Up Your Business is an exclusive GEARS Magazine feature in which I share stories, insights, and reflections about real business and life challenges.
I don’t know about you, but back in school, I used to hate when a test question started with the phrase, “Compare and contrast…” It always meant that I was going to have to think and then write an essay about what I thought. Who knew that someday I would actually get paid
In this article I’m going to compare and contrast leadership and management. That is, I’ll discuss how they’re similar and, in contrast,
how they’re different. In fact they’re often different to the point of being in opposition with one another. Together, we’ll explore the question, “Is management a function of leadership, or is leadership a function of management?”
The Presidential Primaries
I’m writing this article several weeks before GEARS actually hits the streets. So, as I write it, no presidential candidate from either party has garnered enough delegates to secure his or her respective party’s nomination. In fact, the way it’s shaping up, the candidates may still be fighting it out as you read this a few weeks from now.
At any rate, I can’t think of a more fitting way of comparing and contrasting leadership and management than in the context of a political campaign. I assure you that I’m not offering political commentary… just making some observations. I hope you won’t even know who I favor by what I say.
First of all, there’s been plenty of comparing and contrasting going on between the candidates. All of them started by staking out a claim to one or more positions that they passionately believe to be uniquely theirs. They also believe they and their positions will be popular enough to win the hearts and votes of the majority of voters.
It’s as though they’ve come upon the ultimate secret sauce to solve the most important problems our nation faces. In some cases, I wasn’t aware all these problems existed until they pointed them out. I guess we don’t know we have a problem until someone has a solution. Makes you wonder how our nation can survive when each candidate’s problems represent a crisis of apocalyptic proportions!
But, if they don’t identify a problem and a solution for that problem, what will they hang their hats on? Other than an incumbent, can you imagine a candidate saying, “I think things are pretty doggone good exactly as they are. If you vote for me, I promise that nothing will change”? Truth is, even incumbents and what we now call “the establishment candidates” feel it necessary to promise change on some level.
Here’s what I find most interesting: In the beginning of the primary races, the candidates talk a lot about leadership. They promise not to just change things, but to transform things.
The difference between change and transformation has to do with the degree of change, and they tell us that only a strong leader can bring about transformation. They tell us that only they have the leadership skills to succeed. Without expressing any personal bias or value judgments, here are some examples of change versus transformation.
- Change is enforcing our borders by improving border security.
- Transformation is improving security by building a wall and making Mexico pay for it.
- Change is reducing tax rates, simplifying tax codes, and closing tax loopholes.
- Transformation is a flat tax; tax returns that can be completed on a postcard and eliminating the IRS.
- Change is making health care affordable and accessible for everyone.
- Transformation is giving universal health care coverage to everyone for free, if necessary.
Of course, these things and many more have been discussed and debated ad nauseam during the past year. But have you noticed the transitions that have occurred among the candidates? As various candidates leave the race, they suddenly soften on some of their positions, finding common ground with, and even endorsing, the very people they were fighting.
Others stay in the race but modify and, in some instances, even abandon their positions to appeal to a broader base of voters. Their message begins to get a little watered down and starts becoming somewhat muddled. The candidates even seem a little less passionate and, as their passion fades, it becomes more and more difficult to differentiate between them.
The sad part is that this trend continues all the way through the general election. And when a winner is finally determined, history demonstrates that things will likely return to essentially the same old, glacial-paced, incremental or even nochange-at-all governmental processes.
After our supercharged, impassioned, wide-eyed candidate has taken office, the only transformation that seems to have occurred is his personal transformation from a leader into a manager… making only incremental changes or just maintaining the status quo.
What can we learn?
In your business, you most likely function as the leader and the manager. You probably experience a similar dilemma as that of the presidential candidates. The leader in you wants to transform the underperforming aspects of your business into something significantly better. But the manager in you wants to maintain your company’s positive attributes and resists messing with the status quo.
Just like the candidates, you’re passionate about where you want to take the company, but you experience pushback from your constituents: employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, and other circumstantial challengers. To make matters worse, it’s almost like you have a split personality, because you’re experiencing internal conflict as both leader and manager. You essentially wear two hats: a leader’s hat and a manager’s hat.
I’ve found that being more effective in either role begins with knowing which hat you’re wearing at any particular time. Let’s start by defining the functions and attributes associated with each role.
While the terms leadership and management are often used interchangeably, they are distinctively different. So let’s consider the question I asked earlier: “Is management a function of leadership, or is leadership a function of management?” The answer is sometimes neither and sometimes both.
There are countless definitions for leadership. While the definitions vary, there are certain traits that repeatedly appear.
- Leaders create and provide the vision and mission for their organizations.
- Leaders determine the direction and rate of travel toward a goal.
- Leaders focus on “what” and “why,” but delegate the “how” to management.
- Leaders are committed to the vision as well as to their organizations and people.
- Leaders are consistent, persistent, and resilient when facing adversity or being challenged by circumstances.
- Leadership stems from influence… not from authority or power.
- Leaders are people oriented.
- Leaders bring out the best in others.
- Leaders influence, inspire, and motivate others to achieve the organization’s mission.
Some leaders are anointed, appointed, or elected… but with rare exception, great leaders just show up and are recognized as leaders. They earn the role.
Management is fundamentally task, product, and process oriented. Managers focus on “how”: How can the organization control, utilize, and maximize the resources of the organization effectively to make sure the goal is achieved? Here are some of the traits and characteristics that are often attributed to managers:
- Managers organize human and physical resources within prescribed parameters to carry out the leader’s vision and mission.
- Managers tend to enforce adherence to established policies and procedures.
- Managers operate with power and authority.
- Managers think in terms of performance against standards and control by measuring results.
- Managers strive to maintain the status quo or to make incremental improvements that don’t significantly alter the status quo.
- While some managers might also be good leaders, leadership skills aren’t essential to be a good manager.
- Innovativeness and creativity aren’t typical or essential for being an effective manager.
- As opposed to the guiding style typically identified with leadership, managers tend to direct their team members.
Unfortunately, in the real world, the distinction between leadership and management becomes blurred. This is especially the case in small businesses like auto repair shops, because of the “two-hat challenge.” The result is often the same as in the political process we looked at earlier: The business owner sacrifices his vision for the company and settles for some watered down version by reverting to his role as manager.
A great starting point is to get comfortable with the differences and similarities of the two roles. Try to be aware of which hat you’re wearing as much of the time as possible and act accordingly. Believe it or not, to avoid confusion when speaking to an employee, I often announced what I was doing by saying, “Okay, just to be clear, right now I’m putting on my (leader’s / manager’s) hat.” It’s simple, but it does help communicate more effectively.
At this year’s Powertrain Expo, I’ll present a workshop titled “Pea Soup: The Cure for Entrepreneurial Split Personality Disorder.” I’ve compiled some practical tools to conquer the two-hat challenge and help you take your company exactly where you want it to go. Learn the secrets to managing things and leading people. I hope to see you in October at Powertrain Expo 2016.
