More silliness about leaders or managers
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
| The Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. |
| For weekly tips and resources pointers, check Wally's Three Star Leadership Letter |
| Find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention. |
| Find out more about Wally's coaching services. |
 |
The UK site, Training Zone, just posted an article with the title "Do you want good managers, or inspirational leaders?" The article is just about as ghastly as the title. Here's the lead.
"If you want truly sensational leaders then focus on the practical and ditch the theoretical hot air, says Steve Miller. Is it really essential that they understand theories to the 'enth degree', he asks? Instead, he suggests five key areas for leadership development."
I'm all for concentrating on the practical, but, according to this article, doing so includes advice like this: "General Montgomery stated he could turn anyone into a charismatic leader with the right training and I agree with him. Selecting a charismatic trainer is essential."
I'm not sure who "General Montgomery" is or was. I don't think you can turn anyone into a charismatic leader. I think trying to do so is a really, really stupid idea. But the biggest stupid idea in this piece is highlighted in the headline.
You don't get people who are managers OR leaders. You get people who are managers AND leaders. They're supervisors, too.
When you make someone responsible for the performance of a team, you make them a leader. They're leaders because they have followers. Those followers treat them like a leader. The only choice involves whether they'll be an effective or ineffective leader.
As leaders they affect vision and culture. But that's only one of their roles.
They also function as managers, juggling priorities and the challenges of day-to-day work. They function as supervisors working one-on-one with the people who work for them to help improve individual and team performance.
If you're going to accomplish the mission and care for the people, you need to do all three kinds of work. Establish a vision worth working for and create a healthy culture to make it happen. Manage priorities so that the work gets done efficiently. And help your people improve performance and develop their skills.
Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.
Request your free copy of "Meeting the Challenges of the Boomer Brain Drain: An integrated approach."
Wally Bock has helped people learn to be great bosses for more than a quarter century. His latest book, Performance Talk: The One-on-One Part of Leadership, makes learning key leadership principles almost effortless by teaching through a story and providing lists of resources for further growth.
Click here to find out more about Wally's coaching services.
For weekly tips and resources pointers, check our Wally Bock's Three Star Leadership Letter.
Click here to find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention.
Wally –
You know how much I agree with the silly “leaders vs. managers” hooey. Keep fighting the good fight!
Reply to this
Thanks for stopping by and the kind words, Dan.
Reply to this
Well said Wally.
In my work I try to get people to think of everything they do as having a managerial component and a leadership component.
Some actions are almost pure leadership - but still have managerial implications.
Others can be almost purely managerial (we need to reduce expenditure this quarter by 3%)but have important leadership implications ('why are we looking to cut back'). By thinking of all actions as vectors - with both managerial and leadership components - we can get away from the myth that it is managers or leaders.
Reply to this
Thanks for stopping by and sharing that insight, Mike. I really like your use of the word "component." My only quibble with what you've written is that I think there's also a supervisory component (see, I can use that word in a sentence) to most jobs that involve responsibility for group performance. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
Reply to this
Hey Wally,
Where shall I begin? Leaders are leaders because people WANT to follow them...out of respect. It has nothing to do with simply being assigned responsibility for a team. As I discussed in my own blog entry, in which I referenced a GREAT leadership blogger [http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/03/04/to-lead-or-not-to-lead/], leadership is about influence and performance.
Management is more about getting things done. Now, to be sure, managers can be leaders and vice versa, but the two roles/words are certainly not interchangeable in my world.
Reply to this
Thanks for stopping by, Nina, and enriching the discussion.
We absolutely agree that leadership is about influence and performance. My short statement of that is that if you're a leader you use your behavior (what you say and do) to influence the behavior and performance of others.
I think, though, that we disagree on two key points.
Your comment implies to me that you divide people responsible for groups and their performance into two classes: leaders and managers. I know that's been a popular stream in leadership thought since Warren Bennis first introduced it in his book with Burt Nanus titled Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge.
From my perspective, that position does not pass the test of describing actual jobs in the business world. When a person is responsible for the people and performance of a group, that person must lead and manage and supervise. Mike Chitty describes that better I do when he speaks of "leadership components" and "managerial components."
This doesn't mean that you can't lead without being in a "leadership position." You can provide influence about direction and purpose from any part of a group. But leadership is part of the specific, assigned work of people in charge of groups and being a leader comes with that territory.
The other place where we differ is when you say of leadership: "It has nothing to do with simply being assigned responsibility for a team."
I think that most of the time, being put in a "leadership" position has everything to do with whether a person is a leader or not. When a man or woman is put in a position where he or she is responsible for a group and its performance, the other members of the group immediately begin to take cues from their assigned leader. In other words, the behavior of the person in charge of the group influences the behavior and performance of the team members.
If I understand your position correctly, you hold that a person cannot be a leader unless they are a good leader and accomplish good things. This has a distinguished pedigree, going back to the original and classic work on leadership by James MacGregor Burns.
Even though I love Burns' work, I disagree with that position. I think that leadership is a kind of work that produces results. If a person uses their behavior to influence the behavior and performance of others, that is leadership, whether it is done consciously and well or unconsciously and poorly. Leadership, for me, is the work, not the result.
Reply to this
Nina -
I really do understand and appreciate the difference between leadership and management. Otherwise I wouldn’t have chosen the name “Great Leadership” for my blog.
It’s just that I’ve found it to be practical to use the words interchangeable when referring to those in supervisory, management, or executive roles. Here’s a post I wrote a on the topic: “Leadership” vs. “Management” – does it really matter? http://greatleadershipbydan.blogspot.com/2007/11/leadership-vs-management-does-it-really.html
After you read it, I’d enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Reply to this