evolving demands of their roles.

Ultimately, preparing for the future is not about a single course of action—it’s a continuous process of reflection, learning, and growth.

Managers must ask themselves whether they are truly investing the time and effort needed to stay ahead.

Are they reading deeply and broadly?

Are they embracing new technologies and methodologies?

Are they stepping outside their silos to engage with diverse perspectives?

The answers to these questions will determine not only their own success but also the success of the teams and organizations they lead.

The future belongs to those who are willing to commit to learning—not as a one-time event, but as a lifelong journey.

MBA and Executive Education – What Should We Learn?

The rise of MBA programs and executive education over the past few decades has been one of the most significant developments in the professionalization of management.

These programs have played a crucial role in equipping leaders with the knowledge and skills needed to navigate complex business environments.

They provide frameworks for strategy, finance, marketing, and operations, offering participants a comprehensive toolkit for addressing organizational challenges.

Yet, while these programs excel in teaching the “business” of management, they often fall short in fostering a deep understanding of management as a discipline—a critique that has been eloquently articulated by Henry Mintzberg.

Mintzberg, in his book Managers, Not MBAs, argues that traditional MBA programs prioritize analytical skills and business techniques at the expense of cultivating the practical, human-centered aspects of management.

He highlights that management is not merely about solving technical problems or maximizing shareholder value but about navigating the messy, nuanced realities of leading people, making decisions under uncertainty, and balancing competing priorities.

By focusing predominantly on case studies and theoretical models, many MBA programs risk reducing management to a series of algorithms, disconnected from the realities of practice.

This focus on business rather than management is evident in the structure of most MBA curricula. Subjects like corporate finance, strategy, and operations dominate, while topics such as organizational behavior, leadership, and emotional intelligence often take a backseat.

While business acumen is undeniably important, the emphasis on metrics, profitability, and efficiency can overshadow the softer, yet equally critical, dimensions of management.

As a result, graduates may leave these programs well-versed in analytical tools but ill-equipped to navigate the interpersonal and ethical complexities of their roles.

Moreover, the prevalence of MBAs has contributed to a growing perception of management as a technical skill set rather than a human-centered craft. This technocratic view of management, reinforced by the language of business schools, risks alienating the very people that managers are meant to lead.

Employees are not merely resources to be optimized—they are individuals with aspirations, emotions, and unique contributions.

Focusing too narrowly on the “business” of management can lead to cultures of micromanagement, over-reliance on data, and a lack of genuine connection between leaders and their teams.

Executive education programs, while offering more tailored and practical learning experiences, are not immune to this critique. These programs often target seasoned professionals, promising to refine their leadership abilities and enhance their strategic thinking.

While many succeed in providing actionable insights, they sometimes reinforce a transactional view of management, emphasizing measurable outcomes over intangible qualities like empathy, trust, and moral courage.

This approach can inadvertently perpetuate a results-at-all-costs mentality, undermining the broader purpose of management.

Mintzberg’s critique also extends to how MBA programs conceptualize leadership. Leadership is often presented as an individual’s ability to influence and drive change, but this framing overlooks the collaborative and relational nature of effective management.

True leadership involves fostering environments where teams can thrive, empowering others to contribute, and navigating the complexity of diverse perspectives. These subtleties are difficult to capture in a classroom setting or through case study analysis alone.

The gap between business education and management as a discipline is further exacerbated by the corporate demand for short-term results. Many MBA graduates enter environments where performance is measured by quarterly earnings, market share, or other tangible metrics.

These pressures can overshadow the importance of long-term thinking, ethical decision-making, and the cultivation of organizational culture—areas where management as a discipline offers profound insights.

Despite these criticisms, MBA and executive education programs have the potential to bridge this gap. By incorporating more experiential learning, reflective practice, and interdisciplinary perspectives, these programs can help participants develop a deeper appreciation for management as a craft.

Courses that emphasize emotional intelligence, ethical reasoning, and systems thinking can complement the traditional focus on business strategy, creating more well-rounded leaders.

Ultimately, the tension between business education and management as a discipline reflects a broader challenge: the need to balance technical expertise with human insight.

As Mintzberg and others have pointed out, management is not just about knowing what to do—it’s about understanding why and how to do it in a way that respects the humanity of those involved.

MBA and executive education programs, if designed thoughtfully, have the opportunity to help aspiring leaders embrace this duality, equipping them to succeed not only as business professionals but also as managers in the truest sense of the word.

Certifications: A Double-Edged Sword

Certifications have long been viewed as a badge of credibility, a way to demonstrate expertise and stay current in an ever-evolving professional landscape.

For many industries, they are a gateway to opportunities, signaling that a professional has met certain standards and possesses the skills needed for their role.

Personally, I believe certifications are valuable—they push us to learn, adapt, and keep up with new trends. They ensure that professionals maintain a baseline of knowledge and can apply it in meaningful ways.

However, as much as I appreciate their benefits, I can’t ignore the growing issues surrounding the certification industry today.

The rise of certifications has created an entire business ecosystem, one that often prioritizes profitability over the development of true expertise. Organizations now churn out certifications on an almost industrial scale, offering badges for nearly every skill imaginable.

While variety and accessibility can be a good thing, this flood of certifications has diluted their value. Instead of focusing on mastering core competencies, many professionals find themselves chasing multiple certifications in a bid to keep up with market demands or to pad their résumés.

It’s no longer about depth of knowledge but breadth of credentials.

This shift has transformed certifications into a product—a commodity to be bought and sold. Many organizations have embraced this business model, focusing less on the rigor of their programs and more on how quickly they can market and sell them.

There’s a certification for everything, and the bar to obtain some of them is alarmingly low.

Online courses and fast-track programs promise certifications in days, often with minimal real-world application or evaluation.

The result? A growing number of professionals who are certified on paper but lack the expertise or experience to truly excel.

What’s even more concerning is how this affects the perception of certifications overall. When certifications become a checkbox exercise rather than a true measure of skill, their credibility suffers.

Employers, inundated with candidates boasting endless acronyms after their names, struggle to discern who genuinely excels and who simply knows how to pass a test.

This devalues the efforts of those who have genuinely invested time and effort into mastering their craft, as they are lumped together with those who have simply paid their way through.

There’s also the issue of choice overload. With so many certification providers and programs available, professionals can feel lost trying to decide which paths to pursue.

Should you go for the most popular certification in your industry or the one that aligns most closely with your goals?

And how do you know which providers are reputable?

The sheer volume of options can lead people to make decisions based on trends rather than genuine learning objectives, further exacerbating the problem.

The solution isn’t to abandon certifications altogether but to rethink how they are approached. Certifications should focus on depth, requiring professionals to engage deeply with the material and apply their knowledge in meaningful ways.

Providers should prioritize quality over quantity, designing programs that truly challenge participants and prepare them for real-world scenarios.

Professionals, too, have a responsibility to see certifications not as ends in themselves but as part of a larger commitment to continuous learning and growth.

When done right, certifications are a powerful tool—but only when they go beyond being just another product in a crowded marketplace.

Emotional Intelligence in Management

Emotional Intelligence (EI), a concept popularized by Daniel Goleman in his seminal book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, has become a cornerstone of effective leadership and management.

Defined as the ability to recognize, understand, and manage one’s own emotions while also influencing the emotions of others, EI is critical in fostering collaboration, trust, and resilience within teams.

As management moves away from transactional, task-focused paradigms, the emphasis on EI underscores the importance of the “human side” of leadership. Research has consistently demonstrated the impact of EI on managerial success.

A study published in the Harvard Business Review found that EI is responsible for nearly 90% of the difference between average and high-performing leaders.

Key components such as self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills contribute to a manager’s ability to navigate complex interpersonal dynamics.

Self-awareness, for instance, enables managers to understand how their behavior impacts others, fostering more constructive and authentic relationships.

Empathy, a core element of EI, has become particularly vital in today’s diverse and globalized work environment.

Goleman’s later work, Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships, highlights how understanding the perspectives of others can bridge cultural gaps and enhance collaboration.

Empathetic managers are better equipped to address conflicts, provide support during challenging times, and create inclusive workplaces where all employees feel valued and understood.

The importance of EI has grown in parallel with changes in workplace culture and expectations. Millennials and Generation Z employees, who now form a significant portion of the workforce, value authenticity and emotional engagement in their leaders.

According to a Deloitte report, 77% of employees said they prefer leaders who prioritize empathy and emotional connection over technical expertise alone.

This generational shift underscores the need for managers to adapt their approaches to align with evolving expectations.

Despite its recognized importance, EI is not always prioritized in management development programs.

While technical and operational training often dominate leadership curricula, emotional intelligence remains underemphasized.

This gap can lead to managers who excel in task execution but struggle with team cohesion, motivation, or conflict resolution.

Addressing this imbalance requires a deliberate effort to integrate EI-focused learning into managerial training and development.

Finally, the role of EI extends beyond individual interactions—it also shapes organizational culture. Leaders with high EI create environments where psychological safety and open communication thrive, enabling innovation and resilience.

The lessons of EI are clear: managers who invest in developing their emotional intelligence not only enhance their own effectiveness but also contribute to the success and well-being of their teams and organizations.

Leadership + Management

The distinction between leadership and management is a topic that often gets blurred, but it’s one I find essential to clarify. Marcus Buckingham, in The One Thing You Need to Know, offers a perspective that resonates deeply with me.

He suggests that while leadership is about focusing on the goal and inspiring people to move toward it, management is about understanding individual strengths and aligning them to achieve those goals.

For me, this distinction isn’t just theoretical—it’s a reflection of what I see daily in organizations.

Both leadership and management are crucial, but they are not the same, and conflating the two can lead to missed opportunities.

From my point of view, management operates in the realm of the specific and the tangible.

It’s about knowing your team members on a deeper level—what motivates them, where their talents lie, and how to position them for success.

A great manager can look at a complex puzzle of personalities, skills, and ambitions and align them in a way that brings out the best in everyone.

This is the craft of management: it’s grounded in relationships, systems, and execution.

Without it, even the grandest visions will falter, because the work to achieve them lacks structure.

Leadership, on the other hand, feels more abstract and aspirational.

It’s about painting a picture of what could be, giving people a reason to believe in something bigger than themselves.

Leaders inspire movement, often by challenging the status quo or articulating a bold vision for the future.

While managers optimize the present, leaders focus on the future.

Yet, I’ve noticed that organizations often overemphasize the glamour of leadership while undervaluing the foundational importance of good management. This imbalance can lead to visionary goals without the practical means to achieve them.

One of the challenges I see is that people are often expected to be both great leaders and great managers. While there is overlap, these roles require different mindsets and skills.

Not everyone who inspires others to follow a vision will excel at the day-to-day nuances of aligning a team’s efforts, just as not every great manager will feel comfortable stepping into the spotlight to lead a movement.

Expecting individuals to master both simultaneously can dilute their strengths in either area. Instead, we need to recognize and nurture these distinct roles within organizations.

For me, the real takeaway is that we need to stop treating management as second-tier to leadership.

As Buckingham reminds us, the art of management lies in aligning individual talents with collective goals—a task that requires as much skill and intentionality as crafting a vision.

Leadership sets the destination, but management gets us there.

Both are indispensable, and when they work in harmony, they create the kind of organizations that can inspire, adapt, and thrive. As managers and leaders, we must embrace the uniqueness of each role and recognize their collective power in driving success.

A Call to Recommit to Management as a Discipline

As we bring this reflection to a close, it is important to recognize the profound responsibility that comes with being a manager.

Management is not just a profession; it is a discipline that shapes organizations, communities, and societies. In this era of rapid change, the importance of thoughtful, effective management cannot be overstated.

The first step in recommitting to management as a discipline is to embrace adaptability.

The world is changing at an unprecedented pace, and managers must be willing to learn, unlearn, and relearn.

This requires a mindset of curiosity and openness, as well as the humility to acknowledge what we do not know.

However, adaptability alone is not enough.

Managers must also engage deeply with the principles of management, studying its history, theories, and practices.

As Peter Drucker reminds us, management is a learned discipline, one that requires deliberate effort to master.

By immersing ourselves in the works of thinkers like Mintzberg, Follett, and Senge, we can gain the insights needed to navigate today’s challenges.

At the same time, managers must resist the temptation to rely solely on tools and frameworks.

While methodologies like Lean and Agile offer valuable guidance, they are not substitutes for judgment, creativity, and intuition.

True management requires the ability to synthesize information, make decisions in ambiguity, and lead with both heart and mind.

Another critical aspect of recommitting to management is fostering a sense of purpose.

Organizations are not just engines of profit; they are platforms for creating value for stakeholders, including employees, customers, and society at large.

Managers must align their decisions with this broader purpose, ensuring that their actions contribute to the greater good.

It is also essential to recognize the human dimension of management.

The future of management depends not only on individual managers but also on the collective effort to elevate the discipline. This includes creating spaces for dialogue, sharing best practices, and investing in the next generation of leaders.

As we build this future, let us remember that the strength of management lies in its ability to adapt while staying true to its core principles.

Finally, let us not lose sight of the importance of reflection. In the rush to meet deadlines and deliver results, it is easy to overlook the need to pause, analyze, and learn.

In conclusion, the state of management today is both a challenge and an opportunity.

But where are we going?

A Story of Vision and Execution: The Apollo Program

The Apollo Program stands as one of humanity’s most remarkable achievements, a testament to the power of leadership and management working in harmony.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy articulated an audacious vision: to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth before the decade was out. This statement was pure leadership—a bold, inspiring goal that captured imaginations and united a nation.

But as inspiring as Kennedy’s vision was, achieving it required more than lofty words; it demanded meticulous management to turn ambition into reality.

At its heart, the Apollo Program was an exercise in aligning thousands of individuals, countless systems, and multiple organizations toward a single, clear goal. NASA’s administrators and project managers were tasked with not only breaking the mission into achievable milestones but also ensuring that every piece of the puzzle—engineering, operations, and human expertise—fit together seamlessly.

They applied principles of management that resonate deeply today: understanding individual strengths, optimizing workflows, and fostering collaboration across teams and disciplines.

Without this rigorous alignment of skills and efforts, the vision of a moon landing would have remained a dream.

One of the program’s greatest challenges was the complexity of the systems involved. From designing the Saturn V rocket to coordinating the mission-critical tasks of the Apollo Command and Lunar Modules, NASA relied on a mix of Lean-like efficiency and Agile-like adaptability.

When setbacks arose—like the tragic Apollo 1 fire in 1967—it was management’s role to learn, adapt, and ensure the organization emerged stronger.

Leadership provided the courage to keep going, but it was management that executed the painstaking changes necessary to improve safety, refine processes, and maintain morale.

The culture of NASA during Apollo also highlights the delicate balance between leadership and management.

Visionary leaders like Wernher von Braun and Gene Kranz set the tone for the program, embodying the determination and accountability needed to inspire their teams.

Yet, success was equally dependent on the managers who created psychological safety, enabling engineers and scientists to speak up, test new ideas, and push the boundaries of innovation.

This interplay between inspiring leadership and rigorous management created an environment where people could take risks without fear of failure, driving both innovation and trust.

When Neil Armstrong took that historic step onto the lunar surface in 1969, it wasn’t just the fulfillment of a leader’s vision—it was the culmination of disciplined management at every level.

The Apollo Program reminds us that leadership sets the destination, but management ensures the journey is possible. It’s a powerful example of how these two disciplines, when working together, can achieve the extraordinary.

As we reflect on the lessons of Apollo, we’re reminded that great goals require not just inspiration but the relentless execution of carefully aligned efforts—a timeless reminder for any manager or leader striving to leave their mark.

In our own work, are we balancing vision with execution?

Are we aligning people’s strengths with shared goals, fostering environments where both inspiration and discipline can thrive?

Whether we’re setting bold objectives or ensuring every detail aligns to make them a reality, there’s a lesson here for all of us.

As you reflect on your journey as a manager or leader, consider this: what’s your moonshot, and are you prepared to both lead the way and manage the steps to get there?

I am incredibly grateful that you have taken the time to read this post.

Do you want to get new content in your Email?

Check my main categories of content below:

Navigate between the many topics covered in this website:

Check my most recent articles:

The Craft of Leadership: Reflections on the State of Management2024-12-09
Reading Insights: The Year in Tech 2025 by Harvard Business Review2024-12-03
The Power of Continuous Learning for New Project Managers2024-12-02
10 Challenges for New Project Managers and How to Solve Them2024-11-25
Reading Insights: HBR’s 10 Must Reads 20252024-11-20

Support my work by sharing my content with your network using the sharing buttons below.

Want to show your support tangibly? A virtual coffee is a small but nice way to show your appreciation and give me the extra energy to keep crafting valuable content! Pay me a coffee, click here.