Leadership Mettle

By Larrywomack.com

A manager, according to the Handbook of the American Management Association, is one whose power is derived from the position he or she holds and who is accountable for achieving organizational objectives through the actions of subordinates.

Behavioral Scientist Bernard T. Bass defines leadership as “the observed effect of one individual’s ability to change other people’s behaviors by altering their motivations.”

Leadership, therefore, is something one assumes.  Management is assigned by others or by the system. Both are important to a successful enterprise and are not mutually exclusive.

 

There is a popular notion being circulated through the latest business books and articles that a manager is the direct opposite of a leader.  This notion suggests that managers and leaders sit at opposite ends of a continuum, with leaders at the preferred end.  The manager is portrayed as the caterpillar, the leader as the more desirable butterfly.

During the past three decades, however, business in general tilted towards a preference for “manager types” to serve as CEOs of companies.  In the old seller’s market (as opposed to today’s buyer’s market), success was often derived through manager behaviors like control, formality, conservation, and analysis.   The new notion suggests that managing is no longer effective and must be discarded in favor of leadership.

We’ve found that success in business requires a balance of both leadership and management.  The manager is the stone and the leader the fire.  Both elements are necessary to forge a successful business venture in the Outcome Management environment.  It is our contention, however, that because many who sit in positions of authority gained their position in the old seller’s market, the notion of leadership over management is being overemphasized.  And that this overemphasis is often a turnoff to the very persons who need to hear the message.

 

Leader\Manager Study

In the late ’80s Bass conducted studies to assess the roles of management and leadership in successful organizations.  Management is a transactional process—positive and negative reinforcement for performance.  Leadership is transformational–inspiring, stimulating, and collaborating towards a vision.  The studies indicated that the negative reinforcement-style of transactional management (often called the stick approach) usually reduced productivity over the long term.  The other side of transactional management—positive reinforcement (the carrot)—though contributing to a more pleasant work environment, produced only marginal increases in performance.

The transformational leadership approach was found, however, to significantly raise performance levels and advance job satisfaction as well!  Though the results of the Bass study will come as no surprise to business leaders, it is interesting how few decision makers are willing to balance their management skills with transformational-type activities.

As the Bass studies indicated, people don’t often need or respond well to being managed.  They are best led to higher performance.  Places, things, and processes, however, are to be managed.  Resources must be managed.  Tangibles must be controlled.  Leading people and managing processes is usually the preferred balance of authority.

There are occasionally times in the life of a growing and changing organization when the use of transactional management is appropriate.  A client of ours was having trouble getting one senior staff member to buy into the company’s adoption of a new management philosophy.  The senior executive was “talking the talk” but not “walking the walk.”  “I’ve tried everything,” our client said, “but he’s just not getting with the program.”  “Are you sure you want this guy on board?” we asked.  “I am,” he said.  “He could be a valuable member of the team.”

Our tongue-in-cheek suggestion to the leader was to call the fellow in, then before he arrived, to hide behind the door.  When the fellow came in the leader was to sneak up behind him, grab him by the seat of the pants and the back of the neck, bang the guy’s head against the bookshelf, throw him to the floor and put his foot on the senior executive’s throat, and say, “Jim, no more fooling around.  We are changing to this new philosophy and you will cooperate or you are out.  I don’t want your answer now.  Either show up Monday morning ready to play with the team or pack your things and get out over the weekend!”  Though the leader chose a somewhat less combative action, he did use the stick approach to great advantage and his senior associate has become a valuable member of the team.  There are times when the transactional-style of management can be used with positive effect.

But over the long haul people respond best to leadership.  Intrinsic intangibles such as brilliant ideas, innovations, and business-altering breakthroughs rarely occur in a tightly managed environment.

 

Yin And Yang

An appropriate balance of leadership and management is required to successfully operate a business.  In business, even leaders must appreciate the value of control, conservation, and analysis, and know when these can be put to effective use.  Yet they must balance that appreciation with vision, communication, risk taking, and optimism, particularly in creating a new work environment or changing management philosophies.

As organizations continue to become less structured, the need to inspire performance rather than manage it will increase.  As organizations become more virtual or disorganized, people will work more in project collaboration than in departments and layers.  They will also be less subject to being managed and routinely directed.

 

The Disorganization

Disorganization is a concept presented by Tom Peters in Liberation Management.  Work in the organized organization was linear and routinely predictable–in much the same manner of the old “bucket brigade.”  Everyone had a place in line and the primary responsibility to pass the bucket of water up the line until it arrived at the CEO, who sloshed the water on the burning issue and got all the credit for putting out the fire.  Advancement meant moving up the brigade to become the dowser or, at the very least, to gain a position where one’s deftness with the bucket could be seen by the person in charge.  That was the organized organization.

We have come to the edge of the organized organization.  Work is now more chaotic and cerebral than laborious.  Thinking is the new chore on the shop floor, in the showroom, in the boardroom, and in the offices of the leaders of the company.

People are working in collaboration instead of in lines, and the customer gets more attention than the quarterly reports.  To some the world of business seems out of balance and confusing; to others opportunities abound like never before.

In the organized organization it was possible to move people beyond their competencies into their incompetencies without even noticing it.  In the disorganization that is no longer possible.  Longevity, politicking, obedience, and problem solving were the primary performance measures.  Leaders rewarded those who put out the fires, whether they were the ones who started them (or let them smolder) or not.  In the disorganization that is no longer possible.  The new basis of reward is becoming collaboration.

 

It’s Not Just Teamwork!

If there is a business subject written more about than leadership, it is teamwork.  Books and theories abound on how to get people to work in teams.  Teamwork is all the rage!  Most problems and opportunities within a company, however, are not best addressed through the work of a team.  Many matters are best addressed through a decision by someone in leadership or by someone familiar with the issue–a worker on the shop floor, a clerk in accounting, a senior marketing v.p., and so on.  Some issues are best addressed through the advice and counsel of experts–business consultants, computer gurus, and knowledgeable persons on the company payroll.  Some issues are appropriate for the work of a team.

One of the major contributors to the failures of many Quality Management initiatives was overemphasis on teamwork.  Companies spent millions of dollars training people to work in teams in order to solve problems, create new opportunities, and to increase productivity.   Most of these team-building efforts were eventually abandoned and the quality initiative deemed a failure.   Teamwork wasn’t the answer.  It was never the answer.  Success comes from people collaborating with one another, not from just working as a team.  Successful collaboration comes from the organization’s hierarchy balancing transformational leadership with process management, and then empowering all others to do the same.

 

It’s Attitude

Companies, organizations, sports teams, and families thrive and prosper from an attitude of collaboration.  Teamwork is a part of it.  But collaboration begins with leadership’s providing an atmosphere where collaboration is possible.  Collaboration also includes persons working independently, yet towards a common vision.  All work in a company is not teamwork.

 

Summary

Business success comes from a balance of management and leadership from the company’s senior team and from creating and rewarding collaboration.  Too many leaders try to “train in” success, rather than to empower it through a balanced approach.  Too many companies waste money, training people to work in teams, while maintaining a system that rewards only individual performance.  Know when to lead and what to manage.  Create a workplace that rewards and recognizes collaboration, not just individual performance and teamwork.  Your people will come to find more joy in their work and your training budget will virtually disappear.