Do managers need to be leaders?
Bob Buckley
Have you ever wondered what the difference is between a successful manager and a successful
leader?
Recently, I suggested to a colleague that I have probably been a fairly good manager during my
career, but not necessarily a great leader.
And, in actual fact, I found myself to be very comfortable with that distinction.
I then started thinking whether I could bring to mind anyone I knew who was both (in my view of the
world) and I couldn’t come up with anyone.
The only conclusion I could draw was that really effective leaders appear to know the importance of
having really good managers – and they surround themselves with them.
This got us on to discussing what the real difference is – especially as it seems these days that the
focus is on Leadership Development rather than Management Training.
In fact, they are two very different functions and require very different skills, competencies and
behaviours.
The truth is, a substantial “rebranding” exercise has taken place in the world of people management.
Whereas we use to have “Personnel” now we have HR and HRBPs, Talent Managers, L & D
Specialists, Resourcing Advisors etc.
And although we used to aspire to become Managers…now that is not enough! Now we are
encouraged to become leaders…and to my mind that approach undermines the vital importance of
managers in organisations.
And herein lies the real problem with people development.
Ultimately, good managers ought to be helped to become better managers. Good leaders ought to
be helped to become better leaders – and perhaps there is some truth in the suggestion that good
leaders are born and not made.
The fact is, there is a difference – and both are key components of running a successful organisation.
Yet so few organisations are able to articulate what ‘effective management’ or ‘effective leadership’
actually looks like…and make little effort to differentiate.
In reality, we spend so much time trying to re-brand ‘managers’ as ‘leaders’ that we forget that they
are two very different roles with completely differing demands.
Ultimately, it’s not about the title or the word that we use to define them, but about understanding
exactly what each role demands and then getting the right people into those roles.
In fact, by trying to develop ‘leadership skills’ amongst managers who are not necessarily ‘built’ to
become ‘leaders’ (and don’t actually want to be), we may well be doing damage to our management
teams, by setting unrealistic expectations and forcing round pegs into square holes.
In this blog post, therefore, I’m going to highlight why I think managers do not have to become
leaders, and in fact, ought to simply be helped to become better managers.
Why are management and leadership often confused?
It’s interesting to think that 15 or 20 years ago the title of manager was an important and prestigious
title – for much of the 20th century, businesses and organisations were primarily focused on
developing effective managers, not leaders.
Right up until the 1970s, managers were seen as stewards of an organisation, whose responsibility it
was to motivate and mobilise the workforce in order to achieve the objectives of the organisation.
Developing managers allowed growing corporations to facilitate better teamwork and manage the
structures and the processes, along with the people, that would lead to consistent growth.
Yet somewhere along the line, the term of manager began to develop a less than savoury reputation.
“Management” became a faintly derogatory term for a faceless group of unfeeling beurocrats
Certainly in the UK, the industrial unrest that developed in the 1960’s and 70’s and the consequent
rift between employees and “management” did not help the manager’s cause or reputation.
“Management” became a faintly derogatory term for a faceless group of unfeeling beurocrats who
apparently did unfair things to people.
By 1974, management teams within the large British organisations were already being blamed for
many of the economic problems and hardships that the country faced at the time… and ‘the
manager’ started to be perceived far more negatively than ever before.
It was at that point that the teaching of leadership began to gain traction amongst larger
organisations.
Business schools began creating ‘leadership development programmes’ for managers, and
organisations began focusing on hiring and developing ‘inspirational leaders’ for management roles,
rather than on developing ‘effective managers.’
What we have now in 2015, as a result of this shift in semantics, is a very blurred line between
management and leadership…
… Yet there is a huge difference between the two functions, and it’s vital that we recognise that if we
want to create outstanding and enduring companies.
Leadership vs management: What’s the difference?
When most people talk about management and leadership, they’re often pitted against one another
as either complete opposites, or interchangeable synonyms.
In fact, neither is entirely true.
What is true though (in my experience) is that the kind of person who thrives within a management
position, is usually not the kind of person who thrives and succeeds within a leadership position
(though a select few are able to grow into that position, no doubt).
Both roles require very different things from the individual.
It’s also useful to remember that leadership and management are actually complementary functions
which serve very different needs within an organisation, and it’s very rare that one person can fulfil
both roles and functions effectively.
Unfortunately, the blurred lines that exist between the two have resulted in companies promoting
operational managers into leadership positions, and hiring natural, inspirational leaders and placing
them into management positions.
Leadership and management are actually complementary functions which serve very different needs
Of course, we’ve all experienced what happens in those situations, and it seldom ends well.
This is mainly because most organisations are not fully clear as to what is required and demanded of
each of these functions and each of these roles, to achieve success.
So let’s try and understand the basic differences between the requirements placed on a manager
and on a leader, and how that plays out in the real world.
Leaders:
Are driven by a cause or a vision which they relentlessly stand by, despite what others say or think
(“My way or the highway”)
Have courage and the strength of their convictions –they don’t need to be popular.
Have a strong need to translate the vision into action.
Create the core strategy and set the direction of the organisation
Explore and look for new avenues, new innovations and new opportunities
Think into the future and create new pathways
Are motivated by their passion, their focus on their unshakeable values
Have impact and influence inside and outside the organisation
Inspire and engage people to join them on their journey
Sell the vision and embody the change that needs to be made
Ensure that their strategy is being executed by the people below them
Managers:
Execute and implement the “big” strategic vision of the Leadership
Manage and maintain processes and systems
Make sure that things happen on time, on budget and in compliance
Ensure control and structure within the organisation
Hire, develop and motivate individual contributors to achieve the goals of the business functions
Manage the functional and operational aspects of the organisation in line with the leadership vision
Ensure team performance and productivity are maintained
Even though the above descriptions are generalised, the point of the exercise is to highlight the fact
that successful leaders do things differently to successful managers.
“It’s not the position that makes the leader; it’s the leader that makes the position” –…
It’s also worth remembering that it’s far harder to train people to be effective leaders than it is to
train them to be good managers.
It might even be argued that leaders are born not “developed.”
You see, when we consider that very few of the great leaders of our time (Churchill, Gandhi, Buffet,
Gates, etc) went through ‘specialised leadership development programmes’ to get to the top of their
game, we also start to see that great leaders are often born with the qualities that make them
successful.
“It’s not the position that makes the leader; it’s the leader that makes the position” – Stanley Huffty
That’s not to say that managers cannot acquire certain skills, competencies, and behaviours that are
associated with these successful leaders…they can. Great managers can be trained, for sure.
But to expect someone who excels at their role as a line manager to become a ‘game changing
leader’ after a 3 day workshop and a six-month coaching programme, is expecting a heck of a lot
from that individual.
A case of linguistic engineering?
As far as the development of leaders and managers goes, I would argue that many ‘leadership skills
programs’ are actually ‘strategic management skills programmes’ in disguise.
By ignoring the need for management development, we are in actual fact attempting to create a
generation of leaders who simply do not want to (or are not capable of) leading an organisation in
the truest sense of the word.
It’s a case of linguistic engineering.
“A widespread misunderstanding is that leading and managing are one and the same. Up until a few
years ago, books that claimed to be on leadership were often really about management. The main
difference between the two is that leadership is about influencing people to follow, while
management focuses on maintaining systems and processes” – John Maxwell, Leadership Expert
The truth is, you can call them whatever you want but one thing is clear: when we start to focus less
on terminology and more on making sure we have the right kinds of people, with the right
behaviours, drives and competencies driving our organisations, we see far more success all round.
After all, leadership without management is ineffective and management without leadership
suppresses growth, innovation and change…but really it’s the people within those functions that
make the difference; how they function as people and how they interact with the world around
them.
Don’t get me wrong: great managers are at the heart of any successful business, and great leaders
are at the top of any successful business.
Unfortunately, by lacking clarity on the differences and the nuances of the two functions, we’ve
ended up with managers in leadership roles, and leaders within management roles…neither of which
works!
So, what’s going wrong?
Focus on the demands of the role first
Let’s put the changing semantics of management and leadership aside for a moment, and
understand that:
o
The function of a business leader is to set the direction and vision of the organisation and to
spot new opportunities and innovations.
o The function of a manager is to execute the strategy, manage the systems and motivate their
teams towards those objectives.
Of course, these are two very different functions are very different roles.
But what’s more powerful than understanding the differences between these two titles, is actually
taking time out to understand and pinpoint the unique demands and requirements placed on the
individual within that role.
That’s because the role of a manager, or the role of the leader within a company, is never set in
stone, and in order to get the right person into that role and develop them accordingly, we have to
first create a clear picture of the:
 Behavioural demands of the role
 Competencies and skills required for success
 Personalities of the team that that person is responsible for
 Culture and values of the organisation
 Stage of growth that the organisation is in
 Objectives and directions of the organisation
When it comes to either developing managers, or developing future leaders for a business it’s
essential that we understand these elements first.
Only then will be able to understand exactly what we need from our managers, and what we need
from our leaders.
Rather than relying on traditional descriptions or titles to hire and develop the people who run our
organisations, we ought to be focussing on the success criteria for the specific role in
What’s most damaging, is when we start interchanging the two functions, believing that great
managers can become great leaders, and that great leaders have the ability to develop excellent
management skills.
In most cases this just isn’t true.
Successful leaders are by their very nature big picture, strategic thinkers who have a relentless vision
and the ability to inspire and influence others to get on board with that vision.
Alternatively, great managers are able to organise and maintain systems and structures and have the
ability to motivate and mobilise their people to get the best out of them.
Despite our best efforts, it’s still notoriously difficult to push a square peg into a round hole.
That’s why it’s far more effective to pinpoint the real demands of the role – whether manager or
leader – and hire or develop people based on those demands and those success criteria.
Moving away from semantics within management and leadership allows us to hire and promote the
right person, rather than trying to push a square peg into a round hole.
Are you a manager yourself? How do you view the difference between managers and leaders? Do
you feel all managers ought to learn leadership? Is it possible?
Leave your opinion, thoughts and feedback in the comments section – I’d love to hear your views.