If you were considering purchasing stock in a large corporation or a large bequest to a major non-profit and read the following comments about the CEO from people with firsthand knowledge of him would you buy the stock or donate the money?

• He was never interested in bureaucratic stuff because he did not want to work as a manager.
• He would be the first to concede he was much more interested in the life of the mind than the nuts and bolts of administrative work.

Last year when I wrote that bad managers didn’t make good leaders Mike Chitty responded, “I think you can lead if you are lousy manager. You just need good managers to cover your back. Teamwork you see.”

I disagreed then and I haven’t seen any reason to change my opinion—in fact, just the opposite. Right now the largest leader vs. manager mess is playing out on a global stage.

The leader in question is Pope Benedict and the above quotes were about him.

In a comment two years ago Nick McCormick said, “Leadership and management are very tightly intertwined. Ignoring characteristics of one is done at the expense of the other.”

According to a NY Times article, The church said the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties in 1980 was made solely by Cardinal Ratzinger’s top aide at the time, but church officials also said the future pope was sent a memo about the reassignment.

Obviously, leaders focus on visions and managers read memos.

The Catholic Church is the largest and probably the richest multinational in the world, so there are many business lessons to be learned from what is going on.

The two most obvious that I’ve noticed are

• protect the brand no matter what, and, more recently,
• the best defense is a good offense.

What do you think?

Image credit: Jari Kurittu on flickr

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: lusi

This is a summing up in a series discussing whether Warren Bennis’ 13 differences between leaders and managers still holds in light of today’s modern workforce.

In a comment on the prequel to this series Phil Gerbyshak said, “I agree wholeheartedly that great managers have BOTH qualities…though I know plenty of average managers who don’t have either. I’d like it required that managers have at least one half of Bennis’ qualities in order to lead a team. Is that too much to strive for?”

On day one Nii said, “Regarding the differences between a manager and a leader, I believe that the gap is closing between the two. In today’s global and technologically advanced world, managers still need to have the leadership qualities to succeed. They need to be able to take risks, inspire, innovate and challenge conventional thinking. Otherwise, they will be history.”

Day four Fred commented, “I believe to be a successful manager in today’s new work environment managers must posses the skills to be effective leaders and coaches in team oriented “open door” environments. Young employees entering the work force from High School or College do not possess the same work ethics of baby boomer’s. If managers attempt to train this new work force using the same tactics as we did in the past retention will suffer greatly. It is truly a kinder and gentler world we live in.”

I’m in passionate agreement with the consensus that managers need to marshal many so-called leadership skills if they plan to succeed today.

In a world where multiple job changes are both easy and acceptable the currency that buys loyalty isn’t money, rather it’s achieved by creating an environment that stimulates and satisfies each individual’s needs.

Finally, in a sister post over at Slacker Manager Nick McCormick says, “Too much is made of the difference between managers and leaders. I think we do it to make ourselves seem more important. “I’m a leader, not a lowly manager!””

Amen, Nick. While management is what you do, leadership is the way you think. Great management is composed of equal parts leadership and accountability. True leaders are proclaimed as such by those around them, not by themselves.

The best way to find success is to work constantly at incorporating as many to Bennis’ 26 traits as possible into your skillset and your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) and stop worrying about what you’re called.

What are your thoughts?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: lusi

Today is the the final difference between leaders and managers as delineated by Warren Bennis, then tomorrow we wrap up the question with an overview of the two roles in the light of today’s modern workforce.

The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

Great sound bite, but I think it’s both meaningless and insulting. Ignoring the fact that ‘the right thing’ is situational, why is doing it strictly the purview of leaders? Does doing the wrong thing correctly make it OK?

What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: lusi

This is the fifth in a series discussing whether Warren Bennis’ 13 differences between leaders and managers still holds in light of today’s modern workforce.

The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his or her eye on the horizon.

In today’s global workplace managers who concentrate exclusively on bottom lines and forget to look up are likely to trip and fall, just as leaders who don’t keep and eye on the bottom line may find themselves out on their bottoms.

The manager imitates; the leader originates.

What’s the manager imitating? The leader, in order to achieve her vision? How would that work. Can anyone imitate another and still be seen as authentic? If a manager could successfully imitate Steve Jobs, Jeff Immelt or Sam Palmisano wouldn’t that person morph into being a leader—who was also a manger?

What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: lusi

This is the fourth in a series discussing whether Warren Bennis’ 13 differences between leaders and managers still holds in light of today’s modern workforce.

The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.

If a manager truly focused only on the next few days, weeks, or even months he would have little chance of challenging/developing his people, driving innovation and productivity in the department/group/team, or any of the myriad of things that most managers are responsible for in today’s world. Further, without a decent understanding relative to his position of the company’s long-range plans how can he manage efficiently.

The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.

That may be true of a manger who follows blindly, but considering how often rank and file employees at all levels, especially knowledge workers, demand to know why they are doing something as well as why they’re doing it a certain way a manager who doesn’t ask those questions is probably in big trouble.

What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: lusi

This is the third in a series discussing whether Warren Bennis’ 13 differences between leaders and managers still holds in light of today’s modern workforce.

The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.

Are you controllable? Will you give your best performance, offer 110% effort or bring your passion to work for someone who doesn’t inspire you or whom you don’t trust? Will you trust a leader who accepts the actions of a micro-manager/bully/control-freak and keeps that person in a role of authority?

The manager accepts reality; the leader investigates it.

In my experience, backed up by my reading, very few breathing people, whether leaders, managers or followers, submissively accept reality as it is without trying, in ways both small and large, to change whatever part they believe needs changing. This seems especially true in the workplace.

What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: lusi

This is the second in a series discussing whether Warren Bennis’ 13 differences between leaders and managers still holds in light of today’s modern workforce.

The manager maintains; the leader develops.

In today’s global economy the company that only maintains fails. And I think that applies to every part of a company—department, group, team. If the person in charge merely maintains, but doesn’t improve the parts and processes of the organization it will be passed by. Moreover, today’s workforce demands professional growth and challenge; the manger who doesn’t know how or spend the effort developing people and providing them with opportunities and help to grow will see only lowering productivity and rising turnover.

The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.

This one really gets me. Today’s workers won’t consider working for a manger who doesn’t focus on people and in the event they do find themselves in that position they start looking as quickly as they can hit ‘send’ on their resume. Moreover, the basis for some of the best innovation and productivity increases stems from a focus on, understanding of and willingness to change systems and structure.

What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: lusi

As mentioned, today starts a seven part series discussing Warren Bennis’ 13 differences between leaders and managers in light of today’s modern workforce. The series will address two items each day and runs through May 9 (except for Sunday and Wednesday, they have their own agendas).

To give us common ground, I’m using these descriptions of leadership as the basis of my comments, but feel free to disagree. Unfortunately, I haven’t found comparable descriptions of managers—if you know of any please share them—so my thoughts are based on the best managers I’ve read about and known.

I sincerely hope that many of you will weigh in with your own thoughts.

The manager administers; the leader innovates

Given the pressure to raise productivity, reduce attrition, cut costs, encourage a “culture of innovation” and in general do more with less how can a manager manage today’s highly mobile, independent workforce without innovating? Nobody can supply the sheer quantity of innovation needed to thrive in today’s global economy, because there is no way for to be knowledgeable of every process, facet, product, market, etc. that is ripe for innovation.

The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

Copy of what? The nearest leader? Every human has his/her own MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) which is a product of their life experiences and therefore unique; everything they learn is learned through the prism of their MAP. Over the years companies have tried to clone both managers and leaders with little success, while today’s enlightened workforce makes the possibility even more remote.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Branding. The term is everywhere. No longer reserved for a product it refers to the organization itself.

Creating a great brand is an understandable and, at times, even worthy goal, but after creation it’s necessary to care for the brand, AKA, brand management.

Sadly, more and more effort is being made to ‘Teflonize’ brands and brand management has morphed into brand spin.

Anyone who watches TV knows that Toyota is spending a million dollars a day improving quality and, hopefully, fixing a culture that lost its way.

Then there is BP and its so-so-sincere promise to stay in the Gulf until they make it right—yeah, sure. Business Week offers an excellent view on the impact of the spill long before the oil even got near the shore.

Then there is the most Teflonized brand in the world, the Catholic Church, which I wrote about from the perspective of leader vs. manager a few months ago. The oldest and richest organization on the planet seems to be impervious—a true master of spin brand management. After all, what other brand could withstand the global sex scandals that are rocking the world and still see revenues (donations) increase since January 2010?

The purpose of brand management is to keep a positive image in the public eye, no matter how egregious the actions involved.

This is more easily accomplished than you would think, given the vast majority of the public has a short attention span, poor memory, a greedy nature—Louisiana already wants to resume off-shore drilling—and that’s when they are paying attention.

The question, then, is who will win?

The Teflon brands or us?

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/shalabhpandey/4117173190/

In a new series Jim Stroup is exploring what drives our need for “the cult of the superlative individual leader as the cure for our current difficulties” in spite, as Jim points out, of those same cult members having caused many of the current problems.

“We will take the position here at the outset, then, that the family of definitions of leadership that we are discussing is that which incorporates the idea of ineffably sensed forward motion – profound vision, unfathomable wisdom or judgment, courageous decisiveness, a charismatic ability to attract followers, and the like.

After all, it is this type of leadership that we are being told we must place our faith in, so that its exemplars can grasp the reins firmly in their hands, and with reassuring sure-footedness steer we poor, benighted masses out of our barely perceived and dimly comprehended peril. Into which, let it be said again, those exalted exemplars’ predecessors led us.”

Please click over and read this brilliant, irreverent discussion of what leadership has come to be and why it destroys instead of sustains. (Be sure to subscribe to follow it.)

Then check out Wally Bock’s comments regarding the continued idiocy of the leader vs. manager concept.

And  my series on the same topic is worth reading if you haven’t already.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: nono farahshila on flickr