In an increasingly complex and volatile environment, a manager's tasks increase. A manager must possess skills that go beyond simple technical skills, but must possess qualified managerial and leadership skills. Who can manage flexibly and responsibly and also has leadership competence to guide the organization. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This document discusses the meaning of management skills needed by a manager, with the emphasis on flexible, responsible management and leadership in my current work practice. Two different articles are chosen as conceptual reading. The first article on how to manage flexibly and responsibly by Feldman and Khademian (2001). While the second article is about the importance of leadership by Lester Levy (2011). The next section presents the summary of each article, followed by discussion and conclusion. Article summary: Principles for the practice of public management: from dichotomies to interdependence. How to manage flexibly according to public demand and at the same time responsible has become a challenging issue in management, especially in public management. The essay by Feldman and Khademian (2001) proposes a conceptual response to the problem. The authors suggest that both flexibility and accountability in public administration are interdependent. It is essential that managers, especially local government, respond flexibly to citizens' needs, but flexibility must occur in a manner that is accountable to the public and other stakeholders. In other words, the public administrator must work based on the opinion of citizens. So, the administrator's first thing to do is to find out the public assertion and work on it. The concept of flexible governance has been proposed by many scholars. But the concept is only at the level of understanding, it has never been put into practice at an extensive level. In relation to flexibility, Feldman and Khademian have two arguments. First, flexible decision-making processes can make managers' jobs easier as they make operations less complex. But they must not separate the need for accountability from flexible decision-making. In doing so, managers must acquiesce to public opinion and balance their flexible decision making. The second, the organizational system, can also limit the connection between flexibility in decision making and responsibility. Doctrine can disseminate in-depth doctrines and policies. By changing the organization's doctrine and policy, flexibility in decision making and accountability can support each other. To better understand manager flexibility and responsibility and their relationship, the paper provides a literature review of recent public management theory on flexibility management, responsibility management and practice. In managing flexibility the literature provides three fundamental principles of. First, managers must generate public value. They can use methods such as general elections as a means of winning over public opinion. Then, managers create public value based on these opinions. Second, managers must have a clear target and objective to achieve and conduct operations. Finally, managers must maintain the idea of ​​continuous professional and personal development. Overall, when managers understand citizens' needs and continuously work to respond to demand, their mindset would bereceptive to change for the better. To manage responsibility, the essay cites an idea by Peter Aucoin. Aucoin proposes that some structural reform could be used to strengthen the objectives of flexibility and accountability. However, reform may require three main rules. First, the separation of functions between decision-making and operational policy. Both duty and responsible decision making must be separated from the operations that execute the policy. Secondly, the final result of the financial statement, such as net profit, is used as a key in evaluating organizations. Using the bottom line produces clear information about whether an activity or program is operating financially, improving government performance, or reducing costs. Third, a small operational unit within the organization is assigned a short-term, narrowly defined and quantifiable task. Performance evaluation and the duration of rewards depend on the creation of specified default results. This assessment is called Performance Based Organizations (PBO). In practice, the authors highlight two principles. First, the inclusion of public managers by allowing direct participation of the public. Inclusion not only in the planning phase of the program, but in all phases of the program. From defining goals and how to achieve them, to the process and issues of executing the program, to the final results of the program. Allowing public participation gave managers better insight into the program, the problems that arise, and alternative choices for solving them. Second, there is the primacy of process. This suggests that while the end goal is solving the problem, the process of obtaining the solution is more important than the solution itself. This means a better process may be needed to accomplish the mission, but standing back and seeking public input on government goals is more important. Public participation creates public appreciation for an administration and, in turn, the public holds the administration to be more accountable. Article summary: Why leadership matters. While Feldman and Khademian's essay discusses the flexibility and accountability of public managers, Levy's article discusses the need for leadership. According to Levy, leadership can be learned. This is one of the points made by Levy (2011) in his article “Why leadership matters”. Leadership can be mastered when someone chooses direction intentionally and repeatedly, but one thing should be noted: this practice is very difficult to put into practice. Leadership is important because it can be followed when the situation changes and is unclear. There is an ideal type of leader who can create tremendous influence that results in higher levels of performance and results, that is, the authentic leader. The authentic leader is the substance of leadership. This type of leader “has high levels of self-awareness, a transparent and consistent connection between expressed purpose (and values) and their actions, a deep sense of ethics, and widely respected integrity and courage” (Levy 2011, 51). They dare to fight for the truth even at the risk of their own lives. In an authentic leadership environment, leaders and followers work together to empower each other to achieve a common goal, to motivate each other, and to support each other's creativity and performance. This is a very ideal type of leader and leadership since nowadays, in terms of competence, leaders often ignore followers and context. Therefore, many organizations would like to develop their leaders to be inable to listen more to their subordinates, situations, and even the knowledge and skills acquired through time spent doing a job or activity. Traditionally, literature places management and leadership as two people. different things. However, with the changes of time, the literature has recorded the evolution in complementarity, until recently, the literature suggests that the relationship is one of interdependence. Management is interpreted as knowing a proven solution (technical work) to solve problems, while leadership is the ability to solve unproven problems (adaptive work). Therefore, leadership and management may be distinctive, but they represent the key to success in an increasingly complex environment and turbulent time. The demand for better leadership skills can start from altering the manager's paradigm on leadership, from perception as charisma to leadership is authenticity. Then the most important thing is to put leadership as practice. Leadership is practiced through experimentation, experience and reflection. Discussion These two articles gave me another perspective on management and leadership. Articles can be applied in the private, public or private sphere. Although to some extent, I think flexible but responsible leadership and management in public management in the current Indonesian context is too good to be true both in theory and in practice. Both flexibility and responsibility cannot be applied together. Applying flexibility can reduce liability and vice versa. Perhaps my thinking is influenced by my experience with public management in Indonesia. In the Indonesian context, people perceive leadership as “form over substance” rather than “substance over form” leadership. People in the country still view leaders based on the "cult of personality", where charisma tends to be valued above all. According to Gallup research (Ratanjee & Wu, 2013) this phenomenon occurs not only in the government but also in Indonesian companies. In public management, managers hardly pay attention to management flexibility, public needs and also accountability. One possible reason is that decision-making in the country is relatively dominated by the five-year interest, or the mandate to govern through elections. Some executives may want to flexibly manage the needs of the public. However, if the decision contradicts the interests of other groups, their decision may be challenged or even considered a crime. In any case it could reduce their eligibility in future elections. Given that executives only stay in power for five years and a maximum of two elections, most executives are likely to choose the status quo, making their operations less complex. As a result, flexibility and accountability are excluded and developments are stagnant. This method is practiced hereditarily in every generation of government through doctrine and policy. This coincides with Feldman and Khademian's (2001) reasons why flexibility and accountability have never been put into practice on a large scale. Managing flexibly but resorting to criminal prosecution can be seen in the case of the former president director of the Indonesian State Enterprises Authority, Dahlan Iskan. Dahlan's revolutionary policies with a “down to earth” approach to restructuring the company were notable, which further increased his popularity. However, after the change of government, he was suspected of corruption. The lawyer suspects him of irregularities not complying with legal procedures (Jegho, 2015). The other case concerns the ex.