I am grateful to both Bob Hinshelwood and Morris Nitsun for taking the time to read and comment on my article about some of the uses of group analytic thinking beyond the clinical setting. The article for Group Analysis is one of a pair of articles I have written, the first bringing some more critical management thinking into the group analytic context, and the second, to be published this year in Management Learning journal 1 , re-explains some of the key tenets of group analysis to critical management scholars. The point is that both communities have a lot to offer each other. I have little to add to what Bob Hinshelwood says, that more management does not mean better management, and that attention can be diverted away from providing services. Yes to both. I would also add that we are also all caught up in the myth of transformational leadership, where it is assumed that everyone, no matter how practical their task, needs leadership training to become a 'visionary' leader. This goes hand in hand with the assumption that every exercise of authority in organizations involves questions of leadership. This is not to argue that leadership is unimportant, merely that discussion of leadership is ubiquitous and unquestioned, as though we all know what we are talking about. Morris Nitsun says some very kind things about both the article and the DMan programme, but then goes on to make four criticisms, to which I would like to respond. In doing so I accept in advance that his critique is, in his words: 'simplified or exaggerated for the purpose of communication'.