If it is true, as I aver, that the respective roles of leaders and managers are functionally different in their essential characteristics, then it is important to differentiate them.
Although it may amount to an oversimplification, the essential skills of leader must lie in the area of appealing to “hearts and minds;” (to use a possibly over-used, maligned or misunderstood phrase). Communication is the core competency required for this.
I do not mean to say, nor do I mean to imply, that a leader uses manipulative practices. What I do mean is that a leader understands that people are largely irrational in their decision-making and he, therefore, takes account of that fact. As a result, leaders tend to be very tolerant of even extremely high levels of ambiguity, and can concentrate on dealing with the irrational, i.e., the most EFFECTIVE employment of his most valuable asset: his people. In this sense, he is the compleat marketer.
On the other hand, managers tend to concentrate on the rational, i.e., the most EFFICIENT use of available resources. The different positions are often subject to conflicting pressures.
The bottom line is, when one is both a leader and a manager, to be both effective and efficient, it is required that a functional amalgam be formed between the two. From this amalgamated position, the leader/manager can both deploy and protect his people.
Here’s what is probably counterintuitive to civilians, most of whom think that serving in the armed services of the United States is to live a life oppressed by regimentation. Truly, the degree of freedom to exercise my own initiative was considerably greater while I was in the Navy than when I was more active in the civilian business environment. In the latter environment, the term, “teamwork” seemed to be honored more in the breach than the practice and there seemed to be more "prima donnas" and incompetents.
No disrespect intended to those who think this, but I take serious issue with a statement offered to me lately that: “in a war situation you depend on your leader for your life and fortunately in the private sector we tend not to rely on our leaders to that degree.” Speaking as a former Commanding Officer of a U.S. Navy warship, I can say that the opposite is true. It is the Wardroom Officers and the crew upon which the Captain depends for his life. If they aren’t “with” him, he might as well be dead; nothing good is going to happen and he will experience not only “the loneliness of command” but his life will be miserable, to boot.
Although they may be the results of the exercise of good leadership, the “variables” of stakeholder value, company growth, and shareholder return are not personal traits of leadership, nor are they traits of anything else. The technical competence that may be required for managers is not the same kind of competence that is required for leaders. The skill-sets required are as different as night is from day. Being assigned to a position of leadership does not make a person a leader.
Character is independent of results and not only has a strong part to play in leadership, character is destiny. Character does not necessarily insure continuous success nor freedom from error. It doesn't matter how it is tested, Character will out.
Although it may amount to an oversimplification, the essential skills of leader must lie in the area of appealing to “hearts and minds;” (to use a possibly over-used, maligned or misunderstood phrase). Communication is the core competency required for this.
I do not mean to say, nor do I mean to imply, that a leader uses manipulative practices. What I do mean is that a leader understands that people are largely irrational in their decision-making and he, therefore, takes account of that fact. As a result, leaders tend to be very tolerant of even extremely high levels of ambiguity, and can concentrate on dealing with the irrational, i.e., the most EFFECTIVE employment of his most valuable asset: his people. In this sense, he is the compleat marketer.
On the other hand, managers tend to concentrate on the rational, i.e., the most EFFICIENT use of available resources. The different positions are often subject to conflicting pressures.
The bottom line is, when one is both a leader and a manager, to be both effective and efficient, it is required that a functional amalgam be formed between the two. From this amalgamated position, the leader/manager can both deploy and protect his people.
Here’s what is probably counterintuitive to civilians, most of whom think that serving in the armed services of the United States is to live a life oppressed by regimentation. Truly, the degree of freedom to exercise my own initiative was considerably greater while I was in the Navy than when I was more active in the civilian business environment. In the latter environment, the term, “teamwork” seemed to be honored more in the breach than the practice and there seemed to be more "prima donnas" and incompetents.
No disrespect intended to those who think this, but I take serious issue with a statement offered to me lately that: “in a war situation you depend on your leader for your life and fortunately in the private sector we tend not to rely on our leaders to that degree.” Speaking as a former Commanding Officer of a U.S. Navy warship, I can say that the opposite is true. It is the Wardroom Officers and the crew upon which the Captain depends for his life. If they aren’t “with” him, he might as well be dead; nothing good is going to happen and he will experience not only “the loneliness of command” but his life will be miserable, to boot.
Although they may be the results of the exercise of good leadership, the “variables” of stakeholder value, company growth, and shareholder return are not personal traits of leadership, nor are they traits of anything else. The technical competence that may be required for managers is not the same kind of competence that is required for leaders. The skill-sets required are as different as night is from day. Being assigned to a position of leadership does not make a person a leader.
Character is independent of results and not only has a strong part to play in leadership, character is destiny. Character does not necessarily insure continuous success nor freedom from error. It doesn't matter how it is tested, Character will out.
No comments:
Post a Comment