George,

I think a lot of this disconnect has to do with alignment. 

As a leader, I see what needs to be done and allow my followers the freedom to accomplish the task.  As a manager, I see what needs to be done, and then tell my employees how it needs to be done.

As a follower, I see what needs to be done and take the initiative to accomplish it.  As an employee, I am waiting for direction before proceeding. 

When a leader has employees, he/she may be forced to act as a manager to get his/her employees to act.  When manager has followers, he/she may force them to act as employees to satisfy the control within the process.

Then again, that's just how I see it :0)

Dear Colleagues,

If leading in an organization requires that a follower volunteer to be influenced without any mediated reward or punishment, what do we call a person in charge of others who does not do this?  Perhaps, an administrator of human resources?  The field of team leadership continues to be thwarted by the inaccurate use of the term leader to describe those in charge of a business unit containing employees.  Clearly, employees conform to employment contracts, and followers conform to psychological alliances.  Moreover, administrators control and command subordinate employees, and leaders influence volunteer followers.  Why is this distinction so hard to keep straight in the field of team leadership?  What do you think?
Cheers,
George Graen
/jag

Colleagues,

We've had this conversation before.

I documented several previous ideas in the Market Engineering Dictionary of Innovation and Marketing.

>> Available on request.

If not otherwise annotated, definition is by Gary Lundquist.

Leadership

1. The capacity to initiate change through influence.

("Influence" here implies potential effects on both the character and actions of people and organizations.  Both who they are and what they do.)

2. The capacity to initiate carefully chosen changes. 

3. The capacity to initiate positive changes thoughtfully designed to deliver value to all key stakeholders.  (value-driven leadership)

4. A synergistic dynamic that affects others through influence.  A force producing change (dynamic) done by simultaneous action of separate agencies (synergism) through the power of persons or things to affect the characters and/or actions of people (influence).  (Initial definition courtesy Edward Hampton, University of Central Florida.  Explanatory definition uses Webster's Dictionary.)

5. Notes:

a. All leadership is change leadership.

b. Leadership initiates change; management sustains change.  Some leaders manage effectively.

6. The sum of choice, clarity, commitment, and change.

a. Choice:  Selection of change to pursue.

b. Clarity:  Strong, positive, multi-faceted, and marketable articulation of the vision for change.

c. Commitment:  Building consensus to and ownership by others in that vision.  Recruiting active participation in achieving the vision

d. Change:  Development of strategy, choice of tactics, acquisition of resources, removal of barriers, and delegation of implementation.

7. Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.  Peter Drucker, Managing in Turbulent Times.

8. "If you do not know where you are going, every road will get you nowhere." - Henry Kissinger

9. We are more in need of a vision and a compass and less in need of a road map.  Covey

10. Leadership must constantly monitor environmental change and provide the force necessary to organize resources in the right direction.

11. Leadership is the liberation of talent.  Steven Sabol, President, NFL Films.

12. "Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall." Covey

And just for fun: "Anyone can steer a ship. The trick's in knowing where to take it. (Mutiny on the Bounty)

Management

1. The practice of achieving results through others.

2. Achieving results through (not with or for) others.  Brandt

3. Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.  Variously attributed to Drucker and Kotter.

4. Functions of Management:  a subset

a. Budgeting:  Allocating funds

b. Timing:  Allocating time

c. Delegation:  Assigning responsibilities

d. Resourcing:  Providing required resources

e. Control:  Ensuring progress

5. Types of Management in alphabetic order.

>> A dozen specific management disciplines are also defined.

George,

I think a lot of this disconnect has to do with alignment. 

As a leader, I see what needs to be done and allow my followers the freedom to accomplish the task.  As a manager, I see what needs to be done, and then tell my employees how it needs to be done.

As a follower, I see what needs to be done and take the initiative to accomplish it.  As an employee, I am waiting for direction before proceeding. 

When a leader has employees, he/she may be forced to act as a manager to get his/her employees to act.  When manager has followers, he/she may force them to act as employees to satisfy the control within the process.

Then again, that's just how I see it :0)

This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.

I use the following anonymous quote in my lecture on leadership.

The boss drives employees;

The leader coaches them.

The boss depends upon authority;

The leader on good will.

The boss inspires fear;

The leader inspires enthusiasm.

The boss says "I";

The leader says "we".

The boss fixes the blame for the breakdown;

The leader fixes the-breakdown.

The boss knows how it is done;

The leader shows how.

The boss says, "go";

The leader says, "let's go''!

Dundar Kocaoglu

George,

I think a lot of this disconnect has to do with alignment. 

As a leader, I see what needs to be done and allow my followers the freedom to accomplish the task.  As a manager, I see what needs to be done, and then tell my employees how it needs to be done.

As a follower, I see what needs to be done and take the initiative to accomplish it.  As an employee, I am waiting for direction before proceeding. 

When a leader has employees, he/she may be forced to act as a manager to get his/her employees to act.  When manager has followers, he/she may force them to act as employees to satisfy the control within the process.

Then again, that's just how I see it :0)

This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.

I agree with Roger's distinction.

In answer to your second question, George, as to why it is so hard to keep the distinction straight, my view on it is that it is down to a combination of fashion and practical research considerations. 'Management' started to sound less sexy than 'leadership', so what used to be called management development was rebadged. And when carrying out research, it is so much easier to stratify subjects by management level than by degree of leadership exercised, that management research was rebadged too, a lot of the time, rather than refocused on leadership as distinguished by Roger.

Since 'management'  took over from 'administration' in a previous rebadging, I suspect that reverting to that term might make matters worse rather than better....

Sheila

George,

I think a lot of this disconnect has to do with alignment. 

As a leader, I see what needs to be done and allow my followers the freedom to accomplish the task.  As a manager, I see what needs to be done, and then tell my employees how it needs to be done.

As a follower, I see what needs to be done and take the initiative to accomplish it.  As an employee, I am waiting for direction before proceeding. 

When a leader has employees, he/she may be forced to act as a manager to get his/her employees to act.  When manager has followers, he/she may force them to act as employees to satisfy the control within the process.

Then again, that's just how I see it :0)

This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.

The responses to George's post  seem to me to center on definitions.  I, too, make use of a distinction between a "leader in fact" and a "leader in name," the latter being basically a titular leader and the former being someone who has followers.  I also happen to believe that titular leaders have concerns about real leaders.  Perhaps a story from my Navy days will make this clear.

The executive officer (X.O.) on board my destroyer persuaded me to apply for the warrant officer program.  As part of the process I was to be interviewed by a board consisting of other officers on my ship.  During the course of the interview, one of the officers, the Engineering Officer, asked me about some of my "idiosyncratic" behaviors and if I was concerned about the example I set.  I shrugged and said "I'm not trying to set an example.  I do what I do and the other guys are free to do what they do.  I'm not responsible for what they do."  That made the Engineering Office angry.  He glared at me and said, "Damn it, Nickols, half the young men on this ship hang off every word you say.  You could lead a mutiny if you wanted to!"  Flabbergasted, I replied, "But I would never do that!"  Again the Engineering Office glared at me and said, "That's not the point, Nickols, the point is you could if you chose to!"  Leaning forward, he then asked me, "Why do you want to be an officer?"  Seeing my chance, I took it and replied, "I don't.  The X.O. told me I would make a good one and he talked me into applying for the program."  The X.O. lowered his head and shook it slowly from side to side.  Needless to say, I remained an enlisted man.

That incident alerted me to the fact that "leaders in name" (i.e., those who hold positional power) are ever alert to the appearance of "leaders in fact" outside the ranks of those in positions of formal authority.  Moreover, the "leaders in name" tend to keep tabs on the "leaders in fact."  This is not to say that the two never merge into one.  I have served under lots of officers who were "leaders in name" and "leaders in fact."  I also served under many officers who were "leaders in name" only.

Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, leadership is in the eye of the follower.  The only thing I can say with any confidence about a "leader in fact" is that he or she is out front.  And one of the ways a "leader in name" can become a "leader in fact" is to get out front and be up front.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

"Assistance at a Distance"

Thomas,

Help me understand the difference between "leading" (something leaders do) and "directing" (something managers do, per your email below).

 

By the way, this discussion ignores probably the most common form of leading -- leading oneself. 

 

I also wonder if this discussion is suggesting that leaders are higher up on the org chart than managers, which would suggest that individual contributors aren't leaders.  Of course, they can be, by virtue of their personalities.  So I assume we're talking about formal power in this discussion?

 

Thanks!

----------------------------------------------
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD
Authenticity Consulting, LLC
www.authenticityconsulting.com
blogs: www.managementhelp.org/blogs
800-971-2250
----------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----

From: Thomas Bradley

To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:37 PM

Subject: Re: Technical definition of leader

I like to make the distinction between leader and manager with: you become a manager when the boss promotes you - you become a leader when someone chooses to follow you.


Further we could go back to Fayol for the foundation of the way I define a manager. A manager is one who plans, directs, organizes and controls limited resources.  Human resources can be included here if one determines how many people or what skill sets are required for a task.

Leadership is different and I agree completely with the definition you have used.

Thomas P. Bradley
Assistant Professor
Tarleton State University
254-968-9785

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:40 PM, George Graen <Lmxlotus@aol.com> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

If leading in an organization requires that a follower volunteer to be influenced without any mediated reward or punishment, what do we call a person in charge of others who does not do this?  Perhaps, an administrator of human resources?  The field of team leadership continues to be thwarted by the inaccurate use of the term leader to describe those in charge of a business unit containing employees.  Clearly, employees conform to employment contracts, and followers conform to psychological alliances.  Moreover, administrators control and command subordinate employees, and leaders influence volunteer followers.  Why is this distinction so hard to keep straight in the field of team leadership?  What do you think?
Cheers,
George Graen
/jag

--

'A leader is someone with the power

to project either shadow or light

onto some part of the world and onto the lives of the people who dwell there

... A good leader is intensely aware of the interplay of inner shadow and light, lest the act of leadership do more harm than good.'

Palmer, Parker, 2000, Let Your Life Speak, Listening for the voice of vocation, Pg 79

So many interesting comments in this thread.  I'm reminded of Albert Ellis' notion of "E-Prime Language," that is not using the stative verbs, e.g. "Leadership IS xxxxx."  When we use the stative verbs, we tend to "reify" our concepts into factoids and even reinforce our own belief systems.  Clearly we all care about something called "leadership," and clearly we care about distinctions between our conceptions of leadership and other forms of influence (perhaps including management, administration, bureaucracy, power, purchase, manipulation, persuasion, charisma, etc.).  And I think we "know" that language evolves, so that the attempt to "nail down" a concept often is frustrated by morphing common usage. 

To add to the fray, I have come to believe that leadership is about managing energy, first in one's self and then in those around.  The whole concept of "motivation" is really how do we evoke the energy in ourselves and in others?  And that leadership does imply a voluntary response, and the people will respond with varying levels of "buy-in."  (I use a seven point scale for that.)  I also believe that leaders are good at creating clarity out of confusion, and at clarifying the "why" of what one is asking of others.  Managers and bureaucrats, in my experience, tend to use rules, title, rewards, and intimidation to get others to do what they want them to do, and often have less clarity on the direction than a "leader" does-though "leader" does not necessarily match up, in my experience with title. 

----- Original Message -----

From: Poul Poder

To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 5:38 AM

Subject: SV: Technical definition of leader

 

To me it seems as if there is a lot of idealizing (moralising) attached to concept of Leader and leadership (see below for an example). If so, this is quite far from "technical definitions".

Kind regards

Poul Poder, Associate Professor, Sociology Department, Copenhagen University

 

---

Fra: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] På vegne af Dundar Kocaoglu
Sendt: 2. september 2011 09:09
Til: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Emne: Re: Technical definition of leader

 

I use the following anonymous quote in my lecture on leadership.

 

The boss drives employees;

The leader coaches them.

 

The boss depends upon authority;

The leader on good will.

 

The boss inspires fear;

The leader inspires enthusiasm.

 

The boss says "I";

The leader says "we".

 

The boss fixes the blame for the breakdown;

The leader fixes the-breakdown.

 

The boss knows how it is done;

The leader shows how.

 

The boss says, "go";

The leader says, "let's go''!

 

Dundar Kocaoglu

 

===========================================================

Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
and President and CEO, PICMET

Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

+1 503-725-4660 - office
+1 503-725-4667 – fax
http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/

============================================================

 

From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Rodger Adair
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:10 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Technical definition of leader

 

George,

 

I think a lot of this disconnect has to do with alignment. 

 

As a leader, I see what needs to be done and allow my followers the freedom to accomplish the task.  As a manager, I see what needs to be done, and then tell my employees how it needs to be done.

 

As a follower, I see what needs to be done and take the initiative to accomplish it.  As an employee, I am waiting for direction before proceeding. 

 

When a leader has employees, he/she may be forced to act as a manager to get his/her employees to act.  When manager has followers, he/she may force them to act as employees to satisfy the control within the process.

 

Then again, that's just how I see it :0)

 

 

 

Rodger Adair

Project Director, Office of Institutional Quality

 

University of Phoenix

Central Administraion |  4605 East Elwood Street  |  7th Floor, MS AA-T710  |  Phoenix, Arizona, 85040

direct 602.557.7035  |  fax 602.557.1854

email rodger.adair@phoenix.edu

 

From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:41 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Technical definition of leader

 

Dear Colleagues,

If leading in an organization requires that a follower volunteer to be influenced without any mediated reward or punishment, what do we call a person in charge of others who does not do this?  Perhaps, an administrator of human resources?  The field of team leadership continues to be thwarted by the inaccurate use of the term leader to describe those in charge of a business unit containing employees.  Clearly, employees conform to employment contracts, and followers conform to psychological alliances.  Moreover, administrators control and command subordinate employees, and leaders influence volunteer followers.  Why is this distinction so hard to keep straight in the field of team leadership?  What do you think?
Cheers,
George Graen
/jag

 

---

This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.

I think it is also the case that we choose to accept (or not accept) direction.  Rarely, are we forcibly coerced into accepting direction against our will and then it's not so much a matter of accepting as it is one of complying.  That said, I think leaders in fact provide direction as part of leading.  I've had Skippers I was happy to follow issue orders and I willingly obeyed them.  Those C.O.'s were leaders in name and leaders in fact.  I think the problems associated with leadership in the workplace arise when a leader in name issues orders and people don't fully accept them – and, in some cases, don't obey or comply.  That is often attributed to a lack of leadership.

Fred Nickols

This is a good discussion.  I agree with many of the comments.  One aspect which I believe gets insufficient play in the debate is that effective leadership needs to be grounded in a deep knowledge of the industry and the nitty gritty of management fundamentals.  A leader without these attributes is actually dangerous.  I am concerned that too many students take leadership programs and expect to go out and lead without really understanding the fundamentals.

Ruth

Ruth T. Norman, Ph.D.

Director, Doctor of Business Administration

Associate Professor

Wilmington University

31 Reads Way

New Castle, DE  19720

(302) 356-2461

So many interesting comments in this thread.  I'm reminded of Albert Ellis' notion of "E-Prime Language," that is not using the stative verbs, e.g. "Leadership IS xxxxx."  When we use the stative verbs, we tend to "reify" our concepts into factoids and even reinforce our own belief systems.  Clearly we all care about something called "leadership," and clearly we care about distinctions between our conceptions of leadership and other forms of influence (perhaps including management, administration, bureaucracy, power, purchase, manipulation, persuasion, charisma, etc.).  And I think we "know" that language evolves, so that the attempt to "nail down" a concept often is frustrated by morphing common usage. 

To add to the fray, I have come to believe that leadership is about managing energy, first in one's self and then in those around.  The whole concept of "motivation" is really how do we evoke the energy in ourselves and in others?  And that leadership does imply a voluntary response, and the people will respond with varying levels of "buy-in."  (I use a seven point scale for that.)  I also believe that leaders are good at creating clarity out of confusion, and at clarifying the "why" of what one is asking of others.  Managers and bureaucrats, in my experience, tend to use rules, title, rewards, and intimidation to get others to do what they want them to do, and often have less clarity on the direction than a "leader" does-though "leader" does not necessarily match up, in my experience with title. 

----- Original Message -----

From: Poul Poder

To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 5:38 AM

Subject: SV: Technical definition of leader

 

To me it seems as if there is a lot of idealizing (moralising) attached to concept of Leader and leadership (see below for an example). If so, this is quite far from "technical definitions".

Kind regards

Poul Poder, Associate Professor, Sociology Department, Copenhagen University

 

---

Fra: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] På vegne af Dundar Kocaoglu
Sendt: 2. september 2011 09:09
Til: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Emne: Re: Technical definition of leader

 

I use the following anonymous quote in my lecture on leadership.

 

The boss drives employees;

The leader coaches them.

 

The boss depends upon authority;

The leader on good will.

 

The boss inspires fear;

The leader inspires enthusiasm.

 

The boss says "I";

The leader says "we".

 

The boss fixes the blame for the breakdown;

The leader fixes the-breakdown.

 

The boss knows how it is done;

The leader shows how.

 

The boss says, "go";

The leader says, "let's go''!

 

Dundar Kocaoglu

 

===========================================================

Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
and President and CEO, PICMET

Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

+1 503-725-4660 - office
+1 503-725-4667 – fax
http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/

============================================================

 

From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Rodger Adair
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:10 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Technical definition of leader

 

George,

 

I think a lot of this disconnect has to do with alignment. 

 

As a leader, I see what needs to be done and allow my followers the freedom to accomplish the task.  As a manager, I see what needs to be done, and then tell my employees how it needs to be done.

 

As a follower, I see what needs to be done and take the initiative to accomplish it.  As an employee, I am waiting for direction before proceeding. 

 

When a leader has employees, he/she may be forced to act as a manager to get his/her employees to act.  When manager has followers, he/she may force them to act as employees to satisfy the control within the process.

 

Then again, that's just how I see it :0)

 

 

 

Rodger Adair

Project Director, Office of Institutional Quality

 

University of Phoenix

Central Administraion |  4605 East Elwood Street  |  7th Floor, MS AA-T710  |  Phoenix, Arizona, 85040

direct 602.557.7035  |  fax 602.557.1854

email rodger.adair@phoenix.edu

 

From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:41 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Technical definition of leader

 

Dear Colleagues,

If leading in an organization requires that a follower volunteer to be influenced without any mediated reward or punishment, what do we call a person in charge of others who does not do this?  Perhaps, an administrator of human resources?  The field of team leadership continues to be thwarted by the inaccurate use of the term leader to describe those in charge of a business unit containing employees.  Clearly, employees conform to employment contracts, and followers conform to psychological alliances.  Moreover, administrators control and command subordinate employees, and leaders influence volunteer followers.  Why is this distinction so hard to keep straight in the field of team leadership?  What do you think?
Cheers,
George Graen
/jag

 

---

This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.

Colleagues,

Interesting conversation.

As someone active on committees, consulting teams, and non-profit boards, I've never really bought into the "different hat" arguments.  When the boss speaks to their team and says, "today I'm wearing my general manager's hat," I've dismissed it as mere rhetoric.  I think in our action and our perception of others, we are more holistic.  When I hear my Dean speak, for example, I do not think about whether he is talking as a "leader," "manager," "finance professor," or "dean."  He is all of these things, and I respond to his points holistically – the person, the argument, the situation all rolled into one. Similarly, when I hear my wife speak, I always listen regardless of which hat she is wearing.

In making this brief argument, I've tried to set aside the other "hats" I wear as an academic and editor.  I wonder whether it worked?

Ken

Here's a comment about the definition of leadership that might be germane to the conversation:

Bennis and Nanus (1985) have this to say about leadership:  "Decades of academic analysis have given us more than 350 definitions of leadership.  Literally thousands of empirical investigations of leaders have been conducted in the last seventy-five years alone, but no clear and unequivocal understanding exists as to what distinguishes leaders from non-leaders, and perhaps more important, what distinguishes effective leaders from ineffective leaders."

The source is Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge.  Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus.  Harper & Row (1985).

Maybe the distinction between leader and manager is not particularly useful.  And maybe trying to define leader or leadership is like chasing a will o' the wisp.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

"Assistance at a Distance"

Colleagues, risking sounding flip; I offer what reading this brought to mind.  Perhaps it is a matter of what distinguishes a leader from a non-leader, but who.  Followers distinguish the leader in the ebb and flow of event of shared time and attention.  Witness last night's Republican debate.  Before the foam dried on Gov. Perry's lips, polls crackled and pundits "punded".  Front-runner no more (for now). 

Best to all,

David

p.s. Too political?  I'll go back to lurking.

Here's a comment about the definition of leadership that might be germane to the conversation:

Bennis and Nanus (1985) have this to say about leadership:  "Decades of academic analysis have given us more than 350 definitions of leadership.  Literally thousands of empirical investigations of leaders have been conducted in the last seventy-five years alone, but no clear and unequivocal understanding exists as to what distinguishes leaders from non-leaders, and perhaps more important, what distinguishes effective leaders from ineffective leaders."

The source is Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge.  Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus.  Harper & Row (1985).

Maybe the distinction between leader and manager is not particularly useful.  And maybe trying to define leader or leadership is like chasing a will o' the wisp.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

"Assistance at a Distance"

I thought I might share some of my thoughts on this matter.  Over the past 10 years I have reviewed over 1000 research documents about what drives performance in organizations.  As a result, I have identified Seven Elements that impact organizational performance, with one of those elements being Leadership.  I've received a modest amount of interest in the model, including the US Navy's Center for Naval Leadership, which chose to teach the model in all of their leadership development courses.  So here are my thoughts about Leadership based on what we have learned from our research:

1. We don't need a complex definition that just makes things confusing for the practitioner or that makes things hard to implement in the real world when we define leadership.  The simple definition: "Leadership is creating emotional connections."  It doesn't matter if you are creating an emotional connection in yourself, your co-workers or your employees.  It doesn't require a formal position or power.  It is simply creating an emotional connection in one person to something else; an ideal, the organization, or the team.   

2. In all of my research I found nothing to support the opposing dichotomy of managers vs. leader.  In fact, trying to make this distinction actually causes great harm.  ALL managers must also be a leader in order to be effective; in other words, they have to influence people.  What I have found is that leadership should actually fall under one of the things of being a manager, thus, making leadership one of the primary rolls of being a manager.  There are actually two primary rolls that every manager must deal with: that of being a Leader, which is creating emotional connections; and that of being a Builder, which is creating sustainable systems.  This is demonstrated in our management model, which unfortunately I have not had a chance to write much about, but which is briefly mentioned on our website where you can also see the graphic of the model (http://resourcedevelopmentsystems.com/seblog/2010/08/manager-vs-leader/).    

3. As I said, to talk about being able to be a manager without being a leader is, in my opinion, a disservice to all persons who are learning about management.  It gives them a false sense that if they focus on the technical side then they can be successful without being effective at the people side of management.  The research seems to indicate otherwise.  In fact, the research is overwhelming that getting employees engaged is a key factor for high levels of organizational performance.  Isn't organizational performance the responsibility of all managers?

4. Even when focused on the Builder roll, such as project management or process management, managers still must interact with people in order to be successful.  Yes, we do manage people, just as we manage things, so that old saw about "we manage things, but we lead people" is simply, again, pure bunk.  At the center of every manager's job is people, and people who have no desire to interact with people probably have no business being in the management business.

5. I liked what Fred shared about some times a leader has to provide some direction as well as encouragement.  To be more accurate, a manager must provide direction, even in their Leadership roll.  Of course, how much direction and how much support that will be needed will depend on the situation and the employee of the manager.  But as long as the manager is interacting with the employee with the intent to engage them in their work to accomplish the organizational goals, then the manager is still leading.  Call it Situational Leadership®, Intentional Leadership™, or anything else, the manager must still communicate the things that are necessary to be done by employees to their employees in such a way so that employees remain engaged, work is done, and the organizational goals are achieved. 

6. Don Ball aptly posed the following question: "Bottom line, defining leadership is like catching air in a bottle. How do you really know it is in there?"  I believe that we can know if it is in there if we approach it in the right way and use the right measures.  If we keep the definition simple, then it becomes quite easy to measure if a manager is being good at their leadership roll.  We can measure such things as employee retention, engagement levels, as well as long-term performance levels by the manager's team. Those managers who are being good leaders will have higher results on all of these measures, especially over the long-term.  The problem is that most organizations focus their performance measures only on the Builder side (the technical side) of management, and mostly for the short-term.  

7. No, this isn't a very sexy approach to leadership.  However, I feel that we often make the concept of leadership out to be something almost superhuman; something that most ordinary folks feel that they can't aspire to attain.  However, if we bring leadership back into the purview of good management, and allow it to be something very simple, then ordinary managers can find that they can be very effective leaders without having to be inspirational, charismatic, or a superhero.   

Anyway, that's some very brief and quick thoughts on this issue.  Sorry to have taken so long to respond to this interesting discussion, but I've been swamped lately.  And if anyone has any questions about what I've shared, please be patient on my reply, as I'm going to again be swamped for the next few weeks.   

I thought I might share some of my thoughts on this matter.  Over the past 10 years I have reviewed over 1000 research documents about what drives performance in organizations.  As a result, I have identified Seven Elements that impact organizational performance, with one of those elements being Leadership.  I've received a modest amount of interest in the model, including the US Navy's Center for Naval Leadership, which chose to teach the model in all of their leadership development courses.  So here are my thoughts about Leadership based on what we have learned from our research:

 

1. We don't need a complex definition that just makes things confusing for the practitioner or that makes things hard to implement in the real world when we define leadership.  The simple definition: "Leadership is creating emotional connections."  It doesn't matter if you are creating an emotional connection in yourself, your co-workers or your employees.  It doesn't require a formal position or power.  It is simply creating an emotional connection in one person to something else; an ideal, the organization, or the team.   

 

2. In all of my research I found nothing to support the opposing dichotomy of managers vs. leader.  In fact, trying to make this distinction actually causes great harm.  ALL managers must also be a leader in order to be effective; in other words, they have to influence people.  What I have found is that leadership should actually fall under one of the things of being a manager, thus, making leadership one of the primary rolls of being a manager.  There are actually two primary rolls that every manager must deal with: that of being a Leader, which is creating emotional connections; and that of being a Builder, which is creating sustainable systems.  This is demonstrated in our management model, which unfortunately I have not had a chance to write much about, but which is briefly mentioned on our website where you can also see the graphic of the model (http://resourcedevelopmentsystems.com/seblog/2010/08/manager-vs-leader/).    

 

3. As I said, to talk about being able to be a manager without being a leader is, in my opinion, a disservice to all persons who are learning about management.  It gives them a false sense that if they focus on the technical side then they can be successful without being effective at the people side of management.  The research seems to indicate otherwise.  In fact, the research is overwhelming that getting employees engaged is a key factor for high levels of organizational performance.  Isn't organizational performance the responsibility of all managers?

 

4. Even when focused on the Builder roll, such as project management or process management, managers still must interact with people in order to be successful.  Yes, we do manage people, just as we manage things, so that old saw about "we manage things, but we lead people" is simply, again, pure bunk.  At the center of every manager's job is people, and people who have no desire to interact with people probably have no business being in the management business.

 

5. I liked what Fred shared about some times a leader has to provide some direction as well as encouragement.  To be more accurate, a manager must provide direction, even in their Leadership roll.  Of course, how much direction and how much support that will be needed will depend on the situation and the employee of the manager.  But as long as the manager is interacting with the employee with the intent to engage them in their work to accomplish the organizational goals, then the manager is still leading.  Call it Situational Leadership®, Intentional Leadership™, or anything else, the manager must still communicate the things that are necessary to be done by employees to their employees in such a way so that employees remain engaged, work is done, and the organizational goals are achieved. 

 

6. Don Ball aptly posed the following question: "Bottom line, defining leadership is like catching air in a bottle. How do you really know it is in there?"  I believe that we can know if it is in there if we approach it in the right way and use the right measures.  If we keep the definition simple, then it becomes quite easy to measure if a manager is being good at their leadership roll.  We can measure such things as employee retention, engagement levels, as well as long-term performance levels by the manager's team. Those managers who are being good leaders will have higher results on all of these measures, especially over the long-term.  The problem is that most organizations focus their performance measures only on the Builder side (the technical side) of management, and mostly for the short-term.  

 

7. No, this isn't a very sexy approach to leadership.  However, I feel that we often make the concept of leadership out to be something almost superhuman; something that most ordinary folks feel that they can't aspire to attain.  However, if we bring leadership back into the purview of good management, and allow it to be something very simple, then ordinary managers can find that they can be very effective leaders without having to be inspirational, charismatic, or a superhero.   

 

Anyway, that's some very brief and quick thoughts on this issue.  Sorry to have taken so long to respond to this interesting discussion, but I've been swamped lately.  And if anyone has any questions about what I've shared, please be patient on my reply, as I'm going to again be swamped for the next few weeks.   

 

Make a Great Day!

 

Gary Lear, President & CEO

Author of Leadership Lessons From the Medicine Wheel: The Seven Elements of High Performance

 

Resource Development Systems LLC

Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)  

 

gelear@rds-net.com   www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com

 

(c) 2011 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in any way other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.