After many years of debate, one might assume this issue is settled. Apparently not. There are still articles written and books published by authors who want to tell us the difference, and I too have offered my opinions on the subject. I've developed the somewhat unpopular opinion that leadership and management are really subsets of each other. Let me explain.
A manager makes decisions about resources. They are trained to know those resources and understand how best to utilize, allocate, and gain the most efficiency from them.
Leadership is a little more difficult to effectively define. A leader is responsible for, well, leading. There are all sorts of definitions of leading, but for our purposes we'll say leading is causing people to do things. Many of you are probably saying, but wait, leading is much more than that, leading is seeing the future, developing people, getting the best out of them, etc, etc. And, you would be correct. All those things describe leadership. However, the basic job of a leader is to take people somewhere; to effectively take care of the human resource.
That's right, people are a resource. It's sometimes considered a little tactless to say that, but it is a hard reality. That's why I say leaders and managers are subsets of each other. In order to accomplish their goals, leaders must manage the human resource. Leaders must be managers. On the other hand, in order to properly manage the human resource, managers must know how to lead people. In that regard, managers must be leaders.
Many of the definitions of leadership center on good leadership towards good goals. There is also bad leadership, which while bad, is still leadership. Let's look at everyone's favorite example. In the mid to late 1930's Adolph Hitler was a pretty good leader. He was a despicable human perhaps, and certainly leading towards bad goals, but still a good leader if one measures his effectiveness. By the early 1940s, Hitler, while still a despicable human, and still leading toward bad goals, began to become a bad leader. But, he was no less a leader.
So what's the point of all this? Simply this. People don't like to think of themselves as something to be managed. Also, unlike the small appliances over in aisle 3, people can communicate and interact with those who are managing them. They want those managers to make some attempt to understand their needs and motivations. In many cases they want those managers to take them to new heights. As a rule, the human resource likes to succeed. While a manager can take care of a person's needs and even their motivations, getting the best from them takes someone who not only knows how to lead, but how to lead well.
Which brings me to my favorite part of this subject: leadership training. For some reason, many companies go to a lot of trouble to train new managers in the various resources they are expected to manage. For some reason this training includes everything except the human resource. Somehow, managers are expected to pick that up through some sort of osmotic process.
Chances are your managers are leading people. Have they received any training in managing the human resource? You probably trained them to manage, have you trained them to lead?
Bob Mason is a speaker, trainer, and author. He founded RLM Planning and Leadership to transform leadership by creating great leaders. He has a passion for helping organizations excel through improved leadership. See what he can do for you at
A manager makes decisions about resources. They are trained to know those resources and understand how best to utilize, allocate, and gain the most efficiency from them.
Leadership is a little more difficult to effectively define. A leader is responsible for, well, leading. There are all sorts of definitions of leading, but for our purposes we'll say leading is causing people to do things. Many of you are probably saying, but wait, leading is much more than that, leading is seeing the future, developing people, getting the best out of them, etc, etc. And, you would be correct. All those things describe leadership. However, the basic job of a leader is to take people somewhere; to effectively take care of the human resource.
That's right, people are a resource. It's sometimes considered a little tactless to say that, but it is a hard reality. That's why I say leaders and managers are subsets of each other. In order to accomplish their goals, leaders must manage the human resource. Leaders must be managers. On the other hand, in order to properly manage the human resource, managers must know how to lead people. In that regard, managers must be leaders.
Many of the definitions of leadership center on good leadership towards good goals. There is also bad leadership, which while bad, is still leadership. Let's look at everyone's favorite example. In the mid to late 1930's Adolph Hitler was a pretty good leader. He was a despicable human perhaps, and certainly leading towards bad goals, but still a good leader if one measures his effectiveness. By the early 1940s, Hitler, while still a despicable human, and still leading toward bad goals, began to become a bad leader. But, he was no less a leader.
So what's the point of all this? Simply this. People don't like to think of themselves as something to be managed. Also, unlike the small appliances over in aisle 3, people can communicate and interact with those who are managing them. They want those managers to make some attempt to understand their needs and motivations. In many cases they want those managers to take them to new heights. As a rule, the human resource likes to succeed. While a manager can take care of a person's needs and even their motivations, getting the best from them takes someone who not only knows how to lead, but how to lead well.
Which brings me to my favorite part of this subject: leadership training. For some reason, many companies go to a lot of trouble to train new managers in the various resources they are expected to manage. For some reason this training includes everything except the human resource. Somehow, managers are expected to pick that up through some sort of osmotic process.
Chances are your managers are leading people. Have they received any training in managing the human resource? You probably trained them to manage, have you trained them to lead?
No comments:
Post a Comment