Leaderment; an Analysis of Leadership v. Management

Leaderment; an Analysis of Leadership v. Management

 

Which is more important, leadership or management? It’s an age old question that has helped many leaders of industry better understand their roles and missteps, and guide their companies into the winning side of history. Those that misunderstand the concepts and continue to perform within the status quo are doomed to celebrate a life of mediocracy, at best.  In my beginnings as a young Noncommissioned Officer in the Army I received leadership 101; leadership is and management does. That was my crash course. I thought I had an understanding of what it meant, but as a young NCO trying to impress my boss, I said nothing, just smiled and nodded. What he was trying to tell me was as important as any lesson that I would ever receive. His words stayed with me throughout my career and are still applicable, and will be beyond my days as an Army NCO. The relationship between the leader and the manager is one of irony. The two are intrinsically linked in that they need each other to find organizational success but the two are in some ways at odds. “What it takes to ensure a supply of people who will assume practical responsibility may inhibit the development of great leaders. On the other hand, the presence of great leaders may undermine the development of managers who typically become very anxious in the relative disorder that leaders seem to generate”. (Zaleznik, 2004)

Leadership Is

Why does an employee come to work feeling motivated about a project? Empowered to make decisions and instilled with the courage to take calculated risks? The answer is leadership. It’s not a direct correlation. The employee isn’t necessarily happy to come in and physically see the leader sitting at his/her desk, it’s more about the environment created by the leader that establishes a sense of pride and a sense of worth attached to the task at hand. The word for this is buy-in. Employees don’t buy in to an ideology lightly, it takes work. Some of the work is subconscious. The leader is always the first in the office and last to leave. The leader is ready and knowledgeable about the product or process but knows that they don’t know everything and are always open to learn more. Subordinates see this behavior and the professionalism of the leader and their passion about wanting to win. More importantly, the leader wants his team to win so they know what winning feels like and they are driven to achieve that feeling over and over again. Leaders are also willing to take risks. These risks are usually calculated risks that can take the organization to new levels, if executed correctly. In the article, ‘Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?’ from the Harvard Business Review, author Abraham Zaleznik states, “Leaders work from high-risk positions; indeed, they are often temperamentally disposed to seek out risk and danger, especially where the chance of opportunity and reward appears promising. From my observations, the reason one individual seeks risks while another approaches problems conservatively depends more on his or her personality and less on conscious choice”.(Zaleznik, 2004) Leaders are not born but created from a culmination of their various life experiences.

Management Does

Managers are tasked with maintaining the processes that have historically accomplished the overall goal of the organization. They watch the clock when employees get to work. They make sure that breaks are taken as needed but not overly abused. They create and enforce deadlines that help the organization as a whole meet performance benchmarks. They evaluate the performance of the employees underneath them. Managers are problem solvers when necessary but prefer normalcy. Managers can find the way to get the operation back up and running when there is an emergency. Whether through re-routing organizational efforts and reassigning tasks, the manager finds a way to keep the machine moving towards a normal flow of effort in pursuit of operational goals. “Managers tend to view work as an enabling process involving some combination of people and ideas interacting to establish strategies and make decisions. They help the process along by calculating the interests in opposition, planning when controversial issues should surface, and reducing tensions. In this enabling process, managers’ tactics appear flexible: on one hand, they negotiate and bargain; on the other, they use rewards, punishments, and other forms of coercion”. (Zaleznik, 2004) Managers have to be flexible and adept at compromise. They are often tasked with making employees find common ground during a conflict, which allows them to successfully get back to work. Leaders, in their never ending quest for innovation, often place additional pressure upon management to adjust a process to keep the organization current and competitive. This decision is usually made at a level that causes management to react. Although the manager does not like to react, it’s what they do best. They find a way to get going.

USAREC Command Team: General Muth and Command Sergeant Major Gavia

General Frank Muth and Command Sergeant Major Tabitha Gavia were innovators. This combination made up the command team for the United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC). They came into power like a hurricane and immediately transitioned the force from former contact methods that relied heavily upon cold calls to the relatively new medium of social media. They were fully immersed in the movement as they both had pages on all forms of authorized social media platforms. Unlike previous commands, they encouraged direct contact. In the Army, if you want to communicate with a leader you have to go through your Chain of Command. That means if you have a question that you would like answered by those at a higher echelon, it must be addressed by every leader at the next higher level prior to the desired destination. You can imagine the degradation of information. General Muth and CSM Gavia eliminated the need to use the chain in certain instances thus increasing overall efficiency for some things. The command team had a great idea to shut down recruiting stations across the US for the Christmas holiday. December 19, 2019 – January 3, 2020 all offices were shut down. This was unprecedented. In the past, recruiters that wanted to take leave would do so, but those that did not want to use their leave days could remain at work. The managers went nuts. Their argument was that they would still be responsible for the same level of production with the substantial loss of manpower. They were not wrong. The employees loved the controversial move by the leadership but the managers were still chastised for not making the required number of enlistments. There should have been more discussion and thought involved with the move to adequately address those concerns, but the decision was one that appeared unilateral in nature.

There has to be a balance between manager and leader; an understanding that things will change but that they must change incrementally and should be discussed thoroughly.

References

Zaleznik, Abraham. (2004). Managers and Leaders: Are They Different? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2004/01/managers-and-leaders-are-they-different