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.

Team Management and Leadership

Managers or leaders? Which is likely to be the most successful attribute in a leading a business team to success? The answer, is that people leading teams need to be both managers and leaders in order to achieve consistent success with happy teams.

A team with a great leader, but who possesses no management skills, is likely to be more successful than one headed by an individual who has neither leadership nor management skills. Leaders are able to communicate a vision, motivate their teams, and inspire confidence. Following a good leader is likely to be a colourful experience, with a high level of engagement and motivation.

However, without the management skills of good planning, setting of clear objectives, direction on how to make the leader's vision a reality, and measurement of progress towards reaching objectives, it is unlikely that the team will fulfil its full potential of success in business.

Management skills are easily identifiable. Planning, communication, setting objectives, setting standards and regularly monitoring performance amongst many others. Management skills are also now under-rated in many organisations since they are traditionally associated with high levels of internal process, at the expense of individual flair and focus on business performance. However, a lack of basic management skills leads to teams which are 'leaky buckets' in terms of performance, tasks which fall between cracks in team roles, and a general feeling of wooliness about what is required of individual team members, and how they go about achieving it.

Leadership skills are more often regarded as being innate, and many companies spend millions of pounds on 'leadership skills' believing them to be a better predictor of success than management skills. A very efficient manager who fails to show leadership behaviour, either ends up with a lacklustre team, or one which suffers from internal conflict to the detriment of performance.

Management Principles & Leadership

Eight Principles of Management Leadership
Essentially, the professional practice of management leadership in organisations needs to be guided by eight underlying principles:

Principle #1: Leadership and management are situational, mutually inclusive and symbiotic – like yin andyang.
Regardless of what academic literature says about the demarcation between `management’ and `leadership’, in practice the two are inextricably linked. Having distinct definitions does not mean that `management’ and `leadership’ operate separately. Although a good manager is not necessarily a good leader and vice versa, someone who has mastered the art of managership would be versatile in wielding either management or leadership competencies, depending on the context and situation.

Principle #2: Management leadership is dynamic and permeable, and should be cultivated and institutionalised as a pervasive behaviour throughout all levels of the organisation – not necessarily expected, confined and manifested only in senior management.
Having a few good management leaders is encouraging but this might not be sufficient to thrust one’s organisation into the flywheel of organisational greatness. That is why the institutionalisation of management leadership – i.e. integrating it into the organisational culture – is crucial. During “The Greatness Challenge” seminar in Kuala Lumpur on 31 March 2008, Dr Stephen Covey attested that in today’s Knowledge Age organisation, it is “the Culture that owns responsibility for results, therefore [it] self-manages,” instead of just the boss who owns such responsibility, as was the tendency in the Industrial Age organisation. Managership behaviour needs to be pervasive.

Principle #3: Management leadership can be developed, taught and learned through programmes (content), action learning (process) and coaching (engagement).
Research has shown that we remember only 10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear and 30% of what we see. But if we put it into action, we can remember up to 90% of what is imparted. As such, learning through training and coaching programmes must be complemented by action learning and other approaches that get us to be holistically involved in learning and practicing management leadership.

Principle #4: Management leadership is based on the personal mastery and development qualities of values, attitude, knowledge, skills and capability (including communication, interpersonal skills and the ability to grow and nurture other leaders).
One of the hallmarks of outstanding management leaders is the ability to raise other management leaders. Having mastered the secret code of managership, great management leaders are able to discern the distinguishing attributes of upcoming leaders and are able to draw out these attributes without fear of being surpassed by their potential successors. Jeffrey Immelt was groomed by his predecessor, Jack Welch. Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay was nurtured by the late Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong. Many good CEOs have raised generations of young leaders and managers, some of whom surpass their mentors in fame while others remain lesser known but successful nonetheless. These leaders have achieved self-mastery of management leadership.

Principle #5: Management leadership is the proper use of referent (influence), authoritative (compliance) and expert (technical) powers to develop and optimise the best in people.
Good management leaders exhibit referent and influential power among their followers. Unscrupulous leaders who exploit their charisma are the archetypal cult leaders. On the other hand, good management leaders who wield authoritative power do so without being dictatorial or using fear to coerce their subordinates into submission. Moreover, exemplary management leaders possess authentic expertise that does not require them to exploit their subordinates’ capabilities and claim sole credit for other people’s work. When the work is done, they will claim we all did it.

Principle #6: Competent management leadership is the entitlement of every employee as managers are remunerated and empowered to be responsible for leading and making changes for improvement.
As much as an organisation rightfully expects its employees to offer their best, every employee has the right to expect competent management leadership at the top and every level. In turn, employees also can expect the right to be entrusted with responsibilities, to be stretched by challenges and to be developed into strong management leaders. Managership culture building is therefore a multilateral process. Often employees resign not because of the organisation but because of their inept managers.

Principle #7: Excellent management leadership is the requisite performing credential and competency for today’s local and global leaders.
Amid the war for talent and a scarcity of the right talent, organisations that do not demonstrate good management leadership will not become the employer of choice. Discerning high-performing talents are reluctant to put themselves in career jeopardy by associating with organisations that place little emphasis on excellent managership. In today’s globalised environment, we must pursue and practice excellence, as mediocrity cannot be tolerated.

 

Principle #8: Management leadership for all organisations is the new management paradigm for the 21st century to meet the new knowledge-based economy’s challenges, recognising regional and global impact and opportunities.
No organisation, big or small, is exempted from the need for managership. It is relevant to all organisations – whether charitable or not-for-profit organisations, government agencies, LLCs, GLCs, PLCs – all of which are subject to the scrutiny of good corporate governance. And corporate governance is not just about transparency of financial accounting but also involves the institutionalisation of best management practices that lead to long-term, sustainable results