Kimberly Wiefling is on a leadership blogging kick this week over at the UCSC Extension in Silicon Valley’s “Art of Project Management” blog. Manage Cows, but LEAD People talks about the difference between management and leadership. Her post points out that just because someone is in a high level management position, that doesn’t mean they act like true leaders.
Sometimes leadership and management are put forth as a false dichotomy. They are really separate activities that can exist alone or together. When I first started managing people, I remember going to leadership training and how many managers insisted they were not managers at all, but leaders. That always seemed strange to me. Why does it have to be either/or?
You can be a manager without being a leader. You can be a leader without being a manager. If you have skill in both, they can create a synergy and really get people motivated and effective. In fact, I’m not even sure you can be a truly effective leader without great management skills, and vise-versa.
What are your thoughts on how leadership and management relate to one another? Please, leave a comment!
No related posts.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Josh,
You ask how leadership and management relate to one another and here is my view.
I managed people for over 30 years, as few as 22 and as many as 1300. I did this in conjunction with managing various naval combatant ship functions such as power plants, gunnery and the ship, and later civilian power plant operations and maintenance. I actually never understood leadership until my people told me what they were following after I had gained their trust for the first time by really listening to them, about 12 years after I began managing people.
As concerns management, I learned that we “manage” resources and functions such as finances, money, production, construction, supply chains, people, engineering, and materials in order to achieve organizational success.
On the other hand, I learned that leadership applies only to people and entails the sending of value standard messages to people which most of them then follow/use. Thus we say that they have been “led” in the direction, good or bad, of those standards. Leadership is one side of the coin called values, the other side being followership.
Leadership in the workplace consists of the value standards reflected in everything that an employee experiences because these standards are what employees follow by using them to perform their work. Most of what the employee experiences is the support or lack thereof provided by management – such as training, tools, parts, discipline, direction, material, procedures, rules, technical advice, documentation, information, planning, etc.
Leadership is not a process any manager can change. It happens inexorably every minute of every day because of the way people respond to management actions. The only choice available to a manager is the standard (good, bad, mediocre or in between) which he/she transmits to employees.
Because of these characteristics, “followership” turns out to be a major force in managing people. Those managers who take advantage of it can become extremely effective at “managing” their human capital.
Thus, any person who manages people is leading them. I used the traditional top-down command and control approach to managing people for my first 12 years. After changing over a period of years to its opposite, I learned that top-down is the most ineffective approach to managing people while its opposite could be up to 500% more effective in terms of productivity per person.
To better understand this difference, please read the article “Leadership, Good or Bad”
Best regards, Ben
Author “Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed”
Josh,
You ask how leadership and management relate to one another and here is my view.
I managed people for over 30 years, as few as 22 and as many as 1300. I did this in conjunction with managing various naval combatant ship functions such as power plants, gunnery and the ship, and later civilian power plant operations and maintenance. I actually never understood leadership until my people told me what they were following after I had gained their trust for the first time by really listening to them, about 12 years after I began managing people.
As concerns management, I learned that we “manage” resources and functions such as finances, money, production, construction, supply chains, people, engineering, and materials in order to achieve organizational success.
On the other hand, I learned that leadership applies only to people and entails the sending of value standard messages to people which most of them then follow/use. Thus we say that they have been “led” in the direction, good or bad, of those standards. Leadership is one side of the coin called values, the other side being followership.
Leadership in the workplace consists of the value standards reflected in everything that an employee experiences because these standards are what employees follow by using them to perform their work. Most of what the employee experiences is the support or lack thereof provided by management – such as training, tools, parts, discipline, direction, material, procedures, rules, technical advice, documentation, information, planning, etc.
Leadership is not a process any manager can change. It happens inexorably every minute of every day because of the way people respond to management actions. The only choice available to a manager is the standard (good, bad, mediocre or in between) which he/she transmits to employees.
Because of these characteristics, “followership” turns out to be a major force in managing people. Those managers who take advantage of it can become extremely effective at “managing” their human capital.
Thus, any person who manages people is leading them. I used the traditional top-down command and control approach to managing people for my first 12 years. After changing over a period of years to its opposite, I learned that top-down is the most ineffective approach to managing people while its opposite could be up to 500% more effective in terms of productivity per person.
To better understand this difference, please read the article “Leadership, Good or Bad”
Best regards, Ben
Author “Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed”
Excellent comment and article Ben! What exactly do you mean by “value standard messages”? I think you mean that the manager’s actions and communications reflect positive values of the company that would be beneficial for employees to model. I want to make sure I understand you though.
I wrote a post in response to your comments here.
Thanks!
Josh Nankivel
Excellent comment and article Ben! What exactly do you mean by “value standard messages”? I think you mean that the manager’s actions and communications reflect positive values of the company that would be beneficial for employees to model. I want to make sure I understand you though.
I wrote a post in response to your comments here.
Thanks!
Josh Nankivel
Josh,
I like to view value standards as a spectrum from -10 t0 +10 for every value, for instance from total dishonesty to total honesty and likewise for arrogance to humility, unfairness to fairness, no knowledge to all knowledge, indolence to industriousness, disrespect to respect, not caring to caring, etcetera, etcetera.
The messages of value standards are embodied in the support that is provided by the boss. A tool that is obsolete sends a message standard of -8 for caring about employees and the work. A tool which is hard to find might send the same message. These standards would “lead” employees to show little care for their work. Conversely, a totally up-to-date and available tool would send a standard of +9 for caring about the workforce and for performing work thus leading the employees to show great care for their work and to believe that the boss values the workforce and respects them.
Followers detect and record these value standard messages and average those reflecting similar values and then use that standard to perform their work and to treat their customers and bosses.
Does that answer your question?
Best regards, Ben
Josh,
I like to view value standards as a spectrum from -10 t0 +10 for every value, for instance from total dishonesty to total honesty and likewise for arrogance to humility, unfairness to fairness, no knowledge to all knowledge, indolence to industriousness, disrespect to respect, not caring to caring, etcetera, etcetera.
The messages of value standards are embodied in the support that is provided by the boss. A tool that is obsolete sends a message standard of -8 for caring about employees and the work. A tool which is hard to find might send the same message. These standards would “lead” employees to show little care for their work. Conversely, a totally up-to-date and available tool would send a standard of +9 for caring about the workforce and for performing work thus leading the employees to show great care for their work and to believe that the boss values the workforce and respects them.
Followers detect and record these value standard messages and average those reflecting similar values and then use that standard to perform their work and to treat their customers and bosses.
Does that answer your question?
Best regards, Ben
You bet, thanks for clarifying! How do you think this fits into Hertzberg’s model of hygiene versus motivator factors? Do the two models mesh, or is this apples and oranges?
It seems to me that Hertzberg has something to say about the impact of value standards. For instance, a +9 on something that is a hygiene factor may not actually motivate people, even though anything below a +5 might de-motivate them. The same scale on another value standard which fits into Hertzberg’s motivator factors might mean that a +9 is highly motivational.
My understanding of Hertzberg is explained here: Motivational Theory in Project Management.
This is an awesome discussion, I’m really enjoying it Ben!
Josh Nankivel
You bet, thanks for clarifying! How do you think this fits into Hertzberg’s model of hygiene versus motivator factors? Do the two models mesh, or is this apples and oranges?
It seems to me that Hertzberg has something to say about the impact of value standards. For instance, a +9 on something that is a hygiene factor may not actually motivate people, even though anything below a +5 might de-motivate them. The same scale on another value standard which fits into Hertzberg’s motivator factors might mean that a +9 is highly motivational.
My understanding of Hertzberg is explained here: Motivational Theory in Project Management.
This is an awesome discussion, I’m really enjoying it Ben!
Josh Nankivel
Josh,
Glad you are enjoying.
I have read some of Hertzberg and many others who have very little or no experience in managing/leading employees and have not proven in the “heat of battle” that what they profess produces significant gains in workforce performance. Thus, I have not found their writing to be of significant value for managers.
Given this condition, I would not want to evaluate how my proven techniques fit into a theorists model. For instance, I do not believe that any manager can motivate employees because all motivation is internal and cannot even be accurately known by outsiders. I do believe that we can influence/lead employees and release them to the power of their own motivations, but not motivate them.
I doubt that Hertzberg even realizes that three digit percentage productivity gains per person are possible in most companies or that the greatest gain is in influencing employees to convert from being followers to being non-followers.
Best regards, Ben
Josh,
Glad you are enjoying.
I have read some of Hertzberg and many others who have very little or no experience in managing/leading employees and have not proven in the “heat of battle” that what they profess produces significant gains in workforce performance. Thus, I have not found their writing to be of significant value for managers.
Given this condition, I would not want to evaluate how my proven techniques fit into a theorists model. For instance, I do not believe that any manager can motivate employees because all motivation is internal and cannot even be accurately known by outsiders. I do believe that we can influence/lead employees and release them to the power of their own motivations, but not motivate them.
I doubt that Hertzberg even realizes that three digit percentage productivity gains per person are possible in most companies or that the greatest gain is in influencing employees to convert from being followers to being non-followers.
Best regards, Ben
Very interesting! I’ve got to read your book!
Very interesting! I’ve got to read your book!
in my little world of teaching and “working” – it boils to Greenleafs servant leadership principles. And then I further distill those….
There is a difference between respect and power. One is forcibly held and the other is given.
I will forward this link to Cynthia West at Project Insight she has some great thoughts and ramblings on the above…
in my little world of teaching and “working” – it boils to Greenleafs servant leadership principles. And then I further distill those….
There is a difference between respect and power. One is forcibly held and the other is given.
I will forward this link to Cynthia West at Project Insight she has some great thoughts and ramblings on the above…
Ben — have you even read Herzberg? You say that motivation comes from within, and that is exactly what he says. You say that motivation has to be tailored to the individual, and that is what he says.
Bill,
You asked – “have you even read Herzberg? You say that motivation comes from within, and that is exactly what he says. You say that motivation has to be tailored to the individual, and that is what he says.”
As I stated, I have read some of Herzberg, many years ago. I did not say that motivation has to be tailored to the individual and in truth I don’t understand what that means.
I learned about people and how they act and react by listening to them and talking to them for many years.
Best regards, Ben
Bill,
You asked – “have you even read Herzberg? You say that motivation comes from within, and that is exactly what he says. You say that motivation has to be tailored to the individual, and that is what he says.”
As I stated, I have read some of Herzberg, many years ago. I did not say that motivation has to be tailored to the individual and in truth I don’t understand what that means.
I learned about people and how they act and react by listening to them and talking to them for many years.
Best regards, Ben