Leadership vs Management: A new look at an old question

Ask anyone and they’ll tell you. There’s a difference between managers and leaders. And there are any number of books, self-help gurus and consultants who will define precisely what that difference is and help those who want to become leaders to do so in 3 (or 7 or 13 or 21) easy steps. The problem is that most people think theyre leaders simply because they made it to the top of their pile. Yet, leadership is much more than this.

Are you a leader?

One of the most quoted leadership experts is Warren Bennis, a popular writer of leadership resources and business professor at the University of Southern California. His distinction between leaders and managers is famous: Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right things (Learning to Lead: A Workbook on Becoming a Leader, Perseus Books / Addison Wesley, 1997). This various conceptions of the difference is often accompanied by lists of what leaders do (innovate, inspire trust, challenge status quo, seek risks, etc) compared to managers (implement, control, accept status quo, seek comfort and safety, etc).

After reading those lists, it is almost impossible to see managers as anything other than lesser beings than leaders. No wonder then that everyone wants to be a leader! And absolutely no wonder that those at Exco or Board level would not for one minute think that they might not be leaders that they might be nothing more than glorified managers! Yet, this is what many of them are: managers.This may seem like a bold statement, but the world is currently in crisis because of a lack of real leadership in all spheres of life.

The problem is that people with the title of leader often do nothing more than manage. This is true from small departments to large countries.

A Definition of Leadership

The Collapse of Globalism, is a fascinating book by Canadian philosopher, John Ralston Saul (Overlook Press, 2005). Despite its title, the book is not another rant against globalisation. It is an analysis of the current situation in the world, maintaining that until we admit that the underlying models of capitalism, free trade and open borders are fundamentally flawed, we will never be able to solve the problems of poverty, wars and the growing divide between the haves and have nots. In fact, he argues convincingly that the ideology of globalisation has not only failed in almost everything it has tried to do, but is in rapid retreat in many areas of the world, especially those countries with bold leaders who are prepared to stand up to the prevailing powers.

In Sauls mind, one of the major reasons behind the collapse of globalism is that there are very few real leaders in the system. Politicians, businessmen, bureaucrats alike most are mere managers. To prove this point, he offers a definition of leadership as follows:
 

To believe in the reality of choice is one of the most basic characteristics of leadership. Curiously enough, many individuals who think of themselves as leaders find this reality very difficult. They believe that theirjob is to understand power and management and perhaps make minor corrections to what they accept to be the torque of events. But they take for granted the reigning truths of the day and so are fundamentally passive. As a result, change is eventually thrust upon them by reality. Or they are replaced. In either case, the strength of that particular [organisation] – its ability to choose – is weakened.

Its true. Most leaders in companies take much of their environment and operating conditions as a given. Very few look at the big picture and feel that they have any choices. Globalisation, China, oil prices, global warming,regulations, talent wars, market conditions, share prices, competitors, products all are taken as they are, with mere dreams of change. Companies are thus captive to these forces. And, as such, feel in need of more managers.

Bigger companies need managers more

One of the ways in which Saul tries to prove his assertion, is to point out that the larger an organisation becomes, the more likely it is to have a manager at the helm, rather than a leader.

The modern obsession with size is managerial, not capitalistic. Given a choice, [they] will seek power through structure and the extension of structure rather than through the direct development or sale of goods. For a manager, successis measured by structural size and confirmed by bonuses. Their biggest problem as the structures grow larger is slowness, lack of creativity, risk aversion, stagnation at the top. The easiest way to energise such a structure is to buy another structure. This is managerial shock treatment. Bang two organisations together. The result has been a new world of mergers and acquisitions in which nothing is actually done, but large pieces are moved around. (pg 80).

There is a shared assumption that size replaces the need to think. About 40 years ago Kurt Lewin, universally recognized as the founder of modern social and organisational psychology, put it something like this: Every organisation structures itself to accomplish its goals in a way that is in tune with or responsive to its environment. Once the efficiency of the organisation is established, the focus is on simply maintaining the system, assuming that the environment will stay basically the same. Management is the main focus because it keeps the organisation going well with little change. But the thing is: the environment for any organisation is always changing. The world is not static. Organisations tend not to spot these changes quickly, often because of a management orientation which is focused more on looking in instead of looking out. Over time, the organisationcan become less and less in tune with or responsive to its environment, creating more and more management problems. The most common outcome is short term, highly utilitarian actions.

Times like this require organisations to think more in terms of leadership. Leaders begin to ask questions like, “What is really going on here? How do we become relevant again? How do we fulfill our goals in these new times? What will prompt people to think that what we do is meaningful? Leaders seek to bring their organisation more in line with the realities of their environment, which often necessitates changing the very structures, resources and relationships of their organisation which they have worked so long and so hard to manage. And yet, as they do, leaders can bring renewed vitality to their people.

True Leadership

If management is about authority, it might be said that leadership is about influence. To be a true leader, you have to have clearly defined convictions – and, more importantly, the courage of your convictions to see them manifest into reality.

There are no shortcuts to this type of leadership. Nor are there simple 1-2-3 formulas for success. There are no roadmaps. Thats the point of it leadership is about plotting the roads to the destination, not following well worn paths to a certain outcome. What guides these leaders, ultimately, is character. Most companies say they want leaders, but actually what they really want is consistent, above-expectation returns on investment and shareholder wealth. For that, you need great managers.

In politics all around the world, we need leaders to stand up and be counted, to stop playing for votes and thinking only of the next election, and to lead! In the corporate world, we need leaders who will stop the insanity of short-term focused capacity-stripping, performed in the name of cost cutting. We need leaders who will ensure that their companies do more than just earn profits, and actually make a meaningful contribution. We need leaders who will lead.