Leadership is Not a Job

Another wee snippet from the book I am working on, 10 Steps to Better Management. Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

I want to address a common question - what’s the difference between management and leadership? My perspective on this is likely different than what you have heard before or read in leadership books. First, I don’t believe that management and leadership are different positions or jobs. Many companies distinguish managers and leaders based on their pecking order in the organization. That seems like nonsense. We see and experience leadership at all levels of the organization. Some people believe that leadership is something you do when you move beyond management – that leadership is a set of tasks that are somehow higher in level and that it takes more skill to be a leader than it does to be a manager. This belief does not make sense. We see people with all ranges of education and sophistication demonstrate leadership.

What is leadership? Management is a set of methods and practices – a regimen – that allows us to run a business or a piece of the business. Management is a job. Leadership is not a job; it’s the way we do our jobs. Imagine four peer managers sitting in a meeting together discussing the progress of a major project. The discussion could be considered part of management. Having update meetings about major initiatives is one task or function of management. Let’s say that one of those managers, you, demonstrates courage and takes the initiative to openly discuss concerns that the others are too chicken to bring up. At your prompting, the discussion opens up and important concerns are defined and addressed. In fact, the discussion has left the group questioning whether the project is still viable and a good use of time and resources. During that display of courage – in that moment – you demonstrated leadership.

We ought to be managers all the time and show leadership when it’s needed. This is the case will all jobs. If you are a controller, you ought to be a great controller all the time and demonstrate leadership when needed. If you are a front line worker on an assembly line, you ought to be a great screw gun operator all the time and lead when necessary.

Comments

[Bob Catpenter]

Right on. We follow leaders and work for managers. Following is the reason why.

Good luck

BC

The Real Reason ‘Why’

Managers have made great progress over the past 200 years but, according to behavioral scientists to-day’s average employee is only producing 35% to 50% of their on-the-job potential. In questionnaires they also admit to wasting as much as 3 hours a day. If we can increase worker motivation without addi-tional costs, the economy should go off the chart. We explain here ‘why’ the loss occurs.

------------------

Historic Background: Scientists generally describe humans as being rational thinking; cooperative, productive social animals that carry in each body cell similar self-governing genetic codes commonly referred to as “human nature.” Over a period of 20-25 million years, chance mutations and natural selec-tion developed a primitive brain in mammals. Leaders of animal packs and clans diligently protected their wards and supported survival needs. Two hundred thousand years ago, a mutation sparked a think-ing brain in a particular female. This ability gave heirs advantages over their animal cousins. About 10,000 years ago hunter-gathers began to farm and domesticate animals. Nearby villages grew into cities. Artisans and others sold or traded their products and services much as they do today. In crowded environments sickness and famines created social disorder. Tyrants (i.e., sovereigns, conquers and dicta-tors) took advantage of the chaos, replaced traditional leaders and using slavery, serfdom and ideological anarchy, they abolish freedoms. None of these schemes lasted long because the freedoms to think and to grow by ones own hand is a basic non-negotiable need, and cannot exist when power is unrestricted.

According to scientists, genes are the building blocks of your brain. Using diverse knowledge, they di-rect the way we think and behave. Social intermingling and the free exchange of innovative ideas sped up mankind’s progress. The hitch is that most of our genes developed over millions of years and today’s management style is in geological time only seconds old. As the deportment of workers indicates, when needs are unsatisfied genes still continue to urge hostilities. Abraham Maslow’s drafted hierarchy guide-lines that state “as humans meet 'basic needs', they seek to satisfy successively higher needs.” US work-ers fought poverty for over 200 years and struck for benefits that leaders of yore would have considered to be their rightful due. Today, employees are unconsciously frustrated in their efforts to reach higher levels (belonging, esteem and self-actualization). In this environment, profits will remain nominal.

Thinking is an essential human liberty. Encouraging employees to think about how to create profits for those who pay their salaries may not seem fashionable, but this act unquestionably excites workers into action and costs nothing to implement. The closer organizations follow nature’s urgings, the greater the opportunity for success. Managers must learn ‘why’ workers react the way they do, and more important, ‘why’ they continue to disregard human needs that apply to the workplace. Neglecting the ‘why’ part has cost industry trillions over the years.

Summary: According to Maslow, healthy workers, who are free to think, grow and use information stored in the mind, work harder and smarter. When I started managing – for the lack of other guidelines, I used the axiom “Treat others the way I would be treated.” Employees responded similarly to this man-agement style even though culture, religions and language differed and they lived thousands of miles apart. I understood how to manage, but not why. In researching the issue I found that my experiences closely matched scientific theorems (i.e., that employees withhold enthusiasm until genetic drives are satisfied). Once they accepted that I worked for them, they began to work for the company. Their spirit bloomed, self-respect intensified and they become productive at all levels. In this scenario they work for the company instead of against it, output double and profits triple. It’s like having twice the number of employees without the additional cost of insurance, benefits, space, supervision and tools. I encouraged thought and they did the rest.

[Dean Fuhrman]

Lisa -
Just some random thoughts on your descriptions. When I read the words management and leadership they first off strike me as being lifeless. That may be because they are endpoints and not the actions. So what if instead the language/thought was changed to describe the actions of each. Below are the first definitions out of dictionary.com for manage and lead.

manage - to bring about or succeed in accomplishing, sometimes despite difficulty or hardship:

lead - to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort

As I compare the two the difference is along the lines of what you have described. It also seems to me that you can't have one without the other.

I am not sure I would say that one is a job and the other is a way. However I think I understand the distinction you are trying to make. To me each is a piece of the puzzle of getting on in the world to accomplish all the many things that we set out to to. They both have their place at the table of work and life ... they are complimentary and essentially seamless in application when done well.

Hope this helps.

[Craig Huggart]

Lisa:

Great post. The debate is over!

I have always had the sense that the management/leadership dichotomy is artificial. It's great that you finally articulated it.

[Steve Roesler]

Lisa:

Just had a discussion with a long-time client about what I consider to be the uselessness of this debate. It has bothered me since it began years ago. That said, I applaud you for wanting to do something to put it to rest.

Your explanation in the blog post is as practical and straightforward as any I have seen. Here's my take after 40 years of work as a "leader" in the Army, a manager for a global pharmaceutical firm, and a consultant:

We want someone to tell us what's important, when it needs to get done, and to provide whatever support is necessary to get it done. At times, that same person may do something to lift us to new heights, inspire us and, when the facts are such, be honest about what will happen if we don't hit our target.

The notion of managing all the time and leading "in the moment" rings very true. The person who can rally others but not figure out how to organize them to "get it done" is hardly much help. Similarly, to hunker down daily without recognizing the need for a "transcending moment" leaves people flat.

Perhaps one culprit in all of this is the Cult of Celebrity. The Media Darling CEO is revered and elevated in a way that causes us to ascribe personal attributes that may not exist were we to do serious interviews with those close to the individual. A billion dollar accomplishment prompts behavioral analysis from a distance. That becomes a model for "how to" until the next major book release regarding someone else's success. Then the game changes.

At the risk of alienating those who enjoying quantifying human behavior, I would offer this: The idea of quantifying how much of one's potential one is using on the job is great for provoking reflection. Every time I see one of those figures I say "Yep. I could probably stretch a little more." And I figure out what I could do differently, including getting rid of unimportant things.

But to say that I am using 35% or 85% is not helpful--probably incorrect given the momentary variables in one's life--and smacks of original "scientific management." In an attempt to get "scientific" about the human condition, the very notion of "percentage of potential used" connotes worker-as-machine.

Henry Mintzberg has long been one of my favorites. He gets accused of being curmudgeonly because he doesn't go along with the re-hashed pap that sometimes passes for management/leadership development. His thoughts may be at the heart of yours (Lisa) and mine. Mintzberg believes strongly that MBA programs don't produce managers. They produce people who have intellectual knowledge about the various functions of management. And, without supervisory/management/leadership experience, they have no context in which to place "how do we execute" (my quotes) these things properly?

Lisa, I sat down to write a few lines. If you are still with me it's obvious that your topic has struck a nerve--no doubt with many others, too. I find that the application of principles is what is most helpful to my clients--not the cocktail party debate about leadership and management.

I encourage you to continue your quest.

Steve

[Lisa Haneberg]

Wow - such interesting thoughts - thanks so much for the feedback. I somewhat agree with Steve, that the debate is itself, useless. That said, I get asked this all the time and feel the need to clarify my point of view (not THE right answer) in the introduction of the book so that people know where I am coming from and know how to interpret my use of the words management and leadership in the book.

I also agree that most people are both - the magic is knowing when to employ management and when to employ leadership. Sometimes I see departments that are just SCREAMING for some solid management and other times I just want to slap a seasoned professional and say LEAD FOR ONCE!

[Wally Bock]

My approach to this is also out of the mainstream, Lisa, but it's also somewhat different from your approach. Here's a quick summary.

When you become responsible for the performance of a group you take on three kinds of work as part of the job of "boss." Leadership work is establishing purpose and direction for the group. Management work is coordinating the application of resources to achieve the group's objectives. Supervision work is helping individuals improve their behavior and performance.

As a boss you have two over-riding objectives. You are responsible for accomplishing the group mission. And you are responsible for caring for the group members.

You get no choice about whether you are expected to do these jobs and accomplish these objectives. The expectations of your boss, your peers and your subordinates are that you will do them. The only choice you have is how you do them.

As I looked this over, I realized I need to say something about my work for you to evaluate the above properly. My purpose in life is to help people who are responsible for group performance do a better job of accomplishing the mission and caring for the people.

I'm not interested in "leadership" from anywhere in the group/team except the top, because all other leadership is qualitatively different. The person responsible for the group and its performance is measured by what the group does. He or she is accountable for what the group does. In all other kinds of leadership from other positions, that accountability is missing.

For me, that makes the other stuff "influence" and not leadership. That doesn't take away its importance. It doesn't mean it doesn't take courage sometimes. But it's different when you're only accountable for your own behavior and not group performance.

[Lisa Haneberg]

Wally - you are right, we do see this a bit different. Great! Diversity is the spice of life. Thanks for sharing your take on it.

You say you focus on leadership from the top and I focus on enlivening leadership throughout. I am less concerned about accountability (assigned) and more interested in ownership (volunteered) and magic.

[Wally Bock]

Steve -

I really liked this. It's succint and accurate (and it agrees with what I believe, a primary concern :-). I'd like to quote you if you'll allow me and properly attribute the quote if you'll tell me your wishes.

"We want someone to tell us what's important, when it needs to get done, and to provide whatever support is necessary to get it done. At times, that same person may do something to lift us to new heights, inspire us and, when the facts are such, be honest about what will happen if we don't hit our target. "

[Ellen Weber]

Wow - Lisa - I thought it was just me who felt uncomfortable with the distinctions I tend to read.

You are so dead on ... "My perspective on this is likely different than what you have heard before or read in leadership books."

Brain based research would back your notion that... "management and leadership are different positions or jobs." In fact, there is a great idea for a post about how to get more from the brain, by way of tools to lead.

Thanks for your leadership - which inspires us all. You rock, Lisa!

[James Shewmaker]

Lisa,

You are correct concerning leadership.

However, I would argue that there is also a difference between "managing" and "management."

In the TV series, Mash, Radar O'Reilly managed the business of the unit, but he was not in management. I realize that the incompetency of Henry Blake was part of the comedy of the early years but when the Sherman Potter character who was a competent CO took over the command, he also was dependent upon the managing skills of O'Reilly.

In like manner, many organizations are "managed" by people who are not officially "management."

[Lisa Haneberg]

Thanks Ellen!

James - I agree with your observation about managing and management.

[adam]

Lisa,

Interesting post. From my MBA studies in the past couple of years the best discriptions of the distinction between leadership and management have revolved around the concept of transactional (management) and transformational. Transactional refers to the process and methodologies of getting things done in an organisation, or what some people would call "micro management". Transformational is more strategic and relates to the direction in which the organisation desires to go. My own experience is that you don't often find the process orientation and attention to detail of the transactional manager with the vision and foresight of the transformational manager in the same person. Perhaps this is why there is a split in organisations of the two roles? Maybe there shouldn't be?

James is spot, I think. A great leader sets the direction, gets buy in and then surrounds his or herself with the right people to handle the transactional day-to-day tasks of making that vision a reality.

[David Zinger]

Lisa,

I have seen your Focus Like a Laser Beam in many of the Winnipeg book stores. It is getting some great shelf display.

I wonder about how much energy has been used on distinguishing between leadership and management. I have always remembered the statement that meaning is in people not words.

I like some of Marcus Buckingham's distinctions between managment and leadership but overall I also like the Nike (Just Do It) philosophy.

I know this is not all that helpful but it expresses some of my frustration on how much time is spent on distinction and how more time needs to be spend on leadership and management...maybe you can coin a phrase that will fuse the two together, for now,I will focus on enhancing leader-ment and manage-ship.

Good luck with this as it seems to remind me of the old phrase that those who can do and those who can't teach and when you can't teach it you write a blog comment on someone else's post...just to keep the topic at arm's length.

[Lisa Haneberg]

David - that's very funny. I'm with ya on the "just get on with it," path.

Thanks for passing along the sitings of Focus - thats great to hear! Maybe I will get invited back to the land of my birth for a session.

[Dave Anthold]

Lisa,

Facinating discussion on the management vs. leadership discussion. John Maxwell defines leadership as "influence, nothing more, nothing less". In my opinion, a manager can be great at doing the management related tasks such as aligning goals, ushering in a desired vision, driving the task list or the project schedule, but lack the most basic of rudamentary skills - the people skill set. I see the slight difference between a manager and leader as the person who is able to influence another person's perspective in order bring about the best possible decision for all interested parties.

Today, many people are promoted into management positions who justifibly deserve the position based upon their performance ability; however, the differential for me between a manager and a leader is whether they can "influence" people for the common good. This "influence" implies that leaders can employ a level of people interaction that leaves people better equipped for the task or project ahead. Often times managers assume that because they acquired the title of "manager" that they are a "leader" also, and I have experienced that a title does not indicate one's ability to "lead" or "influence".

I recommend Mark Sanborn's book "You don't need a Title to be a Leader" for more information.