Before I get into the main subject of this post, let me define terms as I see them:
- A manager is one who manages, administers or directs. He or she could be a manager of people or an empty warehouse, but the job of a manager is to get things done and to ensure that the people, system or business that is being managed operate the way they are supposed to.
- A boss is just a slang term for manager, but typically only applies to a manager of people, not systems that do not include people.
- A leader is someone who, simply put, has followers. One can be a religious leader, a political leader, a leader on a sports team, even informally among friends. A leader may or may not have an official title. The guy on the hockey team who rallies the team to victory might not be the quarterback or team captain or coach; the political leader might not be the Mayor or the President, but a grass-roots organizer. At work, that person may or may not be the manager.
While we generally don't hear someone say "He's not a quarterback, he's a leader", because we know that leadership is a quality of being a quarterback; likewise we shouldn't be acting as if a manager and a leader are two distinct things, but recognizing that leadership is a quality of being a good manager.
After those brief introductory remarks, I don't think that "manager" or even "boss" is the opposite of "leader" or that they're mutually exclusive, but that there are traits of leadership that when present in a manager makes him or her a good manager, or an effective manager.
In the company where I previously worked, leadership was primarily measured by one thing: "The Numbers". A manager who consistently achieved budgeted goals was considered successful and was rewarded with bonuses and with coveted assignments. It didn't matter that some of these "successful" managers mistreated their employees, all that mattered was that "the numbers" looked good. I worked under or alongside several of these bad managers over the years and no matter what they did, as long as their area of responsibility was profitable, they could get away with anything. I'm aware of a department manager, commonly held up as an example to managers in similar positions, who physically attacked another employee, literally choking him until other employees separated them. But the high gross profit in this department rendered him untouchable. I'm aware of a store director who verbally abused his employees, flouted the rules by smoking in his office, saved money by neglecting to repair old equipment, and kept a filthy store, but the bottom line profit was record-breaking.
A few years ago I won, in a drawing, a management book called "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership". While much of it was recycled truisms and generic advice, one of the "laws" was called "The Law of the Lid". This "law" suggested that an organization could rise no higher than the leadership ability of its top person, the President or CEO. My former company is a great real-life example of this "law".
The company is run by someone who, while a fairly nice guy outside work, is the farthest thing from a leader that one would expect from someone in his position. He is irrational, making decisions based something he saw in a store in another state that was set up completely different from those in his company; he instituted sales plans based on a stop in a convenience store in Hiawatha Kansas at 10pm one night. Very seldom does he think through the consequences of his ideas. He throws around words like "mojo" without giving even a hint about what he means by them. He approves ideas to be implemented and then criticizes those implementing them even though they are exactly what was asked for. He has publicly insulted high ranking managers and executives. Whatever his focus is on any particular day throws his top people into an uproar as they try to comply with his fuzzy directives. But all of this would be fine if someone was actually following him. (Remember, to be a leader, someone must be following you). I have heard members of the executive committee speak disparagingly of him to subordinates, I have heard top executives discuss strategies for circumventing his directives or for interpreting what he says into what he really wants.
This is an organization with no leadership at the very top. No matter how many smart people work for him (and there are very smart and effective people working for him) the company will ultimately be constrained, held back, by this dearth of leadership.
The company is run by someone who, while a fairly nice guy outside work, is the farthest thing from a leader that one would expect from someone in his position. He is irrational, making decisions based something he saw in a store in another state that was set up completely different from those in his company; he instituted sales plans based on a stop in a convenience store in Hiawatha Kansas at 10pm one night. Very seldom does he think through the consequences of his ideas. He throws around words like "mojo" without giving even a hint about what he means by them. He approves ideas to be implemented and then criticizes those implementing them even though they are exactly what was asked for. He has publicly insulted high ranking managers and executives. Whatever his focus is on any particular day throws his top people into an uproar as they try to comply with his fuzzy directives. But all of this would be fine if someone was actually following him. (Remember, to be a leader, someone must be following you). I have heard members of the executive committee speak disparagingly of him to subordinates, I have heard top executives discuss strategies for circumventing his directives or for interpreting what he says into what he really wants.
This is an organization with no leadership at the very top. No matter how many smart people work for him (and there are very smart and effective people working for him) the company will ultimately be constrained, held back, by this dearth of leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment