If you look back at history and try and select the most effective leader, your choice could fall on Alexander the Great, Winston Churchill or even Napoleon. It is unlikely that you will ever think of Genghis Khan. The BBC, which likes to do things differently, feels that Genghis actually had many of the qualities of a good CEO.

In a nutshell, they are:

Profit sharing: “The profits in the 13th Century were, technically, the spoils of victory... But for Genghis’s armies, the booty pillaged from the vanquished was a big part of their annual income and their leader was careful to make sure his soldiers got their fair share.”

Dislike of office politics: “Genghis didn’t mind a little bit of gossip ? he was a prodigious gatherer of intelligence. But he couldn't tolerate dishonesty.”

Creation of a meritocracy: “If you were working for Genghis, and you did well, you would be rewarded.”

Early adoption: “If Genghis were running your office today, you wouldn’t be tapping out invoices on a dodgy laptop. He was a firm believer in trying new things.”

Thinking ahead: “Though Genghis wasn’t a big fan of office gossip, he was very big on knowing what his enemies were up to. But more importantly, when he decided on a new course of action ? a battle, an invasion ? he researched it thoroughly before charging ahead.”

TO LEAD OR TO MANAGE

The key differences between managers and leaders

A manager takes care of where you are; a leader takes you to a new place. A manager deals with complexity; a leader deals with uncertainty. A manager is concerned with finding the facts; a leader makes decisions. A manager is concerned with doing things right; a leader is concerned with doing the right things. A manager's critical concern is efficiency; a leader focuses on effectiveness. A manager creates policies; a leader establishes principles. A manager sees and hears what is going on; a leader hears when there is no sound and sees when there is no light.

Source: James Colvard, www.govexec.com

It is questionable how many of us would welcome Genghis Khan as CEO of our company. But this BBC feature does demonstrate the essential difference between leaders and managers. Most Indian CEOs are managers. They go by the rules. Their other key attribute is that they hesitate to take decisions. They often feel that if they put off to tomorrow what they should be doing today, the problem will somehow go away.

All this was fine for torpid times. But in a global environment, with things changing overnight, it is a recipe for disaster. Yet, at the same time, too much focus on leadership at the cost of “managers” can also lead to enormous disarray. “It is not necessary that leaders are always right,” says Mumbai-based HR consultant Shashi Rao. “And it is not necessary that they will always manage to take the team along.”

In the Indian environment you cannot groom leaders and you should not try to, she adds. Leaders should be brought in from outside when necessary. At IBM, for instance, they did exactly that when they inducted Louis Gerstner from RJR Nabisco. You could say the same of Harish Manwani, who has recently taken charge at Hindustan Lever, though he is part of the Unilever system.

Besides, a company can’t have more than one leader. It is very rare for a CEO who is a leader to groom a “leader” to step into his shoes.

If this article is full of US examples, it’s not because there are none to be found in India. In fact, the shoe is on the other foot: most CEOs are unimaginative little men and women.

There’s nothing wrong with that; you need managers too. The trouble is that these CEOs, who are really managers, think of themselves as modern day Genghis Khans. They could end up doing much damage in an effort to prove themselves.