The Great Leadership Management Debate
A question that I’m frequently asked has to do with these two terms: “What’s the difference between leadership and management?” Since the terms may have been used interchangeably, there is certainly room for some confusion. I’m sure that the dictionary can provide help with definitions, so instead of competing with Mr. Webster, I’ll offer my thoughts about what I see as the key functional difference. While managers and leaders (not always mutually exclusive roles) have administrative and people responsibilities, “management” seems more related to the administrative, and “leadership” is all about the people.
Before you start penning your protests of that distinction, let me acknowledge that the people in management/leadership positions can and should strive to be effective in both roles. Many—but not all—managers have some people responsibilities, so leadership skills are important to their success. Leaders also have some administrative responsibilities, and fulfilling those responsibilities is important to their success.
Admin at the Expense of People
Now, let’s look at a potential problem for people wearing both hats. Over the years I have worked with people in leadership positions who devoted disproportionate amounts of their time and energy to administrative tasks. These people almost sequestered themselves in their offices and busied themselves with reports, correspondence, phone calls and a wide array of other administrative tasks. While I appreciate the importance of those tasks, I question managers’ decisions to assign them higher priorities than their people.
Likewise, some leaders seem to downplay, or even disregard their administrative obligations. Even those with exceptional people skills do themselves, their organizations and the people they lead disservices when they either refuse to perform those tasks or perform them poorly.
People at the Expense of Admin (and People)
I learned the importance of balancing administrative and people tasks as a young Marine rifle company commander in Vietnam. My primary responsibility was to provide leadership in the field. We spent weeks on end conducting search & destroy operations. I was pretty sure that my administrative responsibilities were limited to ensuring that we had the logistical support we needed (“beans, bullets & bandages”). Happily, I had a seasoned First Sergeant (probably 15 years my senior), who handled most administrative matters for me. The one administrative task that only I could perform was one that had the potential to dramatically impact the careers of the officers and staff noncommissioned officers in my command. Only I could write their fitness reports (called performance evaluations in corporate settings).
Under pressure from our First Sergeant and ultimately the Battalion Executive Officer, I hurriedly and distractedly prepared those reports and submitted them for review. They were promptly returned for more thoughtful attention than I’d given them. That same day the Battalion Executive Officer contacted me and helped me understand the importance of this administrative task.
Was he suggesting that I ignore my tactical/operational leadership roles? Of course not. But he was most assuredly letting me know that my leadership position did not allow me to make “either/or” choices between my people and administrative responsibilities. I was accountable for fulfilling both, and the same holds true for most leadership positions.
So in summary, many of the people occupying these positions have both managerial (administrative) and leadership (people) responsibilities. The ideal is a person who functions effectively in both arenas. Remember, it isn’t “either/or”; it’s “and”.
For more information about Jim's speaking services: www.jimbearden.com