More leaders v managers nonsense
 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. |
| Follow me on Twitter |
| 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 Wall Street Journal just published a collection of articles and videos titled "Lessons in Leadership." One of the articles in it is called "What is the Difference Between Management and Leadership?"
I was hoping this would be one of the sensible ones. My hopes soared when I read the opening paragraph.
"Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves."
That's solid stuff and it's also where the article finished up, but not before quoting the pervasive and pernicious nonsense that Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus offered up in their 1989 book, Leaders. I'm sure you'll recognize it.
The first one is "The manager administers. The leader innovates."
Note the difference in language between the opening paragraph and the line just above. It's the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
"Leadership" and "management" are kinds of work. "Leaders" and "managers" are kinds of people. There is one huge practical problem with this.
On the job, you don't get to be a leader or a manager. You're a boss and you must do leadership work, management work, and supervision work. Leaders and managers aren't different people in real life.
If you accept the idea that leaders and managers are different people, you have no way to prepare new bosses for the reality of their job. And since you define leaders in terms of traits instead of behaviors or performance you have no fair and effective way to evaluate those who work as bosses.
But Dr. Bennis isn't content to simply ignore reality. He works hard to define the leader as a superior creature compared with the woeful manager. Consider the following.
"The manager is a copy. The leader is an original."
"The manager relies on control. The leader inspires trust."
"The manager is the classic good soldier. The leader is his or her own person."
It's enough to make me gag. It is a way of talking about what bosses do that demeans all work that is not leadership. The language we've begun to use to discuss leadership demonstrates this well.
We use terms like "authentic leadership" or "true leadership" or "real leadership." We don't use those terms for any other kind of work. You never hear about "authentic managers" or "true carpenters."
This exaltation of leaders is one of the root causes of some of the simply awful leadership we've witnessed and experienced over the last decade or so. If you turn leaders into semi-divine beings, you shouldn't be surprised if they act like that the rules that apply to the rest of us don't apply to them.
Boss's Bottom Line
If you're responsible for the performance of a group, you must do leadership work, management work and supervision work. Don't assume that you can neglect one kind of work. They're all important. Don't waste your time worrying about whether you are a leader or a manager. Just get to work.
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.
Categories: supervision,Management,Leadership
Tags: Supervision Management Leadership
Spot on as always, Wally. I use some of Dr. Bennis' tripe in leadership training. First I show his original verbiage - then I substitute "ineffective manager" for "manager" and "effective manager" for "leader". Drives home the point. Sadly, I saw someone on Twitter passing along his Manager/Leader stuff as actual inspiration. *Sigh*
Reply to this
Wow. That's a great way to get at the issues. Thanks for adding to my store of knowledge.
Reply to this
Wally,
There is sooooo much garbage writing out there on management and leaders, hunters and gatherers, wannabes and gonnabes, etc., etc., etc. Most of the people that write this nonsense study management, very rare that they've ever done IT, i.e, leadership. Book smarts vs. street smarts (pun intended) and all of the nonsense MBA theories and strategies. Leadership is clearly defined on the beaches of Normandy or Omaha. You can talk all day long about how you "want" to take the beach from the Germans, but until the door drops and people are getting blasted in front of you will you forget strategy and improvise like crazy to get the job done. Impulse, instincts, bravery, and luck have a lot to do with the success of leaders in today's market.
Whenever I need to "go first", so to speak, I think of the invasion on the beaches of Normandy and Omaha to realize how good I've got life right now. Those soldiers were managers, leaders, captains, grunts, paratroopers, medics, engineers, etc.. If they could get the INEVITABLE done, well, so should we...on a much easier playing field and more friendly landscape.
Dropping Almonds, if you haven't perused yet, may be held for your other opinions on worst publications...at least with regard to potty mouth managers/leaders.
Cheers
Reply to this
Thanks, Scott. You make good points as always. I'd just add that we've got those good examples in other places too. Yes, we do have it good. Yes, there are good examples to follow. And, yes, at the end of it all it's the doing, not the talking about it that matters.
Reply to this
I couldn't agree with you more, Wally. This schizophrenic view of leaders and managers does not help people do a better job of managing and leading. It is confusing at best and elitist at worst.
Great post!
Reply to this
Thanks, Gywn. That's a great summary: "confusing at best and elitist at worst."
Reply to this
Thanks for saying the "Emperor is wearing no clothes". I've never believed in Bennis's definition either and love your notion that there are three types of work - leadership, management and supervision - and anyone overseeing a team must effectively perform all three.
Reply to this
Thanks, Marty. That notion was what got all this started.
Reply to this
Gwyn summarized my thoughts on this perfectly.
I will add that we have allowed managing and supervising to continue to be minimized by the boxes we have stuck them in on the org chart. They are perceived as stepping stones rather than the essential building blocks they are to being able to successfully run an organization. That leadership equals position is the myth we perpetuate in the process.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding that, Susan. The org chart is one more way that we exalt leadership at the expense of other kinds of work.
Reply to this
Nicely put. Trying to separate managing from leading or leading from managing is seems to be a rather silly exercise. Sure, there are scope issues - a foreman leads differently than a CEO - but that's no reason to claim the foreman doesn't lead...
Reply to this
Thanks for the kind words, Fred. More than a "silly exercise," shifting to leader v manager has provided the basis for a whole industry of consultants, speakers, and authors who spend their time and ours on why Gwyn described as "confusing at best and elitist at worst," but which is in their own best interests.
Reply to this
Thanks for this.
My worry is that by belittling managers everyone wants to be a visionary leader and no one wants to pick up a shovel and do the work of management,
All the best from the UK,
Mark
http://integrationtraining.blogspot.com/
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing that, Mark. I actually see things in a harsher light than you do. I think we've set up a situation where people chase after the brass ring of being a visionary leader, they belittle the work of management, and they totally ignore the work of supervision.
Result: you have a great vision that you can't achieve because you're incapable of organizing the resources (management) or developing and delivering consequences to team members (supervision). We refer to that as "impotence."
Reply to this
Fantastic post Wally. Thanks! Mr. Wade referred me to it. Best, E.
Reply to this
Great post, Wally! I'm sorry to say that I've been guilty of making that false distinction, instead of emphasizing that we need to develop leadership and management skills together. Thanks for the reminder.
Reply to this
Thanks for the comment, Gray. You're in good company. So much of what Bennis has done is so good, including most of the bookLeaders, that it's easy to miss how powerful the shift in language and its implications are.
Reply to this
Wally, thanks for bringing some needed clarity to this discussion, and for generating a great conversation as well.
Every leadership role has a management component, as you've noted. If you have great vision and no management ability, you will fail. Conversely, if you have great management ability and no vision, you will fail. You bring the right approach: a well-rounded leader has them both, and uses them as needed.
It seems to be the vogue to beat up the manager with no vision, but to forgive the visionary with no management skill. Trust me, working for either one is not pleasant!
Reply to this
Thanks for adding those comments, Chuck. We've spent a couple of decades exalting the visionary role that every boss has, but downplaying or even demeaning the work of balancing priorities and working with individuals to improve performance.
Reply to this
Wally:
You manage to be a very good leader with this post. When we separate we divide the organizations community potential and then wonder why people are disengaged.
David
Reply to this
What a great point, David. When we set up divisions or hierarchies based on what we think people ARE versus what they DO, we sow the seeds of discontent.
Reply to this
The manager vs leader discussion is undoubtedly out of hand and has created a sub-market for people to make money in.
The simple fact is that a person entrusted with a certain project in the free economy must first make up his/her mind:
'Why did I want this job? I have the freedom to decide to take it or not'
Once the person decides to take on the job this very same job will come with specific targets, goals and deadlines that will force the individual to take action in order to achieve the target.
At this point something interesting happens: the individual will have to crate buy-in, commitment and action from others. This is where true leadership kicks in: it's the ability of an individual to generate commitment, buy-in from others to achieve the goal.
This ability is not tied to a specific rank in an organization. I have witnessed many a PA of a high ranking manager wield massive informal leadership power and getting things done her boss was paid to get done.
To become a leader means that you have become emotionally mature enough to accept the challenge/goal set in front of you and to fully commit yourself to achieving it. The interesting thing is that this commitment creates a whole new aura and credibility around you, you are not mucking around, pretending to want something. This decision and commitment creates the very energy leadership is made up of... and it is accessible to us all
Reply to this
Thanks for those comments. You did a fine job of summarizing how people select challenges and then grow buy-in.
Reply to this
Thanks for those comments. You did a fine job of summarizing how people select challenges and then grow buy-in.
Reply to this
Again, I love your Articles..
In my mind, People can be a Manager but not all of people can be a leader..
A leader should have a leadership Soul, Must not a fraid abaout their weakness.
Reply to this
ARGH!!! Bennis has a lot ot answer for. I did a 7-part series debunking his list at
http://www.leadershipturn.com/leader-vs-manager-77/
I am so tired of CEO being anointed 'leaders' and lauded for their vision—especially on Wall Street. A lot of those visions must have been drug induced considering where they've led us
Reply to this
I agree that Warren Bennis has a lot to answer for on the leader vs. manager issue. Your series of posts lays out many. But I think it's important to remember that there's a lot of good stuff in his body of work. The leadership development lessons in Geeks and Geezers and the concept of "crucibles" is one example.
Reply to this
Wally, thanks for starting a great discussion. I appreciate what you are saying, but I must respectfully disagree. I actually LOVE the Bennis and Nanus quote. It has stuck in my head for decades and as such has been available as a guide to my daily behavior.
I never took Bennis to suggest that managers and leaders were different kinds of people. I always assume that MOST of my time will be spent managing, and I must become a master of efficiency. But I always have to be thinking about what is the "right thing to do" here, even if it does not represent the current "way things are done". Even if I don't have any control over the situation, I try to always think in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency.
I also like this distinction because it implies very clearly that you don't need a title, rank, or position to practice leadership. Any time you find yourself thinking "what is the right thing to do here" and you muster the courage to act in some way, you are practicing leadership.
I've always taken Bennis to be suggesting that as leaders we wear different "hats". Some people, unfortunately, never take off the management hat. I personally don't think you can be a good leader unless and until you learn to practice good management, but you can be a great manager and a lousy leader.
I think we actually agree quite a bit with respect to how all this works in practice.
Thanks for letting me share my thoughts. Bret
Reply to this
Thanks for adding those thoughtful comments, Bret. I think we do agree about how things work in practice. And I sure don't want you to stop doing what works for you.
But
When I cast my eye over the landscape, I see that specific distinction, between managers and leaders as kinds of people causing all kinds of problems. I'm sure there are others out there who take it like you do and are more effective because of it. But I see too much discussion of the distinction between people and, frankly, too many bosses sloughing off important parts of their jobs because, after all, they are "leaders" and not "managers."
Reply to this
Hi Wally:
While I agree with your sentiments that both roles are necessary, if not critical to organizational success, I'm afraid I differ from many opinions in that I do see distinct differences between leaders and managers.
Understanding and leveraging the functional and practical differences between both roles to the benefit of all is not nonsense, but common sense. See http://www.n2growth.com/blog/leaders-vs-managers for details.
Reply to this
I see leadership and management as different kinds of work. Calling them different roles doesn't bother me. It's when we start making them types of people and even more when we start making one superior to the other that we get in trouble.
Reply to this