I read an article this morning on HBR by Vineet Nayar that briefly outlined three ways any manager can improve, and all of them are based on the concept that to “manage” is to do a disservice — you’re much better off leading.
Though my MP path of self-improvement is about how to better “manage a project team”, it’s safe to say that we’ve all entered Goizueta with a goal to become improved leaders rather than improved managers.
What are a few differences? Vineet Nayar provides a 3-step litmus test.
1) Do you count value or do you create value?
A manager counts value and holds rigid milestones while a leader might instead create a team dynamic that will hit those milestones on its own. One of the commenters likened this to someone who is sick taking some pills to resolve the issue, versus someone eating right, resting, and exercising, thus staying well.
2) Do you present a circle of influence or a circle of power?
This goes into the article I posted a few weeks back about the importance of trust in leadership. Wielding power is a negative trait, but being that person who others come to for advice or encouragement is an indicator of leadership. The author only mentions how one can recognize their leadership in this point, but doesn’t recommend how to position oneself. Any thoughts here?
3) Do you manage work or do you lead people?
This relates to oversight (managing) and influencing by working alongside those in the trenches.
All in all, it seems that both are necessary, but influence and leadership are more proactive approaches to problems. Management is more reactive. The three litmus questions are overlapping and somewhat redundant, but I like the underlying point. What Vineet never says is that both management and leadership are necessary, but I’m not sure if he agrees with that.
As a general rule, after reading an article, avoid the comments section. Except in HBR.
I broke this rule and read a different take on Leadership vs Management dichotomy by “John R. Shultz”:
Leadership and management are not opposites, but two sides of the same coin. And as a coin, there is value that buys quite a lot. Flip it, and you can’t lose. It’s a win-win toss-up. Each side, when skills are sufficient, will produce outcomes that are beneficial to the enterprise and its stakeholders alike.
There are distinctions between leadership and management. Each position has its own characteristics and functional activities, but these activities are related and complementary arrangements for coordinating, controlling, and advancing organizational operations. Leaders typically envision and managers implement. But that doesn’t mean that managers aren’t capable leaders. In many cases managers have to be leaders as well as coordinators and controllers of complex transactions.
Management is an organizational construct. It exists because large public and private sector enterprises would find their existence—because of the many inputs and multifaceted process interactions—difficult if not impossible without such oversight. Accordingly, management is all about dealing with complex operations. These are practices and procedures concerned with planning, organizing, staffing, controlling and then problem solving so activities function at some kind of optimal level. Management is concerned with the immediate, the day-to-day activities, and making sure organizational transactions are completed efficiently and effectively.
Leadership, on the other hand, is about the long-term, staying relevant, and coping with changing economic and social-political forces. These include: competition, unstable markets, ability to finance short-term obligations, overcapacity, an inefficient supply chain, an underperforming workforce, and the constant pressure by stockholders for higher and higher returns. Consequently what worked today will not necessarily work tomorrow. The need to adapt and change becomes a necessity for survival and growth. Leadership at its core is about finding opportunity and then making a case for constant renewal.
Yes, managers and leaders do have different responsibilities, but their roles are not exclusive. They are joined in a mutual and beneficial relationship where leaders rally people to a cause—to a purpose—and managers’ make it all work. This however, doesn’t mean that managers and supervisors are not sufficiently expert to be leaders. Quite the opposite, these individuals are leaders at their own level and often urge fellow employees to the finish line while producing noticeable results. Being resourceful and skillful, in most cases, they ably set direction, align people, and inspire as well as deal with the mundane and the nitty-gritty. This is a symbiotic association that, in most modern enterprises, is difficult to differentiate as separate and distinct individual activities.
Which point of view do you find speaks more to you?
Original article here: http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/08/tests-of-a-leadership-transiti/