Managers Are Not Leaders: and true and great leaders are humble

I contend that by first denying managers can be leaders, we may actually begin to explore some links between these two roles.

first snow…a little bit…of the season

There must be thousands of research articles on leadership alone, and only slightly fewer on comparing leaders and managers.  Leadership was one of my least favorite topics when I was taking courses for my PhD.  It’s interesting to talk about, but mind-boggling to read through. To me, leadership is one of those moving targets whose full nature you can never really pin down.  As for equating managers with leaders?  I think this is another one of those business schools’ cynical calculations, allowing  managers to further inflate their already sizable egos.  Even without research (do we need to spend another $50K to confirm this intuition?), most of us would probably prefer to be considered as “leader” rather than as “manager.”  Now, why is that?!

a close-up look of first snow…a bit more substantial

One of the reasons why the definition of leadership is a moving target is that no sooner is one definition espoused, we are reminded of other qualities of exceptional people around us.  This makes me think that intrinsically, most of us can take on the leader’s role at some point, depending on the situation or the circumstances. Sometimes, it’s the one with most knowledge, and other times it can be the person with most experience, or imagination.  I don’t know for sure if “leader” and “leadership” are largely Americans’ obsession or if it’s also heavily emphasized in other cultures, but I suspect that other cultures may look at these concepts differently.  In American’s heavily individualistic psyche, we rarely read about  followership in discussing “leadership.”  But how can anyone try to lead if there aren’t followers?  So, to begin with, all those managers out there who desire to be considered “leaders,” just ask yourselves, “do I actually have anyone following me, and following me willingly?”

Recently, one top executive in my local big organization was unceremoniously “demoted.”  (No one came right out to say it, but in essence that’s what it was.)  She was ambitious for her sub-organization of about 800 people, and when she started in this role she did have a clear vision.  However, she was impatient to get to her vision, and watching her from a distance, I would say that because she was impatient, she overly micro-managed her people.  By resorting to micromanagement in lieu of leadership she failed to inspire enough people to work with her, and ultimately did not succeed in conveying her own ideas.

this is how NOT to lead…by biting on one’s hind quarter

In a very broad sense, leaders possess vision, which by itself means little until the leaders can convey this vision clearly.  Then others who resonate with this vision may decide to follow and become the ones who fulfill this vision.  Generally, leaders have strong emotional connections with their followers.  Managers certainly can have vision as well, but need to be mindful of making sure the vision aligns with overall organization’s mission.  Managers’ task needs methodical and deliberate execution; they are generally problem solvers.  Managers’ people don’t always have to agree with managers’ vision, which may not always be present.  Managers and their people “just” have jobs to hold and work to accomplish.  Most likely, people’s emotional attachment to their managers is much more tenuous than followers with their leaders; however, I argue that the more successful managers tend to evoke strong positive emotions in their subordinates.  The less successful managers, or the ones who are downright dreadful, do manage to bring out negative feelings in people, sometimes very strongly.

In other words, whether to lead or to manage, it behooves the person holding these positions to pay attention to their subordinates:  What is their mood?  What gets them excited?   What do they do well?  What do they enjoy?  What are the perpetual stumbling blocks that prevent work being done?  What can managers do about these stumbling blocks (instead of being ones themselves)?  We’ve all seen enough of insecure managers who actually compete with their own people for credit!  It’d never occur to these managers that allowing people to do their best is actually going to make the manager look good; of course, even though “looking good” shouldn’t be any manager’s purpose or goal, it’s the logic that seems to elude them.  One of the best ways to be in touch with the people is to actually talk to them; how often do we see CEOs actually talk to the people at the lowest level?

I learned something new recently, from an old book with a great title, “Up the Organization,” by Robert Townsend.  What I learned is “you can’t motivate people.” (italics mine) Probably not even leaders can, although they can excite their followers.  But for both managers and leaders, to get people to accomplish, they must create an environment, or a climate, in which people’s self-motivation gets the job done, and helps the organization reach its goals.

a river flows only one way

We often confuse charisma with competence for getting things done, especially in an organization, and even more so when the organization is in turmoil.   Jim Collins’ books, “From Good to Great,” as well as “How the Mighty Fall,” give plenty of examples of how the best managers move companies forward and upward without seeking personal attention from media; if anything, they tend to shy away from it.  These examples include Nordstrom’s Blake Nordstrom, IBM’s Louis Gerstner, NUCOR’s Daniel DiMicco, names that are not household familiarity.  Then, there are those CEOs, like Jack Welsh, Lee Iacocca, who might have done great for their respective organizations for a while, but when they left, they didn’t leave a good structure for their organizations to keep growing.  And finally there are those, such as Carly Fiorina, who became Wall Street’s darling overnight, then used their celebrity status for various high-risk maneuvers that failed.

a different view of the same river

Many “quiet” and effective managers share the following mantras:

  • putting company first before personal agenda;
  • insisting on facts;
  • preserving the core of the organization, not unlike “going back to its origin;”
  • grasping the fundamental culture (usually about people);
  • NOT thinking that they are above others and “entitled” to the perks;
  • no pretense, for example, Blake Nordstrom answered his own phone calls;
  • most important, they see themselves as “serving” their people.

I would add that it is precisely because these unassuming managers go about their work diligently – by that I certainly don’t mean attending meetings from morning till night – and methodically that they are the true leaders.

they always know where to go

Last week, I talked about playful organizations, and the principles and values of bringing in some playful elements.  But how?  Unfortunately, a lot of “good” things that can and should happen in an organization have to come from the top.  An interesting example was given by Pfeffer & Sutton in their “Knowing-Doing Gap.”  At the conclusion of a workshop they conducted, they were approached by a local manager of Macy’s who was excited about what she had learned, but felt frustrated, because whenever her boss visited her location he never stopped to talk to the staff; he just wanted to be shut in to examine the books.  Pfeffer and Sutton, while feeling sympathetic, told her there was really little she could do.  On their way to the parking lot, the authors next encountered two managers from Trader Joe’s, huddling together and having a discussion.  When approached one of the fellows said, “see my colleague there?  He’s texting back to the HQ about some of the lessons that we can implement immediately.” Which organization do you think will excel?  So, I am afraid, the best that employees at the staff level — those who actually do the work on the ground – can do is to suggest and push, and push hard and harder…

Manager or leader, it’s really about working with people, and that entails honestly knowing your people, not just your lieutenants and gatekeepers (and why should there be gatekeepers?) but people across all levels.

As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best, the people honor and praise. The next, the people fear; and the next, the people hate…When the best leader’s work is done the people say, ‘We did it ourselves’.”

From Lao-Zi, “The Way.”

The quote should apply to managers as well.  Until such great managers become a commonplace occurrence,

Staying Sane and Charging Ahead.

an expansive sunset

Direct Contact:

copyright taso100 © 2010 – 2015 all rights reserved: no photos or content may be reproduced without prior written consent


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s