There's a huge difference between management and leadership.My wife works in higher education, and as some of you may know, one of the lucrative benefits of doing so is regular access to graduate courses. In my wife's case, she is taking a graduate class in organizational behavior this semester that contributes to completion of a part-time MBA curriculum. I've worked in corporate environments for over 25 years without pursuing a graduate business degree, so it can be interesting (and sometimes amusing) to hear about what they are discussing in the academic bubble and to compare it to what I have seen in the real world.This week my wife recounted a discussion they had in class about an HBR article entitled "Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?" The professor told the class that this was ground breaking when it was originally published in 1977.As my wife shared the details, I started thinking about my own experiences.We often refer to leadership and management in an interchangeable way, as if there is no difference between the two. Go to your company's website -- most likely you will see the most senior people there listed under a "Leadership" section or referred to as the "leadership team."But are they really "leaders" or are they "managers"? How many leaders have you encountered versus managers throughout your own career?The fact is, despite this being a provocative question almost 45 years ago, (from my experience at least) one thing remains true today (and best said by John Kotter in a paper he recently wrote on the topic): "most US corporations today are over managed and underled."Organizations often go through the exercise of trying to identify those individuals who can be good managers. They put an emphasis on "management training" and the tactical needs of managing others, like conducting performance reviews, goal setting, and meeting and exceeding corporate expectations. They refer to tactics like "active listening" almost as advanced training for managers. Companies check the box on this, and often times even it call it "leadership training" because it seems "essential" -- but really the results are mostly just mediocre at best.The reality is: most companies do very little to identify and develop actual leaders. And if it does happen, it is certainly not a coordinated, strategic effort. In a rapidly changing, technology driven, increasingly ambiguous business environment, nurturing leaders is not just a luxury reserved for large companies. It should be a priority and necessity for every company -- especially the small ones.So why doesn't this happen? From what I have seen, I believe there are a few basic common reasons:People still believe leaders are born, not taught. It is true that there are people who innately have the charisma, emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills that make them natural leaders. But companies can't wait for them to just fall into their laps (and even when they do, weak leaders and cultures won't capitalize on bringing them into the fold). Research shows most leaders are in fact taught. So each company has potential leaders already within their ranks -- they just need to devote resources to be able to better identify, develop and mentor those in the organization (particularly those that might not be obvious) that are currently in and also can on day serve in leadership roles.Developing leaders takes too much thought. Too many companies undervalue human capital management as it is, let alone look at it as a strategic initiative. Companies need to value leadership as a key asset of its overall culture -- that means it starts from the top. CEOs and founders need to carve out time to think about and prioritize this over simple management. Most don't -- often because they aren't skilled leaders themselves.It's easy to see the value of effective management. It's hard to place a tangible value on leadership. Companies have quotas to make, deadlines to hit and earnings expectations to manage. It can be conveniently (and erroneously) rationalized that the value of leadership throughout an organization is not easily found on a financial statement. So companies choose to primarily emphasize and reward managing to tangible results. In the process, they are missing opportunities to strengthen their organizations by rewarding acts of leadership -- even when results are not met.Leaders are not afraid to create friction -- and friction makes people uncomfortable. It's kind of like the old adage "children should be seen, not heard" -- most companies just want employees to execute initiatives passed down from management. This gives the appearance of more control over an outcome. A culture that embraces leadership cedes this control to the employees -- it trusts them to use judgement and make the right decisions to influence the outcome themselves. It also means they can question or even push back when it is not clear an initiative will succeed. For companies with weak leadership cultures, this friction is hard to manage. The damaging residual effect? Politics. It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand that there is a significant difference between managers and leaders. Yet, with so many MBAs in senior positions and on corporate boards of directors, it is disheartening to see that this persists as an issue with most companies.Let's hope with more diversity in corporate management, changing office demographics and an increasing understanding of the value of human capital within organizations it won't take another 45 years for the emphasis on leadership over management to become less newsworthy in business.And with that....on to your selected stories this week. But first, a quick shout out to new Friend of Dave Eli London. Eli produces a weekly (midweek) newsletter called The Breads -- if you come here for the eclectic selections, you will definitely have an appreciation for the skilled curation and commentary he wraps around similar stories there. Case in point -- Eli served up the first story below this week. Highly recommend taking some time to connect with Eli and check it out!Have a great weekend, a good short work week, and a safe and Happy Thanksgiving everyone -- however you end up doing it this year....XOXODave
Share this post
Friends of Dave #205: birds aren't real
Share this post
There's a huge difference between management and leadership.My wife works in higher education, and as some of you may know, one of the lucrative benefits of doing so is regular access to graduate courses. In my wife's case, she is taking a graduate class in organizational behavior this semester that contributes to completion of a part-time MBA curriculum. I've worked in corporate environments for over 25 years without pursuing a graduate business degree, so it can be interesting (and sometimes amusing) to hear about what they are discussing in the academic bubble and to compare it to what I have seen in the real world.This week my wife recounted a discussion they had in class about an HBR article entitled "Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?" The professor told the class that this was ground breaking when it was originally published in 1977.As my wife shared the details, I started thinking about my own experiences.We often refer to leadership and management in an interchangeable way, as if there is no difference between the two. Go to your company's website -- most likely you will see the most senior people there listed under a "Leadership" section or referred to as the "leadership team."But are they really "leaders" or are they "managers"? How many leaders have you encountered versus managers throughout your own career?The fact is, despite this being a provocative question almost 45 years ago, (from my experience at least) one thing remains true today (and best said by John Kotter in a paper he recently wrote on the topic): "most US corporations today are over managed and underled."Organizations often go through the exercise of trying to identify those individuals who can be good managers. They put an emphasis on "management training" and the tactical needs of managing others, like conducting performance reviews, goal setting, and meeting and exceeding corporate expectations. They refer to tactics like "active listening" almost as advanced training for managers. Companies check the box on this, and often times even it call it "leadership training" because it seems "essential" -- but really the results are mostly just mediocre at best.The reality is: most companies do very little to identify and develop actual leaders. And if it does happen, it is certainly not a coordinated, strategic effort. In a rapidly changing, technology driven, increasingly ambiguous business environment, nurturing leaders is not just a luxury reserved for large companies. It should be a priority and necessity for every company -- especially the small ones.So why doesn't this happen? From what I have seen, I believe there are a few basic common reasons:People still believe leaders are born, not taught. It is true that there are people who innately have the charisma, emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills that make them natural leaders. But companies can't wait for them to just fall into their laps (and even when they do, weak leaders and cultures won't capitalize on bringing them into the fold). Research shows most leaders are in fact taught. So each company has potential leaders already within their ranks -- they just need to devote resources to be able to better identify, develop and mentor those in the organization (particularly those that might not be obvious) that are currently in and also can on day serve in leadership roles.Developing leaders takes too much thought. Too many companies undervalue human capital management as it is, let alone look at it as a strategic initiative. Companies need to value leadership as a key asset of its overall culture -- that means it starts from the top. CEOs and founders need to carve out time to think about and prioritize this over simple management. Most don't -- often because they aren't skilled leaders themselves.It's easy to see the value of effective management. It's hard to place a tangible value on leadership. Companies have quotas to make, deadlines to hit and earnings expectations to manage. It can be conveniently (and erroneously) rationalized that the value of leadership throughout an organization is not easily found on a financial statement. So companies choose to primarily emphasize and reward managing to tangible results. In the process, they are missing opportunities to strengthen their organizations by rewarding acts of leadership -- even when results are not met.Leaders are not afraid to create friction -- and friction makes people uncomfortable. It's kind of like the old adage "children should be seen, not heard" -- most companies just want employees to execute initiatives passed down from management. This gives the appearance of more control over an outcome. A culture that embraces leadership cedes this control to the employees -- it trusts them to use judgement and make the right decisions to influence the outcome themselves. It also means they can question or even push back when it is not clear an initiative will succeed. For companies with weak leadership cultures, this friction is hard to manage. The damaging residual effect? Politics. It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand that there is a significant difference between managers and leaders. Yet, with so many MBAs in senior positions and on corporate boards of directors, it is disheartening to see that this persists as an issue with most companies.Let's hope with more diversity in corporate management, changing office demographics and an increasing understanding of the value of human capital within organizations it won't take another 45 years for the emphasis on leadership over management to become less newsworthy in business.And with that....on to your selected stories this week. But first, a quick shout out to new Friend of Dave Eli London. Eli produces a weekly (midweek) newsletter called The Breads -- if you come here for the eclectic selections, you will definitely have an appreciation for the skilled curation and commentary he wraps around similar stories there. Case in point -- Eli served up the first story below this week. Highly recommend taking some time to connect with Eli and check it out!Have a great weekend, a good short work week, and a safe and Happy Thanksgiving everyone -- however you end up doing it this year....XOXODave