Leadership and/or Management
Why are we still confused? . . .
You’d be astounded at the number of senior level business persons who are hazy on the issue of whether they should be leading or managing in any particular situation.
Some business executives consider the roles of leadership and management to be identical, while many others see them as hierarchical with leadership being an advanced form of management. One executive confidently told me that only presidents and vice presidents lead, all others simply manage!
If there’s confusion, or even distortion, at the top, there’s little chance for focus and clarity in operational roles.
In my view, this could be compared to seasoned carpenters who don’t discriminate between nailing and gluing two pieces of wood together, or with sports coaches who would assert that strength training is interchangeable with endurance work.
Agreed, each of these processes will contribute positive benefits and outcomes but, in a given situation, one role will be appropriate, i.e. effective and efficient, while the other would be much less so. A craftsperson, at a fundamental level, knows which tool/process to use to achieve the optimal result; business practitioners are required to know likewise!
The need for clarity . . .
Let’s begin with manager. The generally accepted definition - accredited to Harvard Business School - is
one who gets results through other people
This is sensible – ‘getting results’ is important, why would you pay for anything else? ‘Through other people’ also is logical; people are the manager’s stock-in-trade, just as a civil engineer deals with structural concepts and a financial specialist relates numbers.
Managers are required to concentrate resources (people, finances, materials, information, motive energies, and similar) on the accomplishment of specific results (outcomes & standards) – in short, an exercise in convergence.
I’d like to take it one step further though. My experience is that there are good managers and not-so-good managers - who in my opinion, aren’t worthy of the title. Please allow me to demonstrate with a simple thought experiment.
Imagine that you’re an accomplished management consultant and a prospective client has asked you to undertake a significant project. Just before signing the contract however, the client asks for proof / confirmation of your ability to make sound judgments.
She informs you that there are thirty managers in her corporate offices right now and you have just thirty minutes to visit and to ask one question of each manager, then to return and list the good managers separately from the others. If your list agrees with her experiences, you’ll get the contract.
What one question, the answer to which would be verifiable, would you ask, noting that you have just one minute with each of the thirty respondents?
Remember that the answer has to be verifiable/provable, not simply an opinion.
From the answer you get, you should be able to decide, without a shadow of a doubt, that you would want to work for that manager – solely based on the response to your single question.
Please take a moment and think about the question you would ask . . .
Here’s the question I’d ask, “How many people have you made successful in the past year?”
If the response was factually specific – “Well, I turned Harry around, he’s now a winning salesman; JoAnne is becoming the best marketing analyst in our industry; and I’ve identified young Marianne as a real ‘up-and-comer’”, I’d know that people were growing and prospering under this manager, getting results and profiting thereby – and I’d want to be one of them.
Would you agree then, that we could add this codicil – ‘by making them successful’ - to the Harvard definition?
A good manager gets results through other people by making them successful.
That puts quite a ‘spin’ on the role, doesn’t it? The effective manager is a coach, not a controller.
By contrast, a leader is one who focuses the desire for change resident in others and who the facilitates the creation of a sustainable new reality.
‘Focusing’ is the initial step, usually achieved by creating a clear vision of what is possible. Usually the challenge is to move forward from warm, fuzzy intentions or from vague, ill-defined dissatisfactions with the status quo. The second step – facilitating sustainable change – is a mutual exploration of possibilities and their related actions which can be quite unpredictable until actually experienced.
Leaders, then, begin at a precise point of initiation and take their followers forward into uncharted territory in order to find / discover desirable solutions – in short, it’s an exercise in divergence.
This tells us that the primal energy for leadership rests in those who follow. The leader’s job is to focus and facilitate and to take these followers to the sustainable future that each one creates for him or her self. This is hard to do without being fully in that person’s reality – it requires an intimate awareness, trust and continuing confidence.
Leadership is so much more challenging to assess and to configure than is management and, if you’d like to know more, there are previous Polaris Digest articles on these topics which you’re invited to explore.
Making the right choice . . .
If the final result or outcomes are readily knowable (rational) and can be recognized by everyone concerned, the need is for management. On the other hand, if it is a desire to be realized (emotional) but we’re not at all sure we’ll recognize it until we actually experience it, then the need is for leadership.
Yet another way of looking at the choice is
- Leadership is helping to decide WHAT gets done
- Management is coordination and collaboration on HOW things get done.
Jeff was once confused by the choices. I first met him on the plant floor in the middle of a rant. He was not a happy camper because his supervisors were simply not responding to his direction.
“I don’t know how to make it clearer!” he was exclaiming. “Those units have to be shipped by three this afternoon or they won’t be in the customer’s hands by start of business tomorrow. So move those prototypes off the line and bring in the raw materials right now – you can place them right there.”
One of the supervisors turned to lift a prototype unit off the conveyor and Jeff yelled, “Not you, idiot, get your people to do it! Sh*t! Do I have to do everything myself?’
As we returned to his office he complained to me, “I don’t know how to find people who can think for themselves these days! What the h*ll is wrong with these people?”
It was a protracted and sensitive conversation. I pointed out that he could be confusing the situation by his mixed style of intervention – not to mention his passion. He didn’t grasp the point initially because he was too focused on the outcomes he so desperately wanted. It was very hard for him to understand that he would have to hand off the initiative to others if he expected them to engage and follow through on their own initiatives.
At the next supervisors meeting though, he agreed to experiment with a straight leadership strategy. Focusing on the final results he wanted, he helped each of the supervisors to translate the needed outcomes into his/her own reality. It took a little more time than he’d anticipated because his people weren’t used to being committed to results but rather were compliant to his instructions. There was a credibility gap initially, but finally it worked.
At a subsequent meeting, on a different issue, he tried a pure management strategy. Identifying first all the different viewpoints on the challenge, he built a consensual action plan based on shared objectives, standards and also on collaboration. It was a plan of action that he coordinated and his supervisors implemented with general success.
Putting it to work . . .
We all face varying challenges and work differently. In some, a few situations, the selection of either a leadership or management strategy is a clear decision determined by the opening situation and outcomes expected. In many, if not most, other circumstances it’s a lot less obvious and frequently changes in mid-stream.
The secret, in my experience, is to develop the choice of strategy together with those who are directly involved.
Firstly, what’s the emotional temperature? The more emotions are engaged, the greater the need for leadership; people who care deeply about the outcomes and have a need for commitment will want interventions that allow for increasing and continuing personal participation. This is a leadership scenario.
If the proposed action has common meaning and value for participants at the start and the focus is on precisely how we’ll ‘git ‘er done’, then management strategies will usually work best. The focus is largely rational (until tempers and frustrations flare, that is!) so there’s energy for building cooperation and collaboration. This is management.
Commitment is desirable in both cases and this requires the investment of personal energy. History has proven, time and again, that individual energies have to be harnessed for good or else they’ll find ready expression in other, less desirable forms. As my sainted Scottish Aunt used to say, “The devil makes work for idle minds and hands!” Whatever, personal energy doesn’t just disappear.
The smart leader / manager accepts this and seeks constructive ways to corral all that energy by choosing and applying the right directive tool – leadership or management.
The bottom line . . .
The effective leader / manager is a crafts-person with an awesome responsibility. Tools and processes have to be mastered and maintained, deliberately selected and applied with the intended outcome clearly in view.
Those who do not, or will not, take the time to choose and apply the right tool or process will see a difference in the quality of the finished product. In most cases, people tend to feel invested in final products - and people have long and unforgiving memories for such matters.
Again, the wisdom of my sainted Scottish aunt, “I’ll likely forget what you tell me, and I’ll probably even forget what you do, but I’ll never forget how you make me feel!”
Think about it!
I'd welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. We can all learn through dialogue and your experiences will undoubtedly gain more value when shared. Please contact me at david@andros.org.
A Note to our Readers . . .
Previous series of articles on the topics of
- Tomorrow’s Leaders – a model for SME organizations
- The Leadership Crucible – the ‘making’ of leaders
- Leadership Characteristics – a comprehensive catalogue of leader qualities
- Succession Planning – the strategic argument, principles and strategies, and
- Managing Change – every person’s guide to painless processes
have been summarized as discussion guides for those who lead and manage through mentoring and coaching. If you would like to secure a copy for your own use, please contact us.
It is a pleasure to share ideas with you and we’d welcome your questions, suggestions and comments. They’ll assist us refine and expand the essential value of these initiatives. Thanks in anticipation for your participation.
|
