Tech Leader Fortune Cookie #6
How would you describe the difference between managing and leading?
9 Comments
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
How would you describe the difference between managing and leading?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wow Marcus that’s a big question — To be a leader you have to be able to act or perform in such a way that others learn by watching you and they want to learn and follow you and be inspired by you. To manage is to track others performance, inquire about the status of their assignments, give directions – more the nuts and bolts.
Managing is invoking a change based upon direction given. Managing is necessary for smooth day to day operation of process. Leadership is direction through osmosis, through example, words of encouragement (not direction) and steadfast character. Leadership is necessary for vision, and longterm success.
I have a Question…. Lets create a make believe scenario, we have a Manager and a Leader…. Who is the Boss and who is the Subordinate?
I think the leader would/should be the boss. When I think “Leader”, I think Steve Jobs. When I think “Manager”, it’s rather Tim Cook. Both impressive figures, but the more visionary driver was definitely Steve Jobs.
Great ideas here!
A few more thoughts:
Most Managers are appointed by the company. Many leaders are not.
We manage many *things*: money, time, equipment, environments, servers, code, content, etc. Yet, it makes no sense to lead those things. No one has created a “code leadership system” or a “money leadership application”.
Management is often about manipulating, measuring, handling, governing, directing or regulating things.
I like this definition of leadership: Leadership is the work of creating an environment where everyone can contribute to solving the problem at hand.
I think that you manage resources, like *things* said before, like time, deliveries, tasks, and you can manage people too, but the it would be a better choice to lead people, and leadership has to be by example, by creating an environment and culture where everyone is commited and want to grow together.
If you read Issacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, Jobs was certainly a visionary, but perhaps not the best leader. If you go by Marcus’ definition above, Tim Cook was the true leader.
Can you be a good leader without being a good manager?
I think you can definitely be a good leader without being a good manager. Many of the best leaders I have met are not deemed “management material” by the company they work for. In many cases being a manager is an external decision, as Marcus pointed out, and there are fundamental business needs that can impede making every good leader into a manager. In some cases, it is the fallacy that there is always more talent outside of the company than within. So sometimes great leaders are left behind because they suffer from the unfortunate malady of being a known commodity. Other times, companies promote skill over leadership. Or, in some cases, there is a fundamental difference of opinion that causes good leaders to choose not to be managers.
Being a leader should not just be an appointed trait. Being a leader is what you are, and if companies can recognize those skills among employees or potential employees, then they will reap the benefits. I would contend that even the people that don’t consider themselves to be leaders but are taking the steps to try and learn to be one, actually are natural leaders. The act of seeking shows leadership in and of itself.
When I joined my current employer in 2010 we used to get regular e-mail updates from the SMT (a.k.a. Senior Management Team). Two years later, that magically changed one day, and without any fanfare, to the SLT (a.k.a. Senior Leadership Team). It took me a few e-mail updates before I noticed that SLT wasn’t just something new I was unaware of but was the new name for the SMT. Once I discovered that my irony filter became 100% engaged and I started asking friends/colleagues where the leadership had suddenly sprung from because nothing felt any different.
For me leaders demonstrate what they want done by doing it so others can model the same behaviour, Managers instruct people to do stuff because it needs doing. Managers also do time sheets and other boilerplate stuff that is felt to be required. Managers tend to be process focused whereas Leaders tend to be outcomes focused. You need both in orgs larger than 25 people, you really do.
As for the appointed vs accepted thing. I understand what people are saying. However, no amount of “natural” leading can overcome entrenched positional authority on an organisation’s hot-button topics. You often need to be “anointed” to get what you want/need done and no amount of natural leadership can change that.
ANd I can see now that we have moved on from SLT to GLT (a.k.a. Global Leadership Team).