I am always concerned when we set to define something so ethereal, because when we draw distinctions, which we must to give us a framework for observing that which we are defining, we also limit it. So how does one go about defining leadership? Two main themes to address this are what leaders do, and distinguishing between leadership and management.
For example Abraham Zaleznik in 1977, wrote an article in Harvard Business Review that addresses Leaders vs. Managers. From the Best of HBR:
"The difference between managers and leaders lies in the conceptions they hold, deep in the psyches, of chaos and order. Managers embrace process, seek stability and control, and instinctively try to resolve problems quickly - sometimes before they fully understand a problem's significance. Leaders, in contrast, tolerate chaos and lack of structure and are willing to delay closure in order to understand the issues more fully in this way. Zalenznik argued business leaders have much more in common with artists, scientists and other creative thinkers than they do with managers. Organizations need both managers and leaders to succeed, but developing both requires a reduced focus on logic and strategic exercises in favour of an environment where creativity and imagination are permitted to flourish."
My problem with this view is it seems to define managers and leaders as individuals who can be only one or the other. Does this mean managers cannot lead, or leaders cannot manage? Are managers not creative? You probably react the same way I do to those questions: silly, of course leaders can manage & vice-versa, of course managers can be creative. What about "individual leadership?" Well I'll get to that.
OK then, so let's approach this through the lens of roles. That way anyone can be either a leader or a manager. So now we still need to define leadership as a role. Warren Bennis, in his book "On Becoming a Leader" describes what leaders and managers do:
- The manager administers; the leader innovates.
- The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.
- The manager maintains; the leader develops.
- The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.
- The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
- The manager accepts reality; the leader investigates it.
- The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.
- The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.
- The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his or her eye on the horizon.
- The manager imitates; the leader originates.
- The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.
- The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.
- The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.
Nice set of distinctions, and as roles we can allow for a CEO (a leader primarily) to be concerned with the bottom line. Think about driving your family to Tahoe. While in that left seat you are controlling the car, your kids trust you not to get in a wreck and you are working on the short range (next stop light) and the long range (getting to King's Beach). So we can recognize that both roles can operate in the same person at the same time. I think we can conclude therefore both are important and required. One cannot function without the other.
(BTW: that penultimate bullet kinda irks me, the US military prides itself on giving its members the tools to use their judgment in their jobs (we follow orders, but we understand the mission, so we can execute on our own if needed.)
I'm sure some of you are thinking about qualities of leaders, but I do not want to get into the debate about what they are, or whether they are nature or nurture. I believe that there is no list of qualities that can be drawn up that we all will agree on, that make a leader. Each leader is too different to make this conversation not be an argument. And some qualities can be developed, and some require at least the seed to be there already. Then we throw on top of that style. Makes my head swim. Besides, it all seems too prescriptive. That is to say if I identify an individual with the "right" qualities, they will be a good leader. I doubt it because it does not take into account context and circumstances. Great leaders fail too (but they sure are not afraid to risk failing).
Now that we have some idea about what leaders do, we can start talk about how they do it. My personal favorite book on this is American Generalship by Edgar F Puryear. He asserts:
- Leaders surround themselves with trusted advisers who are not "yes men"
- Leaders read to understand history, their industry, trends and where they fit in the world
- Leaders maintain contact with all echelons of their organization (management by walking around)
- Leaders make decisions in a timely manner because of all the above
- Leaders work hard to take care of their people
So there you have it, or not. The real reason I stop here in the effort to follow the existing literature is because I tend to agree with Henry Mintzberg, the Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University. Leadership is overemphasized. In Debunking Management Myths, Mintzberg says,
"...ever since the distinction was made...attention focused on leadership. My view is that management without leadership is disheartening or discouraging. And leadership without management is disconnected, because if you lead without managing, you don’t know what’s going on. It’s management that connects you to what’s going on. We can make the distinction between leadership and management conceptually, but in practice I don’t think we should."
Again, back to driving the car on a family vacation. So why make the distinctions at all? Because each role requires different levels of thinking and acting. Developing those capacities (through training and practice), and knowing the distinctions will allow you to observe yourself and how you act in those roles and move between them or act simultaneously in them.
But for what purpose, what is the point? Here is where we get into allowing for individual leadership, and I think this is the best definition of all. In their book Failsafe Leadership, Linda Martin and Dr. David G. Mutchler boil it down to this: Leaders produce desired results consistently over time. Using that as the definition of leadership allows for personal leadership in your job, the organizational framework for evaluating employees and training them to be successful, defining goals at all levels, how to communicate to get work done, and how to develop leaders for the future. I think it puts the right emphasis on leadership, and allows us to focus on learning how to produce results without getting hung up on whether we need to focus more on management. Because if the how gives us the results, then we are doing both well. As individuals, we can evaluate all training (and experience) on how it helps us produce results.
This does not exclude managers from being leaders, just the opposite. So how do we define managing in light of this new definition of leadership? Perhaps in another posting. Meanwhile lead well, with compassion.
, contends that many of the problems confronting leaders can be traced to their inability to analyze and evaluate organizational cultures. Attempts to create a new vision, or make wholesale organizational changes, fail because they run counter to the culture. Major changes must at least address culture, and they may even require work to change the culture.
