Back in 2006 I attended a presentation given by business author and former Gallup researcher, Marcus Buckingham. One of the highlights of his presentation was how he defined the difference between leadership and management.
Up until that point, much of the business literature seemed to imply that leaders and managers were two different types of people and that leadership was a “good thing”, whereas management was a “bad thing”; some kind of throwback to the industrial age. Somehow the term “manager” had become a dirty word that no one wanted to be associated with.
The reason for this was a high-profile (but highly unhelpful) business book that was popular at the time. The book implied that leaders were future-thinking, risk-taking visionaries who motivated and inspired people, whereas managers were an inferior breed of controlling, stability-minded administrators.
Buckingham set the audience straight. He shared research and explained that leadership and management are functional roles that need to be performed; not a statement about what sort of person you are. And both functions are vital to business success.
The role of leadership
Leadership is about painting a picture of better future, specifying the actions that need to be taken, and rallying people to work toward their achievement. Leadership is often a “one to many” endeavor, focused on making sure the organization chooses the right strategic moves, and that people’s projects and metrics are aligned to those moves.
The role of management
Management, on the other hand, is about coaching people to realize their full potential. To manage people effectively you need to figure out what each person’s unique strengths are, and coach them to fully develop and leverage those strengths. Management is often a “one to one” endeavor, focused on making sure that each person is playing their part to execute the strategy effectively.
Some people are great at leadership, but not management, whereas others are great at management, but not leadership. A few rare individuals are great at performing both functions.
The role of specialists
Many people aren’t “naturally wired” to perform leadership or management functions well. That is perfectly fine. We need specialists who can focus on performing their roles to a high standard, without having to worry about performing any leadership or management duties.
A common mistake, known as the “Peter Principle,” occurs when a strong performer in a functional role is promoted to manage the team. It is a management concept formulated by Laurence Peter. He described the common problem where managers get chosen based on how they perform in their current role, rather than on their abilities relevant to the intended role.
Many top performers, unfortunately, fail miserably as managers. This is simply because not everyone is cut out to manage people, and that is OK. Some people are much better suited to being specialists; and this needs to be encouraged with appropriate recognition, job title, and remuneration.
The best salesperson should not be appointed sales manager. The best software developer should not be appointed product manager. The person who has been around the longest should not be appointed manager. Only people who have natural coaching talent and a real passion for managing a team of people should be appointed to the role of manager. Don’t make people feel obligated to manage a team of people just to earn a higher income and be perceived as achieving career success.
Management myths vs. What the research says.
The research conducted by Buckingham and the team at Gallup identified the best practices of the world’s top performing managers and exposed many myths. The research was documented in the books, First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently, and Now Discover Your Strengths, both of which I recommend, along with the Strengths-finder assessments that they contain.
Here’s a selection of key findings:
Myth: Management is a stepping stone to leadership
What the research says: The core strengths of great leaders and great managers are very different
Myth: A leader is a more advanced form of manager
What the research says: Both roles are vitally important. One is not better than the other.
Myth: Management is not as important as leadership
What the research says: Line managers (middle managers) are the prime catalyst for superior employee performance in an organization
Myth: The key to success is to fix people’s weaknesses
What the research says: To really succeed, develop their strengths. The key is to put people in roles where they can play to their strengths most of the time.
Myth: You can be good at anything you want if you work hard enough
What the research says: You are naturally wired to be exceptional at certain things only. The key to success is to understand what your core strengths are and spend more time playing to them
Myth: Managers should spend most of their time trying to “fix” struggling staff members
What the research says: Managers get the best returns on their time when they coach and develop their most productive staff members
Myth: Poor performers can be “fixed” with willpower and training
What the research says: The best performing managers demonstrate tough love. They provide coaching and support, but they do not tolerate poor performance. If a person cannot meet the agreed standards within an agreed time frame, they either find the person another role that matches their strengths, or they remove them from the team as soon as possible
Myth: Treat people as you wish to be treated
What the research says: Treat each person differently according to how they like to be treated
Myth: Set expectations for people by defining the right steps
What the research says: Set expectations by defining the right outcomes, and give people the authority to figure out how to achieve those outcomes.
Myth: Develop people through promotion
What the research says: Develop people by helping them find, stay in, and specialize in roles that are a good fit with their natural strengths and talents
Myth: Provide more pay, perks and prestige the further one climbs the corporate ladder
What the research says: Provide bands of pay, perks, and prestige for higher levels of achievement in every role, without making people feel like they need to manage a team of people in order to feel like they are progressing in their careers.
You see, our brains are “wired” to be naturally talented at certain roles. Yes, we can learn skills and become “good enough” at any activity we put our minds to, but we will only be “truly great” at roles we are naturally wired for. The key to organization success (and personal fulfillment) is to figure out what each person’s natural strengths are, and put people in roles where they get to play to their strengths most of the time.
These research findings were revelatory when I was first exposed to them. Every role in an organization requires different talents, so we should structure our organizations to recognize and reward each person for the value of their contribution; not make people feel compelled to perform leadership or management duties in order to be perceived as having a successful career.