Thursday, August 19, 2010

Leadership or Management – What Does it Take?

Leadership is drawing or guiding others by influencing their behavior. Leadership’s main purpose is to cope with change. Leaders influence behavior in many ways and styles, depending on their own personality. Good leadership brings out the best in people by treating them as complete individuals, rather then merely employees. Management, on the other hand, refers to the government or administration of project affairs. Management’s main purpose is to deal with complexity. Tracking progress, reporting status, conducting meetings, maintaining a budget, setting objectives and providing performance reviews are examples of management-oriented tasks. Good management emphasizes rationality and control in bringing discipline and order to the complexity inherent in today’s global business environment.

Although management and leadership are different, they complement one another: leadership allows the Agile Manager to influence people and direct their behavior towards desired outcomes, and management allows her to organize the project and manage its complexity. This complementary balance is illustrated in the adjacent figure (Adapted from Bellinger 2004).

Leadership and management skills are both equally important for the Agile Manager to cultivate. Without management, leadership falls victim to complexity. Leaders who do not employ good management expose their teams to things like the lack of proper coordination, insufficient reporting procedures and inadequate planning. Management without leadership falls victim to a loss of soul. Managers who do not lead may not be able to jell their teams, communicate effectively with them and connect enough with individuals at a personal level to motivate them.

Taken together, the combined requirements for leadership and management might seem extremely daunting. Fortunately, although the Agile Manager’s role is pivotal, it does not mean that she is the sole leader on the project.

Management versus Leadership

Here are my thoughts (these + $4.99 = cup of coffee)
  • Let’s stop badmouthing management because management is what actually gets results.  It is certainly not sexy or trendy but management where “it” happens and “it” produces bottom line results
  • No one gets to be a leader 100% of the time.  In fact, no one really gets to be a leader much more than 10%-15% of the time.  (They are busy managing the other 90% 0f their day)
  • Leadership, if done correctly, will require you to give of yourself and what you give you can not get back.
  • Most of the time, leadership sucks!  The reason?  As opposed to management (when you give direction), leading is essentially selling your vision.  This means you constantly have to reinforce your vision to those who sign to follow.  Everyone gets really jazzed at first but when the actual work starts to make the vision a reality, people can become disillusioned and need re-energized, re-focused, and re-everything else.  This is where you have to give, give, give, give until it hurts.  In the meantime, who is giving to you?
Here is the big news (drumroll………..) Management is WHAT we do & Leadership is HOW we do it.  Not all that exciting is it?  Leadership is not a job or title, it is a state of mind that can be applied in any situation at any time…if you choose.  There will be many leadership “opportunities” during the course of any given day.  Our challenge is to not be so focused on managing the work, that we fail to see them. 
Leadership is really an add-on that isn’t in anyone’s job description but something no one can stop you from doing.  That’s the irony!  So many classes, consultants, books, and so on on leadership when it really is just about placing yourselve in a position to serve others.  No fanfare, no accolades, simply reaching out and acting in a way that causes others to pause and consider their own actions in context of what they just saw.  Perhaps the best definition of leadership I ever read was, “The ability to inspire self-motivation in others” 

Left-Brain Staff Management Strategies for Right-Brain Firms

The business models of many design firms and creative groups are often heavily driven by right-brain approaches, based on intuitive, emotional staffing decisions. While this approach can have immediate success in the short run, it often comes at the risk of long-term sustainability and growth.

The misconceived notion is that left-brain business models (logical thinking, planning and analysis) take the place of and ultimately sacrifice creativity and passion. Yet with the right amount of rigorous planning, a creative team with left-brain skills can function more efficiently and produce innovative solutions. Creative firms that develop organizational strategies, systems and tools for staff management that are customized to their unique needs ensure an organizational structure that leverages each employee’s particular skill set and salary level, while at the same time improving overall morale and productivity. 

 LEADERSHIP VS. MANAGEMENT
Two of the most important functions to consider when developing your group’s organizational structure are those of leadership and management. In a small business or department, one person is often thrust into the position of both leader and manager. Yet there is an inherent difficulty in blending and balancing these two very different roles, which require distinct and innate skill sets.

The infamous expression “a fish rots from the head down” succinctly summarizes what happens when a leader is ineffective. The leader’s primary role is that of the team visionary, shaping goals that influence behaviors. Leaders champion both clients and staff alike, exerting influence and taking initiative. Stephen Covey put it best in his book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: “Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.” Without strong, visionary leadership, the success of an otherwise great team can be significantly impacted.

Alternatively, a manager’s role is to implement and achieve the vision and goals clearly developed by the leader. Managers support and guide change, measure results and assess performance. They teach, educate and mentor the team … while the leader inspires. Both parties must perform their function by example.
In developing an effective organizational structure, the lead­ership and management roles must be considered. Who on your team has the necessary passion, personality and skills to assume these roles? Understandably, on a small team, one person may have to assume both, but larger teams should identify or recruit staff to assume these roles. A strong creative organization needs to have internal capabilities in both leadership and management in the long run.
 
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?
Another feature of a successful organization is a well-crafted, visionary management model that accommodates current needs but also considers future growth for the group. Figure 1 is a management maturity chart that reflects five different organizational models for creative teams:
● Informal/ad hoc
● Collaborative/flat management
● Structured management
● Visionary leadership
● Optimized leadership
Ultimately, each creative organization may fit somewhere between these descriptions, and each structure has advantages and disadvantages. Nonetheless, it is important for every organization to recognize where it is and where it wants to be to begin implementing changes that allow it to get there. 

Fig. 2
Four features differentiate the levels within these organizational models:
● The first feature is the role the owner/principal/director has within the organization. This is the critical area differentiating larger teams from smaller teams. At the informal/ad hoc level, the owner/principal/director is not able or willing to remove himself or herself from hands-on design development. Delegation may be difficult at an organizational level (e.g. the size of the team) or at more personal level (their own inherent passions, or the “no one can design as well as me” issue of control). As you begin to climb the organizational model, delegation becomes slowly more possible, and, at the optimized state, the team ultimately func­tions independently of the owner entirely.

Emphasis placed on account/client management, business and new business development, as well as project and process management are the second and third aspects that differentiate each level. At the optimized level, each of these functions is assigned to full-time staff dedicated to these roles; and, at the informal/ad hoc level, attention to these functions is sporadic and unstructured.

● The final distinguishing feature is the role that bookkeeping and financial management have within an organization. Often, at the informal level, bookkeeping is rudimentary and done by someone untrained, typically the owner (or the owner’s spouse) or an administrative assistant. Emphasis and focus on both short-and long-term financial management and leadership grows slowly as the organization develops and builds stronger internal resources dedicated to managing the financial health of the organization.
 
INTERNAL ROLES & ATTRIBUTES
In evaluating creative organizations, there are several critical roles that need to be fulfilled to ensure all areas of a creative business are well managed. These roles include:
● Business leader
● Creative leader
● New business leader
● Operations management
● Financial management
● Administrative
● Creative
● Production/programming/execution

In a small firm, one person may have to fulfill many or most of these roles, while larger firms have dedicated staff assigned to each responsibility. Some of the roles are self-explanatory (financial management, administrative, creative and production/programming/execution), while others (business leader, creative leader, new business leader and operations management) are often overlooked or undervalued. The latter roles are worthy of further explanation.

At the foundation of any great organization is a strong, skilled business leader. This individual directs the organization’s over­all strategy and visionary direction and sets goals for development and growth. Those at this level often have titles such as principal, director or president.

In partnership with the business leader, the creative leader supports the organization’s vision and directs overall creative development of all or select clients/accounts. Those in this position have titles such as principal, creative director and art director.

The next role is that of the new business leader. Leading and managing marketing and public relations efforts are often less emphasized. Yet focusing on this area is another important factor in the health of any successful organization. Staff allocated to this role often include account executives, the director of new business development or a communications director. 

Fig. 3
The role that wins the award for most-ignored and devalued position is that of the operations manager—often called an account manager, project manager, studio manager or managing director. Operations management is actually the most complex role. Those assigned to it are responsible for envisioning and managing each project schedule and managing its impact on staffing (availability and morale) and facilities (space and equipment), as well as ensuring that internal/external budgets and schedules are adhered to by staff, clients and external allies. The operations manager often works directly with clients to develop estimates, project schedules and scope-of-work management.

In addition to the roles outlined above, many organizations need to look for other essential attributes from individuals within their team:
● Cheerleader
● Industry activist
● Tech guru
● Bad guy/enforcer
● Emotional quarterback

The cheerleader brings humor, energy and an engaging presence to the office, keeping everyone creative, informed and excited about their jobs. The industry activist stays current with the latest design trends and attends industry events—and disseminates this knowledge and passion to the entire team. The tech guru hits the technology conferences and devours websites and publications dedicated to the latest updates and offerings. She may work with external IT consultants or fill that role herself.

A strong team usually has at least one individual, the bad guy/enforcer, who is able to make the tough decisions. Often, those skilled in this area are best assigned to the staff and client management role. Lastly, the most important and difficult role is that of the emotional quarterback. This individual diffuses and manages the drama associated with managing creative personalities and minimizes internal politics or conflicts.
 
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Once a creative organization has defined its management model and assessed its strengths and weaknesses, development of an organizational structure is the next step. The most successful team structure properly aligns the right people to the right tasks, based on experience, talent, personality and passion. Many firms function in a reactionary, deadline- and client-driven work environment, which results in an unplanned hiring and organizational strategy that doesn’t accommodate future growth.

A common struggle faced by many creative organizations is that, because of this unplanned environment, high-level (thus high-salary) employees assume daily design, production, client and proj­ect management responsibilities often better left to others on the team. This results in poor and unprofitable utilization of employee time and a culture that doesn’t nurture and grow new talent.

The organizational structure in fig. 2 demonstrates one successfully revised model for an 11-person firm. This structure was uniquely customized to the needs of a firm that struggled with disorganization, a confusing reporting structure, misalignment of responsibilities to skill level and many redundant roles (see fig. 3 for the original structure). The new structure takes into consideration each of the different roles outlined earlier. It was crafted to leverage existing staff, and it identifies opportunities for future hires and long-term growth.

In developing an effective organizational structure, several factors have to be considered—most importantly, the owner/prin­cipal/director’s vision, personal strengths and passions, and the type of projects/clients they work with. The best structure clearly shows roles and responsibilities, supported by well-crafted job descriptions.

Sometimes—but not always—the organization chart can indicate reporting structure. But as a firm grows larger or relies on more collaborative and flexible teams, reporting structure can be hard to visualize in an organizational chart. In these cases, well-defined processes may better define communication and reporting structure.

An organizational structure has to be flexible (and able to grow as the firm or team expands), appropriate and realistic. Creatives thrive with just the right amount of structure: enough to support, but not inhibit them.
 
MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Several must-have management tools support the well-defined organization. These include job descriptions, an employee hand­book and a procedures manual. They ensure the entire team understands the parameters and guidelines they must adhere to and be responsible for. All three documents must be written in language that is friendly and easy to understand—nothing hinders the successful adoption of guidelines more than documents that contain lengthy and difficult-to-understand legalese.

Job descriptions are often mistaken for those short, one paragraph job postings that companies write when searching for a new hire. Job postings only briefly describe a job, mostly focusing on attributes and skills required. Job descriptions are quite different and include a comprehensive bulleted list of specific responsibilities, organized by key areas—e.g., design, art direction, studio management, project/client management, production, etc. Job descriptions are an important measuring tool for performance reviews. Employee handbooks give your employees context for the benefits and expectations of their positions, and a procedures manual outlines specific guidelines for how projects and clients are managed.
 
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT
As a design organization develops, it must adopt sustainable, long-term staffing and management strategies. Strong, profitable, creative teams are uniquely crafted to leverage both left- and right-brain skills sets. The future resists prediction, of course, and unexpected new business opportunities and staffing changes will occur. Even the best-laid plans must be revisited and adjusted to reflect the organization’s continually changing state.

Management & Leadership NOS

Management & Leadership wheel:

Here are the six key areas that form the heading for the National Occupational Standards (NOS) in Management and Leadership which break into a number of learning units in each specific area.

Management & Leadership National Occupational Standards (NOS)

These are the units that make up NOS for Management and Leadership around which organisations such as CMI and ILM build their qualifications. The standards are proven benchmarks of good practice for effective management and leadership and are continuously reviewed and updated to ensure that they remain relevant.

To view the detailed Management & Leadership NOS from the Management Standards Centre

Action Learning:

The Action Learning Programme features the following units. It is extensively used and a well received process that helps managers and leaders solve both short and long term business issues. Action Learning is a continuous process of learning and reflection that happens with the support of a group or a "set"of colleagues, working on real issues with the intention of getting things done. It can also be used as valuable implementation follow on for the Inspirational Leadership Programme.

Organisations such as ILM and CMI use these units in the development of their qualifications.


Leadership and Management Development Programmes


John Potter specialises in creating leadership and management development programmes which both develop the quality of the management within an organisation and help create a culture shift towards more effective ways of working.
In the past decade, he has worked with themed programmes that operate with diagonal slices in the organisation (cross functional and multi-level) and also with programmes aimed at a particular operational level within the business. He has extensive experience of operating programmes at top team level, senior management, middle management and first line management levels.

John Potter seminars, speeches, workshops and talks have included the following topics:

1.    Leadership at all levels.


Leadership has traditionally been the province of those at the top of organizations.  In today's world we need leadership throughout the organization, particularly in terms of delivery at the front line, creating an effective atmosphere in the organization in terms of operational leadership and carefully thought out strategies created by the top team.

2.    Strategic leadership

For many years, it was thought that strategic leadership was the province of the gifted and that it was impossible to develop strategic leaders.  You either had strategic ability or you didn't.   We've proved that to be wrong in today's world.  Everyone has strategic ability and what is required are the situations and experiences to bring that ability to the surface.

3.    Operational and front line leadership

It's one thing to have the grand strategic plan and yet something different to be able to put that plan into action on a daily basis and ensure that the front line people in the organization are in tune with the organizational values and objectives.    Diagonal sliced course with people from several functions and several levels in the hierarchy of the organization can do much to develop the delivery effectiveness of every organization

4.    Top team leadership development

If you ask people at the lower and middle levels of organizations as to whether they think their top team acts as an effective team the answer is frequently in the negative.  Most top teams don't behave like effective teams because their work is much more ambiguous than front line work, their members are frequently guarding their ‘political turf' and the leadership needs to rotate to different individuals within the team depending on the situation.

5.    Expert negotiation skills

John Potter is an experienced negotiator and negotiation trainer with experience in commercial negotiation, property negotiation together with security situations involving hostage, kidnap and hijack situations.   He also has experience in managing critical incidents and product extortion.

And also.................
  • Unlocking human potential
  • Building human energy for change
  • Work life balance
  • Managing pressure and stress
  • Developing personal impact
  • Corporate culture change
  • Channelling human effort
  • Creating a winning team
  • Riding the roller coaster of change
  • Successful change leadership
  • Developing corporate creativity
  • Hostage, kidnap and hijack negotiation
  • Handling conflict situations
  • The Humourous side of Business Psychology
  • The Psychology of Success
  • Developing tomorrow's leaders

The Management & Leadership Conundrum

What is better for the organisation – for you to be a Manager or a Leader? Whenever this question has been posed in the multitude of workshops conducted by Louis Allen International, the response has been, overwhelmingly, in favour of “Leader”. We are obsessed with the idea of “being a leader and practicing leadership” being the best way to move ahead in an organisation.

This idea – of the leader being someone requiring special qualities – is being incessantly promoted by those, and they are legion, who subscribe to the notion. It is this false concept that has gained currency, thanks to their efforts. While the intention may to be to increase the “performing power” of the individual to whom this Gospel is being preached, its effect, more often than not, makes them less able to achieve their purpose. By shining the spotlight on a single person, leadership becomes part of the syndrome of individuality that is sweeping our world and undermines the team and the overall organisation.

The debate about whether managers and leaders are different has been going on since the late 1970’s. While some have assumed that leadership is better than management others take it to be the replacement for management.
 
John P Kotter, a Harvard Business School professor, proposes that, while management and leadership are different, they complement each other; that in our changing world, one cannot function without the other. Managers, he says, promote stability while leaders press for change. Only individuals that embrace both will succeed in an, increasingly, complex and turbulent and changing world.

The challenge one faces is to combine strong leadership and strong management in the same person, and use one to balance the other. Once the differences between the two sets of skills are understood, the task will be to develop people to provide both in an integrated manner. The two different functions – coping with complexity and coping with change, shape the activities of management and leadership.

Complexity is managed, first, by Planning – setting targets and goals for the future, establishing the detailed steps for achieving those targets and then allocating the resources to achieve the plans. In contrast, leadership for change begins by setting a direction – developing a vision for the future, Missions that will bring about the reality and the strategies to achieve it.

As the next step, Management develops the capacity to achieve the plan by Organising – developing the workflow processes, creating the organisation structure and assigning roles and responsibilities for accomplishing the objectives. The equivalent leadership activity is selecting the right people for the jobs, delegating specific responsibilities to them, communicating the plan to these people, developing in them the skills required to complete the tasks and aligning peoples goals with those of the organisation. This means communicating the new direction to key people who understand the Vision, are committed to its achievement and can create the coalitions to support its achievement.

Finally, management ensures accomplishment of the plan by Controlling – monitoring actual results those that were planned; identifying deviations; and then taking corrective actions in a planned manner to solve any identified deviations from the desired results. To achieve the vision, leadership involves decision making and problem solving, motivating and inspiring – keeping people moving in the right direction, despite major obstacles to change, by appealing to human needs, values and emotions.

It is abundantly clear that the manager’s achievements are instrumental in ensuring that the leader’s vision becomes a reality; that, in effect, the manager’s goals and objectives are the stepping-stones to bringing about the realisation of the vision over the period of the Vision. It is also seen that unless the functions of Planning, Organising and Controlling work in tandem with the function of Leading (or Leadership), goals will be accomplished more by chance, and less as a result of coordinated efforts.

Yet, the debate on leadership versus management never seems to cease nor get resolved. The reason for this is simple. There is no need to resolve this issue, or get involved in it, as there should not be a debate in the first place. A manager who cannot lead will eventually run out of steam, while a leader who does not spend adequate time and effort on the activities of planning, organising and controlling, will ultimately run out of control and stop being functional.

The two concepts of leadership and management are so intertwined that any attempt to separate the two is a self-defeating attempt, and a futile endeavour. If the aim is to make the organisation succeed, there should not be any separation between them. They are, and must be seen to be, necessarily, complementary.
In the Allen Management System (AMS) prescribed by Louis Allen International, we recognise that separating leadership from management is part of the problem most managers face. Does anyone want to work for a “manager” who does not have the right qualities of “leadership”? Such managers, often, are quite discouraging in the way they manage. What about a “leader” who doesn’t practice “management”? That can be pretty demotivating, too; such a person is quite removed from reality and unlikely to be in the know of what is happening – by way of efforts being put in, or the results being achieved, by the team.

Hence, the focus of the AMS is to produce individuals who are clear on their role as Manager-Leader and practice management as a well-integrated system, using the functions of Planning, Organising and Controlling, with Leading (or, Leadership) acting as the “glue” to keep it all together. This results in objectives being achieved through team effort with appropriate management-leadership being applied.

The goal of conscious management leaders, through the application of a systematic management practice, is to build strong organisations of qualified people who are committed and capable of achieving a shared purpose. Conscious managers – those who combine management and leadership – more effectively, balance the, sometimes, conflicting needs of customers, employees, shareholders or owners, community, and regulators. These multiple roles bring a host of opposing forces into play that conscious managers are better able to deal with.
Conscious managers tend to:
  • Consciously select the style or approach appropriate for the situation
  • Continuously give priority to management efforts
  • Redirect their management work towards broader issues
  • Provide for greater decentralisation of work, resources, information, and authority
  • Avoid staying stuck in “unconscious competence” or autopilot behaviors
There is no doubt that leadership matters. And that it makes a difference. But the “leader in the spotlight”, often, takes, or, is given the credit for successful achievements at the expense of the team that achieved that success. The net effect of such recognition is a de-motivated team. Where leadership does make a difference is in the kind of leadership practiced. Is it the kind that gives rise to visions of knights riding in on white chargers? Or, the sort that adapts to the need of the situation and acts appropriately. In other words, provides just enough of the right kind of leadership. It is the second one that makes the difference.

The world has been taken over by a new aristocracy – of leaders, of the Knights on White chargers variety, who believe they are a re-incarnation of Sir Galahad, who are completely disconnected from what leadership is supposed to be all about and the teams they lead, resulting in dysfunctional teams at every level in organisations. It is time for smart organisations to put some plain, ordinary Manager–Leaders in charge, then sit back and watch the achievements accumulate!

Developing the Leadership skill from scratch

This coming week, just as there was heavy flooding in Mauritius, there will be a flood of assignments to be submitted. The assignments are to be done in groups. The question is: Does a group needs to have a leader?

What is leadership?
"Leadership, a critical management skill, is the ability to motivate a group of people toward a common goal. ."

Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. Although your position as a manager, supervisor, lead, etc. gives you the authority to accomplish certain tasks and objectives in the organization, this power does not make you a leader...it simply makes you the boss. Leadership differs in that it makes the followers want to achieve high goals, rather than simply bossing people around.
source: concept of leadership
 
1. Talking out loud
"it's not enough to have great thoughts you have to have the courage to let the words out of your mouth ahead of time."
I use to speak loud. I am a theater guy. My dad had told me: Speak aloud so that the audience can hear you well. And since then, I always keep in my mind that when I speak, my audience can hear me well.
The very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision.
It's got to be a vision you articulate clearly and forcefully on every occasion. - Theodore Hesburgh, President of the University of Notre Dame
I have a vision: to score maximum marks in the assignments. I am determined to work hard towards the vision set.
Good leaders are made not born. If you have the desire and willpower, you can become an effective leader.
Emotional Intelligence
I discovered this term under Spiritual Leadership in MGT1111-Organisation and Management. This term states:
  1. knowing one's emotions. Self-awareness, recognising it when it happens
  2. Managing emotions - the ability of handling feelings so they are appropriate
  3. Motivating oneself - Marshalling emotions in the service of a goal
  4. Recognising emotions in others. Empathy, social awareness
  5. Handling relationships - skill in managing emotions in others
I have to:
BE a professional. Examples: Be loyal to the organization, perform selfless service, take personal responsibility.
BE a professional who possess good character traits. Examples: Honesty, competence, candor, commitment, integrity, courage, straightforwardness, imagination.
KNOW the four factors of leadership - follower, leader, communication, situation.
KNOW yourself. Examples: strengths and weakness of your character, knowledge, and skills.
KNOW human nature. Examples: Human needs, emotions, and how people respond to stress.
KNOW your job. Examples: be proficient and be able to train others in their tasks.
KNOW your organization. Examples: where to go for help, its climate and culture, who the unofficial leaders are.
DO provide direction. Examples: goal setting, problem solving, decision making, planning.
DO implement. Examples: communicating, coordinating, supervising, evaluating.
DO motivate. Examples: develop moral and esprit in the organization, train, coach, counsel.
I listen to the podcasts of Robin Sharma nearly every morning when I go to uni. This help me develop management/leadership skills.

He told people what to do, not how to do it.
I encourage people to think, to innovate, to be creative.I don't blindly accept what you came up with, but I expect you to come up with something appropriate which will contribute towards achieving the goal.
He led by example. He pushed his people hard. He demanded a lot of them. But no one ever worked harder than he did. He was the first one in and the last one to leave. And he worked hard the whole time he was there. He knew how to play, but he knew how to separate that from the job.

He demanded excellence, not perfection. He expected you to work as hard as he did and to be as committed to the goal as he was. He didn't expect you to do as much or as well as he did, he insisted, however, that you do as much and as well as you could.

He took care of his people. He knew everyone who worked for him as an individual. He knew their strengths and weaknesses, their aspirations, their fears. He always took the criticism from outside the group, but let each of them take the praise for what they contributed.

He was humble. I never understood why. With all he had done and had accomplished in his life, he was always modest. There was one time, about ten years ago, when he made a little boast. That one probably doesn't count though - he was stating a fact and we were both a little drunk.

He had character. He was honest and truthful. He was dependable. When he gave you his word, you always knew you could count on it. He didn't cheat. He didn't try to find the easy way out of a tough situation. He didn't waffle on his principles. He was not inflexible, but there simply were limits that he wouldn't cross.

To conclude, one day, I will try to be like him... I will try my best to lead the groups towards the vision that I share in the way the the great leader had done.

What is Leadership? What are the qualities of a good leader? Can you learn how to lead?



"When asking what is leadership, the answer depends on what one is looking for, and from where one is looking"

This has certainly been my experience of working in organizations. Some leaders are expected to be fearless and decisive, others are expected to be collaborative and thoughtful, everyone it seems has their take on what is best.

There is certainly no shortage of advice. A simple search of Amazon will give you 50 books on the subject, and that is the first clue to a more critical look at the subject of 'Leadership'

Leadership writing and advice falls into two camps:

1. The 'Leadership Industry' camp of executive training, business school qualifications, and so called quick fix airport lounge books.

and

2. The 'What Is Leadership' camp that takes a critical look at the whole social phenomenon of leadership and attacks the Leadership Industry approach for creating a superficial and 'faddist' approach and perpetuating the mistaken belief that as Henry Mintzberg says in his 2004 book - Managers Not MBA's - "..the graduate school of business is the principal source of top executive talent"

I used to think there was a clear and simple answer to what makes a good leader. Now I'm not so sure!

Leadership Strategy and People Management

By understanding where you want to go with your business, we can ensure you have the right team around you to achieve that by matching skills and capabilities with business objectives.

Team development and coaching

Solid and sustainable business growth requires teamwork. By understanding where you want to go with your business, we can ensure you have the right team around you to achieve that - matching skills and capabilities with business objectives.
Conducting one-to-one interviews with business leaders and their teams, we can identify any skills gaps and, where appropriate, help develop people to ensure they fill those gaps or coach them through the change process.

Interim Management

Caught short with a senior management skills gap? We can help fill that gap with experienced and adaptable interim management cover at board or senior management level. Interim cover can alleviate headcount concerns, scale up or down to match your needs and provide the right skills exactly when you need them.

Leaders vs. Managers….. Are they really different?

The debate between leadership and management has been raging for a number of years. I feel that the distinction between management a leadership is useful one, in that it help us gain a better understanding of leadership and causes us to reflect on our own behaviour, asking ourselves, "Are we really leading?" So what are the differences between managers and leaders?
"There is a profound difference between management and leadership, and both are important. To manage means to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct. Leading is influencing, guiding in a direction, course, action, opinion. The distinction is crucial" – Warren Bennis
If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you’ll know I like the work of Warren Bennis, in his book "On Becoming a Leader" he describes his view of the differences between managers and leaders as follows:
  • The manager administers; the leader innovates.
  • The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.
  • The manager maintains; the leader develops.
  • The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.
  • The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
  • The manager accepts reality; the leader investigates it.
  • The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.
  • The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.
  • The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his or her eye on the horizon.
  • The manager imitates; the leader originates.
  • The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.
  • The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.
  • The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.
This is a great list and it always causes me to pause a reflect on my own behaviour and ask "Where am I spending most of my time? Doing the left hand tasks or doing the right hand tasks?"
Another influential thinker on the distinction between management and leadership is John Kotter author of "John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do" in the book John makes the following observations:
  • “Leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action…… Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile business environment.”
  • “Most U.S. corporations today are overmanaged and underled.”
  • “Strong leadership with weak management is no better, and is sometimes actually worse, than the reverse.”
  • “Management is about coping with complexity….. Without good management, complex enterprises tend to become chaotic… Good management brings a degree of order and consistency…."
  • "Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change…. More change always demands more leadership.”
  • “Companies manage complexity by planning and budgeting, by organizing and staffing, and by controlling and problem solving. By contrast, leading an organization to constructive change involves setting a direction (developing a vision of the future and strategies to achieve the vision), aligning people, and motivating and inspiring them to keep moving in the right direction."
I like the point that John Kotter makes when he says that “Leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action…… Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile business environment.” The fact is that leadership and management are both important, they are two distinctive systems of action, both are necessary, each seek to do different things.
On this topic, Jim Estill posted this great quote on his blog, "CEO Blog – Time Leadership" citing a classic article from Harvard Business Review by Abraham Zaleznik in 1977 that addresses Leaders vs. Managers. From the Best of HBR:
"The difference between managers and leaders, he wrote, lies in the conceptions they hold, deep in the psyches, of chaos and order. Managers embrace process, seek stability and control, and instinctively try to resolve problems quickly – sometimes before they fully understand a problem’s significance. Leaders, in contrast, tolerate chaos and lack of structure and are willing to delay closure in order to understand the issues more fully in this way, Zalenznik argued, business leaders have much more in common with artists, scientists and other creative thinkers than they do with managers. Organizations need both managers and leaders to succeed, but developing both requires a reduced focus on logic and strategic exercises in favour of an environment where creativity and imagination are permitted to flourish."
In the end, we need to be good at leading first and managing second, the what and why ….. then……. the how and the when!
Reflecting on your behaviour over the past month, ask yourself:
  • Where are you find yourself spending the majority of your time? Managing or leading?
  • Given that most organisations are "over managed and under led", What two management tasks can delegate this week? What two leadership behaviour do you need to focus on and improve this week?

Management & Leadership Training

In new businesses, "management" is often considered "whatever needs to be done just to keep things afloat". However, for your business to grow and remain healthy, you must master certain basic skills in management and leadership -- skills that will help you avoid the crisis situations where you have to do "whatever it takes to stay afloat". The basic skills include problem solving and decision making, planning, meeting management, delegation, communications and managing yourself.Those basics are also the foundation from which to develop more advanced practices in management and leadership. When organizational personnel struggle, it's often because they've forgotten the basics -- not because they aren't implementing state-of-the-art techniques in management and leadership.

NOTE ABOUT THE LARGE SIZE OF THIS MODULE: This module references numerous basic skills that leaders and managers must master in order to be effective in their organizations and their lives. These skills can be practiced throughout this program and in other areas of learners' lives. Readers who are interested in gaining broader contexts of management and leadership can review optional readings suggested in the "Materials for Review" section below.

NOTE ABOUT ORDER OF MODULES: Therefore, it is common to start management training programs with an overview of the board of directors (if the program includes focus on corporation, which are governed by boards of directors) -- the board of directors is legally charged to govern a corporation. However, in this program, this learning module about basic skills in management and leadership is presented before the learning module about boards of directors. The reason for this order of modules is as follows. Frequently businesses are started by someone with a strong vision for a new product. That person often goes on to become the first chief executive of the new business. Typically, that person also takes a very strong role (often the leading role) in the initial organization and development of the board of directors. Therefore, modules in this program are organized to help the founder (and often the first chief executive) to effectively apply basic skills in management and leadership when organizing the board of directors.

NOTE ABOUT LEARNING SUPERVISION -- Supervision is a major aspect of managing and leading. There are certain roles and responsibilities -- and experiences -- that are highly unique to the role of supervision and highly critical to the success of the organization. Therefore, the topic of staffing and supervision will also be addressed in an upcoming module in this program.

Leadership & Management Development Programme

brochure link image
 

Leadership & Management Development Programme

The LMDP helps leaders and managers - and those aspiring to such roles - to develop the capabilities they need to play their part in ensuring the future success of the University. All elements of the programme are underpinned by the University's Leadership Model (see below).

The programme focuses on practical on-the-job development, with a strong emphasis on collaborative working and peer support. Participants are actively encouraged to share strategies and solutions to day-to-day leadership/management issues, and help each other to identify their own strengths and development needs.

For HODs, full details of the programme and supporting advice and guidance suitable for HODs can be found in our customised Leadership Toolkit.  Within the toolkit you will also find full details of the Summer 2008 Leadership Management Development Programme.

 The values and key capabilities described in the Leadership Model emerged from a range of conversations held with senior managers, heads of department, staff groups and governors during 2006-7. It is therefore very much grounded in our University community and has not been imposed on us by any external agency or consultancy. The full version as a pdf is available by clicking the link above or accessing the Leadership Toolkit. The toolkit and the pdf also contain the ‘Manager Responsibilities’ – which set out the basic capabilities expected of all those who carry a leadership or management role.

Are you a Leader Manager or Manager Leader?

I was thumbing through John Adairs book ‘100 Greatest Ideas For Effective Leadership and Management’ (as I often do) and on reaching page 33 I reflected on how fundamentally important it is that  you know the difference between a Leader and a Manager. Both roles are critical to the organisation but are very different.

The Leader

If you are inspiring your team with your vision, clarifying their purpose, stimulating heart and soul, motivating team work, facilitating change, providing an example, and delivering a personal output you can confirm to yourself that you are performing as a Leader.

The Manager

Alternatively, you could be concentrating on keeping your Business in a ‘steady state’, supervising the day-to-day admin, establishing systems, organising structures, applying financial methods, caring for the bodies and minds of your Team. If this is you, then you are a Manager.

John Adair goes on to say “Both sets of skills are essential. You have to be a Manager-Leader or a Leader-Manager depending on your specific role and/or level of responsibility in the organisation.”

Those that are truly leading with their team members managing the businesses day to day stuff  have, in my experience, established a much stronger basis for growth and  a successful career in business.

Leadership vs Management: A new look at an old question

Ask anyone and they’ll tell you. There’s a difference between managers and leaders. And there are any number of books, self-help gurus and consultants who will define precisely what that difference is and help those who want to become leaders to do so in 3 (or 7 or 13 or 21) easy steps. The problem is that most people think theyre leaders simply because they made it to the top of their pile. Yet, leadership is much more than this.

Are you a leader?
One of the most quoted leadership experts is Warren Bennis, a popular writer of leadership resources and business professor at the University of Southern California. His distinction between leaders and managers is famous: Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right things (Learning to Lead: A Workbook on Becoming a Leader, Perseus Books / Addison Wesley, 1997). This various conceptions of the difference is often accompanied by lists of what leaders do (innovate, inspire trust, challenge status quo, seek risks, etc) compared to managers (implement, control, accept status quo, seek comfort and safety, etc).

After reading those lists, it is almost impossible to see managers as anything other than lesser beings than leaders. No wonder then that everyone wants to be a leader! And absolutely no wonder that those at Exco or Board level would not for one minute think that they might not be leaders that they might be nothing more than glorified managers! Yet, this is what many of them are: managers.This may seem like a bold statement, but the world is currently in crisis because of a lack of real leadership in all spheres of life.
The problem is that people with the title of leader often do nothing more than manage. This is true from small departments to large countries.

A Definition of Leadership
The Collapse of Globalism, is a fascinating book by Canadian philosopher, John Ralston Saul (Overlook Press, 2005). Despite its title, the book is not another rant against globalisation. It is an analysis of the current situation in the world, maintaining that until we admit that the underlying models of capitalism, free trade and open borders are fundamentally flawed, we will never be able to solve the problems of poverty, wars and the growing divide between the haves and have nots. In fact, he argues convincingly that the ideology of globalisation has not only failed in almost everything it has tried to do, but is in rapid retreat in many areas of the world, especially those countries with bold leaders who are prepared to stand up to the prevailing powers.
In Sauls mind, one of the major reasons behind the collapse of globalism is that there are very few real leaders in the system. Politicians, businessmen, bureaucrats alike most are mere managers. To prove this point, he offers a definition of leadership as follows:
 
To believe in the reality of choice is one of the most basic characteristics of leadership. Curiously enough, many individuals who think of themselves as leaders find this reality very difficult. They believe that theirjob is to understand power and management and perhaps make minor corrections to what they accept to be the torque of events. But they take for granted the reigning truths of the day and so are fundamentally passive. As a result, change is eventually thrust upon them by reality. Or they are replaced. In either case, the strength of that particular [organisation] – its ability to choose – is weakened.

Its true. Most leaders in companies take much of their environment and operating conditions as a given. Very few look at the big picture and feel that they have any choices. Globalisation, China, oil prices, global warming,regulations, talent wars, market conditions, share prices, competitors, products all are taken as they are, with mere dreams of change. Companies are thus captive to these forces. And, as such, feel in need of more managers.

Bigger companies need managers more
One of the ways in which Saul tries to prove his assertion, is to point out that the larger an organisation becomes, the more likely it is to have a manager at the helm, rather than a leader.

The modern obsession with size is managerial, not capitalistic. Given a choice, [they] will seek power through structure and the extension of structure rather than through the direct development or sale of goods. For a manager, successis measured by structural size and confirmed by bonuses. Their biggest problem as the structures grow larger is slowness, lack of creativity, risk aversion, stagnation at the top. The easiest way to energise such a structure is to buy another structure. This is managerial shock treatment. Bang two organisations together. The result has been a new world of mergers and acquisitions in which nothing is actually done, but large pieces are moved around. (pg 80).

There is a shared assumption that size replaces the need to think. About 40 years ago Kurt Lewin, universally recognized as the founder of modern social and organisational psychology, put it something like this: Every organisation structures itself to accomplish its goals in a way that is in tune with or responsive to its environment. Once the efficiency of the organisation is established, the focus is on simply maintaining the system, assuming that the environment will stay basically the same. Management is the main focus because it keeps the organisation going well with little change. But the thing is: the environment for any organisation is always changing. The world is not static. Organisations tend not to spot these changes quickly, often because of a management orientation which is focused more on looking in instead of looking out. Over time, the organisationcan become less and less in tune with or responsive to its environment, creating more and more management problems. The most common outcome is short term, highly utilitarian actions.

Times like this require organisations to think more in terms of leadership. Leaders begin to ask questions like, “What is really going on here? How do we become relevant again? How do we fulfill our goals in these new times? What will prompt people to think that what we do is meaningful? Leaders seek to bring their organisation more in line with the realities of their environment, which often necessitates changing the very structures, resources and relationships of their organisation which they have worked so long and so hard to manage. And yet, as they do, leaders can bring renewed vitality to their people.

True Leadership
If management is about authority, it might be said that leadership is about influence. To be a true leader, you have to have clearly defined convictions – and, more importantly, the courage of your convictions to see them manifest into reality.

There are no shortcuts to this type of leadership. Nor are there simple 1-2-3 formulas for success. There are no roadmaps. Thats the point of it leadership is about plotting the roads to the destination, not following well worn paths to a certain outcome. What guides these leaders, ultimately, is character. Most companies say they want leaders, but actually what they really want is consistent, above-expectation returns on investment and shareholder wealth. For that, you need great managers.

In politics all around the world, we need leaders to stand up and be counted, to stop playing for votes and thinking only of the next election, and to lead! In the corporate world, we need leaders who will stop the insanity of short-term focused capacity-stripping, performed in the name of cost cutting. We need leaders who will ensure that their companies do more than just earn profits, and actually make a meaningful contribution. We need leaders who will lead.

Team Management and Leadership

Managers or leaders? Which is likely to be the most successful attribute in a leading a business team to success? The answer, is that people leading teams need to be both managers and leaders in order to achieve consistent success with happy teams.

A team with a great leader, but who possesses no management skills, is likely to be more successful than one headed by an individual who has neither leadership nor management skills. Leaders are able to communicate a vision, motivate their teams, and inspire confidence. Following a good leader is likely to be a colourful experience, with a high level of engagement and motivation.

However, without the management skills of good planning, setting of clear objectives, direction on how to make the leader's vision a reality, and measurement of progress towards reaching objectives, it is unlikely that the team will fulfil its full potential of success in business.

Management skills are easily identifiable. Planning, communication, setting objectives, setting standards and regularly monitoring performance amongst many others. Management skills are also now under-rated in many organisations since they are traditionally associated with high levels of internal process, at the expense of individual flair and focus on business performance. However, a lack of basic management skills leads to teams which are 'leaky buckets' in terms of performance, tasks which fall between cracks in team roles, and a general feeling of wooliness about what is required of individual team members, and how they go about achieving it.

Leadership skills are more often regarded as being innate, and many companies spend millions of pounds on 'leadership skills' believing them to be a better predictor of success than management skills. A very efficient manager who fails to show leadership behaviour, either ends up with a lacklustre team, or one which suffers from internal conflict to the detriment of performance.

Management Principles & Leadership

Eight Principles of Management Leadership
Essentially, the professional practice of management leadership in organisations needs to be guided by eight underlying principles:

Principle #1: Leadership and management are situational, mutually inclusive and symbiotic – like yin andyang.
Regardless of what academic literature says about the demarcation between `management’ and `leadership’, in practice the two are inextricably linked. Having distinct definitions does not mean that `management’ and `leadership’ operate separately. Although a good manager is not necessarily a good leader and vice versa, someone who has mastered the art of managership would be versatile in wielding either management or leadership competencies, depending on the context and situation.

Principle #2: Management leadership is dynamic and permeable, and should be cultivated and institutionalised as a pervasive behaviour throughout all levels of the organisation – not necessarily expected, confined and manifested only in senior management.
Having a few good management leaders is encouraging but this might not be sufficient to thrust one’s organisation into the flywheel of organisational greatness. That is why the institutionalisation of management leadership – i.e. integrating it into the organisational culture – is crucial. During “The Greatness Challenge” seminar in Kuala Lumpur on 31 March 2008, Dr Stephen Covey attested that in today’s Knowledge Age organisation, it is “the Culture that owns responsibility for results, therefore [it] self-manages,” instead of just the boss who owns such responsibility, as was the tendency in the Industrial Age organisation. Managership behaviour needs to be pervasive.

Principle #3: Management leadership can be developed, taught and learned through programmes (content), action learning (process) and coaching (engagement).
Research has shown that we remember only 10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear and 30% of what we see. But if we put it into action, we can remember up to 90% of what is imparted. As such, learning through training and coaching programmes must be complemented by action learning and other approaches that get us to be holistically involved in learning and practicing management leadership.

Principle #4: Management leadership is based on the personal mastery and development qualities of values, attitude, knowledge, skills and capability (including communication, interpersonal skills and the ability to grow and nurture other leaders).
One of the hallmarks of outstanding management leaders is the ability to raise other management leaders. Having mastered the secret code of managership, great management leaders are able to discern the distinguishing attributes of upcoming leaders and are able to draw out these attributes without fear of being surpassed by their potential successors. Jeffrey Immelt was groomed by his predecessor, Jack Welch. Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay was nurtured by the late Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong. Many good CEOs have raised generations of young leaders and managers, some of whom surpass their mentors in fame while others remain lesser known but successful nonetheless. These leaders have achieved self-mastery of management leadership.

Principle #5: Management leadership is the proper use of referent (influence), authoritative (compliance) and expert (technical) powers to develop and optimise the best in people.
Good management leaders exhibit referent and influential power among their followers. Unscrupulous leaders who exploit their charisma are the archetypal cult leaders. On the other hand, good management leaders who wield authoritative power do so without being dictatorial or using fear to coerce their subordinates into submission. Moreover, exemplary management leaders possess authentic expertise that does not require them to exploit their subordinates’ capabilities and claim sole credit for other people’s work. When the work is done, they will claim we all did it.

Principle #6: Competent management leadership is the entitlement of every employee as managers are remunerated and empowered to be responsible for leading and making changes for improvement.
As much as an organisation rightfully expects its employees to offer their best, every employee has the right to expect competent management leadership at the top and every level. In turn, employees also can expect the right to be entrusted with responsibilities, to be stretched by challenges and to be developed into strong management leaders. Managership culture building is therefore a multilateral process. Often employees resign not because of the organisation but because of their inept managers.

Principle #7: Excellent management leadership is the requisite performing credential and competency for today’s local and global leaders.
Amid the war for talent and a scarcity of the right talent, organisations that do not demonstrate good management leadership will not become the employer of choice. Discerning high-performing talents are reluctant to put themselves in career jeopardy by associating with organisations that place little emphasis on excellent managership. In today’s globalised environment, we must pursue and practice excellence, as mediocrity cannot be tolerated.
 
Principle #8: Management leadership for all organisations is the new management paradigm for the 21st century to meet the new knowledge-based economy’s challenges, recognising regional and global impact and opportunities.
No organisation, big or small, is exempted from the need for managership. It is relevant to all organisations – whether charitable or not-for-profit organisations, government agencies, LLCs, GLCs, PLCs – all of which are subject to the scrutiny of good corporate governance. And corporate governance is not just about transparency of financial accounting but also involves the institutionalisation of best management practices that lead to long-term, sustainable results