There has been a lot of politically correct pontificating of late in corporate circles about the differences between managers and leaders. Most of the commentary I have read attempts to please both audiences. Those of you who have read my work in the past know that I am rarely politically correct nor do I ever seek to try and please all the people all the time. While there is clearly a need for both managers and leaders in the business world and while I respect and have developed close friendships with many a manager, this author simply believes that the law of scarcity applies to the topic at hand. There is an infinitely greater supply of managers causing a much greater demand for leaders. Put simply, because leaders are much more difficult to come by, they are therefore more valuable to an enterprise. The paragraph above begs the question why are there fewer leaders than managers? I believe it is because not everyone has it in them to be a leader and thus the old axiom a born leader. The intrinsic quality of leadership often begins with nothing more than raw talent and a certain state of mind. To possess the innate qualities of a leader is however not the same thing as being a leader. As important as your DNA is, effective leadership skills are developed and refined by time, experience, and a true desire to be more than just a manager, but a true leader. Lets breakdown the DNA of a typical leaderA leader is usually a very creative, dynamic, outgoing and unflappable individual. They tend to think big picture focusing on vision and strategy while looking to make a long-term impact. By way of contrast lets examine the DNA of a manager. Managers are usually more analytical while focusing on process and procedure looking to make short-term contributions. The following list adapted from Mind of a Manager, Soul of a Leader by Craig Hickman, John Wiley & Sons, demonstrates the DNA gap between leaders and managers: Managers build systems and procedures, Leaders build teams and develop talent. Managers surround themselves with subordinates & Leaders surround themselves with the best & brightest. Managers avoid risk and Leaders thrive on risk. Managers find comfort in the status quo & Leaders serve as a catalyst for change & growth. Managers settle for industry standard & Leaders demand the best. Managers wield power while Leaders apply influence. Managers control & Leaders inspire. Managers formulate policy & Leaders set examples. Managers instruct...Leaders mentor. Managers are reactive while Leaders are proactive. Managers plan...Leaders innovate. Managers refine...Leaders revolutionize. Managers reorganize...Leaders reinvent. Managers pursue the tangible while Leaders seek the intangible. We have all witnessed companies that have been over managed in the absence of leadership. When leadership has been abdicated to management in a corporate setting you will always find that growth slows, morale declines, creativity wanes and the competitive edge is weakened. That being said, I have personally experienced the value of true leadership at every stage of my life from the athletic playing field, to the military battleground to the corporate boardroom. Lets look at an example of the value of leadership from each of the three areas: An example from the world of athleticsIf you were the owner of an NFL franchise and had to choose between having the #1 quarterback in the league or the #1 center in league what would your choice be? Again this doesnt mean that a great center isnt valuable, it just means that the role player isnt as valuable to the team as having the talent factor and leadership characteristics of a true impact player. Simply reflect back upon your own life experiences and youll see that you have come across many utility players over the years, but very few franchise players. A military exampleContrast if you will the differences of two enlisted men of the same rank. The fist is a sergeant in a headquarters unit charged with the administrative support of a company commander. The second sergeant is a combat controller in a special operations unit charged with coordinating air strikes from the ground behind enemy lines. While both of the enlisted men described above hold the same rank, are part of a team, and play important roles, one is clearly an impact player in a leadership capacity while the other is solely a utility player acting in a management capacity. The military has determined that it is a rare individual who exhibits the characteristics necessary to become a member of a special operations unit. Therefore they are willing to make a much larger investment in the combat controller and in return the military expects a much larger contribution from that individual. A corporate exampleThis example will be short and sweat, but hopefully very clear in its statement of impact. Who do you believe is of greater value and makes a larger contribution to a corporation, someone who administers policy and creates processes or someone who sets the vision and creates the strategy? Just examine the difference in the pay stubs of the two individuals contrasted above and youll quickly see who the enterprise deems to be of higher value. I want to be clear that I am not anti manager. I am however very pro leadership when it comes to optimizing the talent factor in any organization. My bias toward leadership doesnt mean that I dont understand the principles behind such truisms as: there is no I in team or, the sum of the parts is greater than the whole or that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Rather it simply means that I believe you achieve a much greater return on human capital with investments made into leadership due to the scope and scale of the impact that a leader can make. The bottom line is that I prefer to lead rather than manage and to be led rather than to be managed. |
