In the early 1980s, management was tossed in the trash. It’s been all about leadership ever since.
Management is very much alive, just misunderstood. The truth is that discarding management was a huge mistake. Management is as necessary as leadership. They just serve different functions, like carpenters and plumbers, nurses and dieticians, accountants and bankers. We need to see how leadership and management differ in terms of the functions they serve.
In the early 1980s management thinkers were so incensed by the success of Japanese industry in the west that they attacked management for being too bureaucratic, mechanistic, controlling and unable to innovate. Managers were seen as a type of person: the stereotypical bean counter or control freak. This emotional over reaction led to the dismissal of management as a hindrance to innovation and competitive advantage. Leadership thereafter became bloated with too much to do, most of which is not really leadership at all. Further, leadership defined as a type of person or role can’t account for kinds of leadership that can be shown outside roles in charge of people. Great artists and musical innovators lead by example even though they may be unprincipled, obnoxious bullies with no potential to lead a team in the conventional sense. The same is true of thought leaders and many leaders in technical fields.
Leadership and Management as Functions
We need to switch our focus from roles and types of people to thinking in terms of the purpose or function that leadership and management serve:
- Leadership serves the function of gaining the commitment of people to a new direction or vision.
- Management serves the function of getting the best return on all resources at its disposal.
Management is not a role or type of person. This is easy to see when we recognize that it is an activity that everyone engages in. Front line employees need to manage their time, talent and energy by setting priorities to get their work done as efficiently as possible. Management, so conceived, is like investment as it’s about getting the best return on whatever resources we possess. When we take courses to improve our career prospects, we’re endeavouring to manage our careers. People who do not manage their time or other resources just drift through life, reacting to whatever comes up.
However, when we define management as an activity aimed at getting the best return on all resources at its disposal, there are NO style implications. You can manage with any style that gets the best out of people and other resources. Contrary to 1980s thinkers, there is no implication of being controlling or of stifling innovation and employee development. Management redefined shows that it is an activity, not a role or type of person. This does not exclude putting people in formal management roles, where they are expected to be good at the activity of management.
Leadership is not a role or type of person either. The problem with the popular conception of leadership is that it entails being a certain type of person in a role in charge of a team of people. This idea does not account for kinds of leadership that do not involve either being a certain kind of person or being in charge of people. Here are three such kinds of leadership:
- Leading by example – anyone can set an example by working smarter or with more flair. Moreover, whole teams, even countries, can set examples that other groups may follow. Famous artists, musicians or sports heroes lead by example even if they have unpleasant personalities and no skill in managing people.
- Promoting a better way – Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated for better treatment of African Americans. He did not get things done through a team of people as a positional leader.
- Engaging influence – Leadership shown by asking engaging questions such as “What do you think?” and “What do you want?” can also be shown by anyone. It works by drawing solutions out of others, thus using a ‘pull’ style of influence in contrast to promoting a better way which is based on a ‘push’ style of influence.
These three kinds of leadership are about showing leadership, not about being a leader. In short, there can be management roles held by people who are effective in the activity of management but there are NO leadership roles. People in management roles, and those outside any formal role, can SHOW leadership but leadership is always only SHOWN, an occasional activity, never a role, let alone a type of person.
Anyone can show leadership either by example, by promoting a better way or by using an engaging style without having the standard traits that are expected of so-called positional leaders. A product developer, for instance, can advocate a new product by demonstrating it even while having a difficult personality. Activists can promote a better way of demonstrating a better way to behave or by expressing their ideas in a compelling manner like Martin Luther King, Jr. However, you can also show leadership in this way without having a charismatic personality as long as you can cite compelling evidence for the value of your ideas.
Empowerment for Leadership and Management
Defining leadership and management as activities that serve separate functions is very empowering because it tells us how all employees can SHOW leadership even just as a one-off action or engage in the activity of management without being in any role with authority over people.
By separating out the two activities in this way, we can see more clearly how people in formal authority roles can serve both functions with different activities, some of which serve the function of leadership and some of which serve the function of management. People in formal authority roles may also serve other functions, such as representing their organization or department to outsiders or partner organizations. For example, if you want to promote excellence, hard work, conscientiousness or adherence to the organization’s core values, you can lead by example or by promoting these standards, or both. Either way, showing leadership is an occasional activity. It’s not about who you are or a definitional part of your role. You can also show leadership by promoting new strategies, a new direction or a novel vision.
You can engage in the activity of management by focusing on all aspects of organizing your team and other resources so as to maximize their output. Effective management also helps team members reach their full potential, which is part of the aim of getting the best return on this resource. People in formal management roles have authority to make decisions whereas showing leadership means having influence and advocating or demonstrating a better way. If leadership can be shown by outsiders such as Martin Luther King, Jr or by whole countries, then it cannot make decisions for an organization. This means that there can be autocratic management but never autocratic leadership.
If you are a new or front-line employee, think about how you can manage your career and improve your career prospects by improving how you manage your workload and priorities to get the best return on your energy, skills and motivation.
Think about how you can also show leadership by setting an example. You might set new or more efficient productivity standards or by promoting new processes, services of products to your colleagues and bosses. Convincing your boss to think differently can be seen as bottom-up leadership. In fact, you can see career management as a search for leadership opportunities, not formal leadership roles, but opportunities to improve any aspect of the work in your organization