PEOPLE IN BUSINESS
LEADERSHIP
Leading management
Leadership is like a
good book -- the
further you get into it
the more it makes
sense.
Management or Leadership? Which comes first? Management
without leadership is likely to be bedlam: while leadership in
its true sense reflects an awareness of a human need for
structure but also our need for consideration. Psychology of
Communication specialist Haddo D’Audney explains how the
two are different but joined at the hip.
“A
n exercise in semantics – pure gobbledygook.” So said an attendee at a leadership
conference I was facilitating. The complaint was sheeted home at a discussion on
management verses leadership. The complainant was confused about the two constructs
and felt it didn’t much matter either which came first or which was more important than the other. Agreed
some may feel that setting out to separate the functions of leadership and management is like trying to
unravel a poached egg. However the more we learn about leadership the more we realise that it is possible
to manage without leadership but it is impossible to lead without management.
That is why such a topic is so important for accomplishment. We need to be clear what the two are and
how one may seem more important than the other (leadership), but that when the two are naturally conjoined
high achievement is possible –without leadership high achievement is a fluke!
Sadly it has taken a long time for humans to recognise what leadership actually is and to place some
importance on its acquisition. This might point to the perspective that you cannot teach leadership only
PO Box 37220 Parnell. Auckland. NZ info@daudneyconsultants.co.nz
Hadvic Publishing is a division of
PEOPLE IN BUSINESS
LEADERSHIP
management. There is an element of truth in
that –you learn management but maybe you
(l)earn
leadership:
the
classroom
for
management but the coal face for leadership.
Combine the two and you have a state where a
would be leader can avoid having to reinvent the
wheel.
We now know a lot about leadership secrets.
Share them and we increase our stock of
leaders before they give up trying to earn their
spurs because it is so hard (uneasy is the head
that wears the crown). By studying leadership
we give young leaders the very thing they give
others by definition –namely support. However
it is still a battle to get the topic studied. Most
learning institutions feel that the people side of
organisational life is about soft skills
and the technical stuff is the hard
skill.
One reason leadership is not given
its true regard is that in reality it is
the hard skill not the soft skill.
Anybody with IQ (intelligence
quotient) can learn calculus, project
management
even
statistical
analysis but can everybody learn
leadership – my research suggests
yes but it depends on context and
desire and not so much IQ but EQ
(emotional quotient).
This neglect has a long history.
Early researchers into effective organisations
(Douglas McGregor, Abraham Maslow, Marry
Parker Follett) were often pilloried as their
people orientated findings began to filter
through. At Harvard University such researchers
were known as the Happiness boys and soft
headed because “business wasn’t about making
people happy.” They missed the point of course
–we now know that work satisfied people
produce more.
Yet without leadership and management much
of the learning is denied application—that is not
to knock research for the sake of research or
learning for the sake of learning but some
learning has to be applied otherwise we are
doomed to repeat the mistakes of history –
”Oops”’ I hear you cry, “We actually
do that very well.” True, in reality those who
don’t learn from history are doomed to spend
their time repeating it. One thing we can learn
from history is that a lack of leadership and
management skill has been costly for the human
race – and will continue to be so if we don’t
apply some of that learning.
Leadership and management are conjoined.
They are like a truck and trailer unit. The
question is which comes first? Management
without leadership is likely to be bedlam: while
leadership in its true sense reflects an
awareness of a human need for structure but
also our need for consideration. Thus leadership
comes first. A leader knows how to manage but
not
all
managers
show
leadership.
What is management?
What is leadership?
There is only one thing
stronger than my passion for
leadership –GARLIC.
You may have gained some
ideas on both previously.
However what is management?
Most would assume that they knew the meaning
of the word manage. However when asked for
specifics the task is somewhat harder. The
dictionary definition is not much help: to be in
charge, to administer, to succeed in being able
to do something, to contrive, to have room for
something, to exercise control or domination
over.
Management itself is defined as the members
of an executive or administration of an
organisation or business; managers or
employers collectively; the technique, practice or
science of managing or controlling; the skilful or
resourceful use of materials, time etc. A
manager is someone who directs or manages
an organisation, industry etc.
“Leadership is the art of achieving more
than the science of management says is
possible.”
PO Box 37220 Parnell. Auckland. NZ info@daudneyconsultants.co.nz
Hadvic Publishing is a division of
PEOPLE IN BUSINESS
LEADERSHIP
Managing is not the same as commanding.
In fact an analysis of command gives a clue as
to what goes wrong in the modern world with
managers whose heads are in by-gone eras?
Commanding is defined as “the authority vested
in an individual over subordinates.” Historically
of course this was exactly the model of
organisational control.
An older leader the
author interviewed for a book on the topic told
him that he well remembered being told by his
supervisor. “I don’t manage you boy. I
command!”
The word management seems to have
evolved, from Norman-French long before large
scale commerce existed and it referred purely to
the government of armies and naval fleets. One
of the first uses of the word was in 1645 when
the Commander of the Royal Army in Scotland
(The First Marquis of Montrose) after seven
successive victories against odds said:
“Gentlemen—leave the issues to God and the
management to me.”
Management came from the military.
Many management ideas and technique of
course had their origins in the armed forces
who, with churches, were the only larger-scale
enterprises in existence. Historically military
management methods were gratefully taken
aboard by new evolving commercial
organisations. They no doubt worked well
against the historical fabric of a century or
so ago.
My
A simple way to look at the complications of
Management.
Think of the human brain – few managers
survive without having one or using one. For our
purpose there are two brains at work within our
craniums (we could argue there are three if we
include the cerebellum at back of the neck).
For all intent and purpose the brain has two
main facets; lineal, which looks after the more
analytical processes of life, and lateral which
looks after more of the emotional and thus
creative side. The brain (or management for that
matter) is not actually this simple –if it was we
wouldn’t be able to understand ourselves
anyway. But for our purposes this brain model
works fine.
Managers tend to be good at planning,
budgeting, processing, organising, calculating
and implementing--all lineal activities. In the first
instance leadership is more the lateral brain –
although as we shall learn later leaders tend to
be whole brained. They know when to go to
logical or go emotional (we call this ability
Emotional Intelligence).
Melding
the two?
managers are all fair
They treat us all the same
–LIKE DOGS!
In 1900, when these ideas were at
their peak, only two percent of the world's
population could read or write. Today with
over eighty-four percent of the world’s
population able to read and write, the command
model does not have the same appeal under
most microscopes – we want to be involved.
Today the battle in organisational life is to shift
away from the traditional model: move from
authoritarian
control
to
collaborative
governance.
“Managers manage things: leaders
manage people.”
Which comes first?
Although some would suggest that Leadership is
just one of the tasks for managers, nothing could
be further from the truth. Many can manage but
few can lead. It is perfectly possible to be a
manager without being a leader; but to be a
leader without managing is to deny the meaning
of the word. Simply put leaders do manage, that
is why they are leaders.
PO Box 37220 Parnell. Auckland. NZ info@daudneyconsultants.co.nz
Hadvic Publishing is a division of
PEOPLE IN BUSINESS
LEADERSHIP
If they are not managing we could argue that
this is because they are mere managers. Their
focus is on structure, systems and things rather
than people. Leaders lead people. Managers
manage things –unfortunately those things
include people. Our definition of leadership is:
someone who is aware of their people’s needs
for consideration but also of their need for
structure.
So which comes first and does it matter?
It does matter, as you will see.
Managers are those people who do things right.
Leaders on the other hand are people who do
the right things right, right?
It is the battle
between efficiency and effectiveness. Ants for
example are really industrious critters –they
buzz about the place keeping busy and being
very efficient in what they are doing. But leaders
realise that it is not enough just to be
industrious. It is not enough to just be busy.
The difference between them and managers
is that leaders know it is perfectly possible to be
very good at what you do. You can even do it
right. But all that is for naught if you are not
doing the right thing.
Effectiveness is?
The ‘e’ word is about ‘proactivity’ not just
‘activity’ or ‘reactivity’ for that matter. Leaders
know that often the best thing to be doing is
recognising,
appreciating,
rewarding,
communicating, motivating, and advancing their
people.
Managers can be very good at
planning, organising, controlling, budgeting,
implementing and analysing but that at the time
may not be what the context requires.
Leaders are about vision, motivation,
Leadership is like being in a dog sled
team: if you are not the lead dog; your
view doesn’t change much!”
inspiration, teams, emotional intelligence,
personalities, intuition, communication, amongst
other things. Studies within a large global food
and drink company, by the legendary
psychologist David McClelland in 1996 showed
for example the following. The divisions run by
leaders with emotional intelligence capacities,
outperformed yearly earning goals by 20%.
Those run by managers showing managerial
skills, yet lacking emotional intelligence
capacities, under-performed by the same
percentage. Without the more emotional side of
leadership, a person may be competent at
management, but they will never achieve great
leadership.
Leadership is thus about emotion. It is not a
logical relationship a leader has with their
followers. It may be logical if looked at later. But
leadership is more lateral brain and
management is more lineal brain.
We have thus answered the question, which
comes first?
Decidedly leadership; then management follows.
Both are necessary and can co-exist in the
same person. Once leadership has captured the
hearts and heads of their followers then it is time
to put structure in place to reinforce the
management process. So many managers are
not leaders. But no leaders are not managers
otherwise they cease to be leader. Leaders may
not provide management but they know where
to get good ones and they train people in both
skills.
Australasia in particular needs more leaders.
We have enough managers. We need leaders to
drive the export earning push. We need leaders
to excite our passions to follow them to develop
standards of living and keep talented people in
our countries. We need leaders so we can
achieve goals. We need leaders so we can have
fun.
The major role of leadership?
That is why the major role of leaders is not to
create more followers but more leaders. It is
possible to analyse an organisation along two
continuums: the need for structure and the need
for consideration.
A manager-need, first up, is structure: while a
leader being self-aware would work with both,
according to the needs of their organisation-- but
their first priority would be their people.
That’s the profound difference between the
two disciplines
PO Box 37220 Parnell. Auckland. NZ info@daudneyconsultants.co.nz
Hadvic Publishing is a division of
PEOPLE IN BUSINESS
LEADERSHIP
On deciding to lead
On a personal level there are four areas of
competency:
1. Lead yourself. You’ll never lead others until
you can lead yourself. Walk the talk.
2. Lead others.
If you show leadership
characteristics you will attract followers then you
have a responsibility to treat them with honesty,
equity, integrity and respect.
The study of leadership itself becomes an
imperative even if you are told that you are a
natural –don’t reinvent the wheel of fortune: grab
a spoke from others.
3. Manage your EI and IQ. Your IQ got you the
job but your EQ will get you leadership. The
major resource you have is thus yourself.
4. Manage the tasks. The management function:
the work to be done. This is about optimizing
and achieving results through others, with
others, for others and by others.
Conclusions
One indispensable ingredient in modern teams
is leadership. Leaders turn groups into teams by
giving them common goals and respect for each
member and their potential contribution to the
team. They also give them the structured
supportive environment where everybody can
realise performance growth.
Teams can be very competitive
within the team. True leaders manage this
emotion carefully. Research with all Black
Rugby and other winning teams shows that
those who win, focus on performance excellence
and ‘team first’ psychology.
The hugely successful Australian rugby
coach Bob Dwyer says, “I don’t want people who
want to win, I want people who want to prepare
to win.” Leaders know that a focus on personal
achievement rather than competitiveness is a
more appropriate behaviour for self-supporting
teams.
This focus also leads to more cooperative,
collaborative and collegial behaviours. These
build team cultures—particularly that nebulous
team spirit. Team spirit, that gives competitive
advantage in the ‘market place’ but not at ‘our
place.’
One of the best illustrations
of this phenomenon at work: it features two of
the greatest golfers who have played the game.
Arnold Palmer was asked why he was losing to
Jack Nicholas. His answer sums up what
leaders know; said Arnold: “I go out to beat Jack
and Jack goes out to play good golf!”
“Good luck on your leadershipmanagement journey”.
REFERENCES
Barnes, J.A. ( 2005 ). John F. Kennedy on
Leadership. The Lessons and Legacy of a President.
AMACON. N.Y
Branson, R. (1995).In Jackson,T.Virgin King. Inside
Richard Branson’s Business Empire.HarperCollins
Publishers. London.
D’Audney, H.R. (2005). The People Skills of
Leadership (3rd Edition). Hadvic Publishing.
Auckland.
Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard
Business Review.Nov-Dec. P. 94-102.
Goleman,D. (1995). Interview with Kim Hill. National
Radio. Nine To Noon Programme.
Johansson, J. (2005). Two Titans. Muldoon, Lange
and Leadership. Dunmore Publishing. Wellington.
Klein, S. (2002). The most Evil Dictators in History.
Michael O’Mara Books Ltd. London.
Goodwin, D.K.(2005).
The Political Genius of
Abraham Lincoln. Simon and Shuster.
Lipman-Blumen;J.& Leavitt, H.J.(1999).Hot Groups.
Seeding them, feeding them and using them to ignite
your organisation. Oxford University Press. New
York.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human side of Enterprise.
McGraw-Hill. New York.
Muchinsky, Psychology Applied to Work. 4th Edition.
Pacific Grove. Brooks/Cole Publishers. P.396.
Myers, D. In Phillips, J. (1999). Douglas Myers. What
I’ve learned in Business. Nahanni Publishing .
Auckland. P.18-19.
Sculley, J.(1987). Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple. Harper
and Row. New York. P.159.
Van Zon, M (2001). Employee Sabotage. A Question
of Perception. Auckland University Masters’ Thesis.
Walsh,T.(2006).
In,
On
Career
Crossbars.
Management Women. April. P. 7.
Yeatts,D.E. & Hyten,C. (1998). High performing self
managed
work
teams.
Sage.
Thousand
Oaks.California.
www.indexmundi.com/world/demographics_profile.
PO Box 37220 Parnell. Auckland. NZ info@daudneyconsultants.co.nz
Hadvic Publishing is a division of