Management and Leadership (Differences?)

What is Management?

First of all, after this blog entry, my plan is to avoid drawing a strong distinction, unless absolutely necessary, between leadership and management. The word management means many different things to people. For example, it is sometimes conceptualized as a discipline, as is medicine or engineering. It is also commonly viewed as a set of specific, or not so specific, behaviors. And for many, management is the same thing as the role of manager, which is seen as a certain job level or classification. In referring to it as a discipline, Joan Magretta states that management is the “accumulating body of thought and practice that makes organizations work”. While this is a wonderfully succinct way of describing a vast body of knowledge, I will not be talking about management as a discipline. Although I highly recommend Joan’s book “What Management Is” (2002) for a delightfully easy-to-read overview of the discipline. I will be talking about management as a type of leadership also as a level of leadership (i.e. the manager).

What Happened to Management?

In the era of Dilbert, management and mangers have had a pretty tough time in terms of their credibility and status within western culture. The term “manager” really suffered at the hands of Jack Welch in his early years as CEO at General Electric. This is ironic since Welch was actually a huge proponent and practitioner of what, at that time in the early ‘80s, were core management principles and best practices. But Jack was out to shake GE up and felt that the term “manager” carried too many negative associations within the company. He replaced it with the term ““leader” and help start an era in which this anointed leaders held a special status. Funny enough, although he replaced the word manager with leader, he actually strove to develop at GE the use by leaders of proven management principles. Of course Jack and the good folks at GE were also at the forefront in developing management practices now widely used across industries and generally accepted as best-in-class. But there were many other influences in the loss of luster for those involved in management, such as when the ultimate management guru, Peter Drucker, decided to start using the term “executive” in place of “manager.

Management and Leadership Differences

It is clear to me that people in “managerial” roles are, in fact, in positions of leadership. From an organizational perspective, all managers are leaders, and all leaders, to some extent, are involved in or responsible for certain practices that should be considered management. But, although having stated that management is a type of leadership, there are some important distinctions that I use in my work as a consultant involved with leadership assessment, development, and coaching. The distinctions I make are related primarily to levels of leadership, and the skills, qualities, and knowledge that commonly correspond with success at different levels. This is an important, arguably necessary distinction when and organization is involved in succession planning and developing its leadership “pipeline”. For example, organizations need different abilities and qualities from team members that are individual contributors, in comparison to managers, in comparison to managers of managers, and so on up the functional ladder. My point is, from a practical standpoint it is almost impossible to develop a coherent and effective approach to talent management without delineated levels of leadership — or at least roles.

Why Management?

I think that organizations should acknowledge that managers are, in fact, leaders and critical to the success and sustainability of the business. It has been clearly demonstrated that managers — those that oversee the work of those that do the work — have enormous influence on the goals and bottom-line of an organization. This is because of their central role in ensuring that line staff, for lack of a better term, is engaged and productive at work. There is strong evidence that employees that have a strong sense of connection with their boss, feel appreciated, cared for, and understand how their work fits into the larger vision, are more satisfied and productive. This is more often than not the job of the manager.

What is Management Work?

With regard to specific responsibilities, it is my belief that a significant difference between managers from more “senior leaders” (or senior managers for that matter), is in how managers get things done, the tools they use to things done, and the type of influence they have within an organization. Historically, the term management has referred to individuals engaged in the activities of planning, organizing, leading, and coordinating resources toward the attainment of specific goals. In recent years, and in many organizations, management has come to include a variety of other responsibilities in such areas as talent management, coaching, and change management, to name a few. The specific around the how, tools, and influence of management can be discussed at another time. For now, I would simply like to make a number of other distinctions between managers and the core responsibilities of other, more senior leaders. These core responsibilities are the a) direct involvement in the execution and implementation of business strategy, b) monitoring and measuring of performance and outcomes, and, perhaps most importantly, the c) selecting, developing, and leading (influencing) of the people that do the work

So What?

There is an almost overwhelming amount of available information and opinion on the topics of management, leadership, and management in comparison to leadership. I have provided some information and shared lots of professional and personal opinion. It would be great if others would jump in and engage in the dialogue. I have no-doubt that my co-host, Julia, will have her own interesting and unique response to the topic.

4 Replies to “Management and Leadership (Differences?)”

  1. Steve, I think you’ve written one of the best pieces I’ve read about the “relationship” of leading and managing — and you did so at a time when it’s very much in vogue to preach that leading is very different than managing. That sermon is downright dangerous to up-and-coming employees who loathe their jobs because their jobs are not “leading,” but instead are (god forbid) only “managing.”

    I find that the people who assert there’s a strong difference are often people who do not have a lot of experience in organizations. People who see a strong integration of leading and managing are often highly experienced in organizations. Many of my clients smile when they read that there’s a strong difference — my clients know better.

  2. Hi Steve!

    My late mentor, Bob Terry, gave me a working distinction for managing and leading that I have found useful. When the person is working in the realm of the known they are managing, when they are working in the unknown they are leading. Therefore, with more experience one may manage more and ‘lead’ less because you have more information and experience to base your decisions. But if you have advanced in your career significantly, you may be on the forefront of the unknown – new strategies and business ventures, handling the most difficult people issues and therefore lead more by nature of your job. This may not work for others, but it clicked for me. Therefore, a leader/manager is an integrated role. It takes courage to venture out of what we know and lead in an area where there is uncertainty so leader/managers will show up in different proportion within the same person. The recent economy nose dive required leadership more than management since we weren’t in a known area to a great extent. That’s my 2 cents.

  3. Thanks Betsy for your thoughtful response. I think the integrated manager/leader is a really intriguing concept. I guess it is safe to assume that, based on this idea it is important that a person have self awareness about how they tend to function when immersed in the “unknown”. In your mind is the “unknown” typically associated with higher levels of stress? I ask because it is quite common for individuals in leadership roles to intensify their “default” leadership style when the stress level rises. If they tend toward, for lack of a better term, a managerial style of leadership, they will intensify that when under significant pressure. I also think that in trying times organizations will often emphasize a “back to the basics” mentality that may encourage management heavy leadership. I would be curious in your thoughts about this and how you apply this idea to your work with leaders – or as a leader.

  4. Maybe I don’t read the text right, but I almost get the feeling you, and also Mr. McNamara, see management and leadership almost of one and the same thing, where the level of experience distinguishes which term is the more correct one. This all depends on the definition you prefer to use when it comes to leadership.

    I do agree that management and leadership are highly connected, but that doesn’t mean you can see them as being the same. A manager has a leadership position, beyond any doubt. And I do agree that a manager should be a leader, but that doesn’t mean that the manager has leadership qualities. From an organizational perspective a manager is a leader, but what if the manager lacks leadership skills? Then the manager is definitely not a leader in the practical meaning of the word.

    If your article is about the theoretical vision on the manager/leader combination, you are right, but if we are talking about the practical vision, I do have my doubts. Many leadership discussions and blogs deal with the theoretical views and not always with the practical facts. Having a 20 year background in the armed forces, my focus on leadership is highly practical. 🙂

    Again, I might read the article in a wrong way. English is not my first language after all.

Comments are closed.