Doing right things. Empowering. Managing. Doing things right. Controlling. The goal of leading is to formulate and disseminate a vision of the direction in which ...
BECOMING A LEADER-MANAGER: A MATTER OF TRAINING AND EDUCATION
Purpose – Responding to a call from the conference “Becoming a leader: A matter of education?”, this paper raises awareness of the challenge for individuals of performing both leadership and management activities and draws attention to the need for a new approach to educating and training leader-managers. Design/methodology/approach – Based on the existing literature and discussions from the above-mentioned conference, the paper questions the current approaches which either merge the leadership and management functions or treat them as mutually exclusive roles and offers instead a dual approach that emphasizes the capacity of individuals to switch mindsets. Findings – Managing and leading are distinct activities with different goals and means that need to co-exist. Individuals should be prepared to either manage or lead depending on the situation and to change their mindset accordingly. Education and training programs should be designed for this purpose. Originality/value – The paper proposes a dual “leading-managing mix” and discusses the challenges of its implementation by individuals. The discussion of the implications for training and education will be of value to practitioners as well as educators and training specialists.
The distinction between the roles of “leader” and “manager” has often been discussed. There is an abundant literature aimed at clarifying the difference between leaders and managers, or leadership and management (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2003). Two key insights emerge from this literature: (1) neither role is more important than the other, and (2) leading and managing are not mutually exclusive. The implication is that we should not focus on the question of who should be a leader and who should be a manager but rather on identifying the conditions under which each function should be exercised. The challenge for practitioners is that they might get stuck in one mindset and be unable to exercise the other function when needed. This paper helps them to overcome that challenge by proposing that it is possible to do both – leading and managing – and that this ability can be cultivated through training and education.
Leading vs. managing: How are they different? In much of the literature, management is linked to the creation of structures, systems and bureaucracies that promote stability whereas leadership is supposedly concerned with producing change, innovation and development (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2003). Bennis (2003) provides a long list of differences between leaders and managers. We propose the matrix below as a concise way of capturing the key differences between leading and managing. 1
Main goal
Key means
Leading
Doing right things
Empowering
Managing
Doing things right
Controlling
The goal of leading is to formulate and disseminate a vision of the direction in which the organization should move (“doing the right things”). The objective of managing, on the other hand, is to reduce complexity and enhance efficiency (“doing things right”). As far as the means are concerned, the priority of managing is to control and monitor employees to make sure they stick to plans and procedures. Leading, by contrast, involves empowering employees to find solutions to new problems encountered in the process of implementing change. Each activity requires a distinct set of skills and a distinct mindset. It can be challenging for a person to switch from a stability-oriented mindset to a change-oriented one, and vice versa. As a result, the positions of leader and manager are often assigned as separate roles in an organizational context.
Manager or leader? Don’t let your title limit what you do! The widespread acceptance of the distinction between the roles of leader and manager entails the danger that individuals will get locked into the idea that they fit only one of these two roles, not the other, and will stick to their designated role even if a changing situation warrants a change in action. For example, a project manager responsible for developing a new product may adhere strictly to the project timetable, emphasizing process efficiency, even if unforeseen changes in the market call for a reconsideration of the project. A unit leader may encourage employees to follow a predetermined mission even if disruptions in the business environment necessitate strategic redirection. At the conference “Becoming a leader: A matter of education?”, this matter was discussed. One suggested approach to overcoming the barrier that prevents people from transcending their entrenched role is to focus on the distinction between two activities, leading and managing, as opposed to the assigned roles of leader and manager. Depending on the demands of the situation and the task at hand, people can decide whether they should undertake leading activities or managing activities, regardless of their formal title or job description. This “dual approach” contrasts with the integrative approach taken by some scholars who prefer to downplay the distinction between management and leadership and consider managers as leaders (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2003; Mintzberg, 2009). On the other hand, it also contradicts the view that leadership is inherently superior to management because leaders are the ones who master the context while managers surrender to it (Bennis, 2003). Our dual approach, the leading-managing mix, is novel since it proposes that (1) leading and managing are two different yet equally important activities that 2
require different skills and mindsets, and that (2) individuals should be prepared to exercise whichever of these activities the situation mandates. To do so, they must be aware of the context as well as the essence of leading and managing in order to carry out the right activity at the right time. Our dual approach is arguably related to the concept of “situational leadership” (Hersey and Blanchard, 1972), but whereas the latter focuses narrowly on the challenge of adapting one’s leadership style according to the abilities and mentalities of one’s subordinates, our framework is broader, addressing the general question of which mindset (leading or managing) is appropriate under different conditions and in different environments. To illustrate this dynamic, we will refer to the context of innovation, specifically, to developing a new product with advanced technology. A project leader or manager needs to “do the right thing” when choosing the product strategy and associated technology. In the meantime, he or she also has to “do things right” by executing the product development process efficiently and ensuring on-time delivery. These tasks do not necessarily follow a fixed order but will unfold according to the organizational setting as well as shifting market conditions. For example, when the price of materials suddenly increases, s/he should be able to switch from managing project, i.e. implementing the original plan, to leading change, which may involve redefining the situation or devising a new solution. Afterwards s/he can switch back to the managing mindset to get things done. This is easier said than done. The challenge of doing both leading and managing lies in the rigidity of mindset that prevents people from switching between activities when needed. “Mindset” refers to a set of assumptions and behaviors that people use to make sense of the world. Changing mindset requires one to modify prior assumptions and cognitive schemas, which takes time and effort. When one is in managing mode, the goal of efficiency reinforces the stability-oriented mindset that makes it difficult to process new information and accept change. Similarly, the leading mode might lock a person into a visionary mentality that hinders practical action.
Leading–managing mix: A matter of training and education Recognizing the importance of the duality of leading and managing, good companies develop their people into outstanding leader-managers (Kotter, 2001). Organizations can save time and avoid costly errors if the proper leader-manager mindset is taught, either through internal training or external education, rather than being entirely self-acquired from personal experience. However, existing leadership or management programs either focus on one of these activities only or treat them as the same thing. In their failure to address the distinction between leading and managing and the challenge for individuals of performing both activities, they limit the ability of learners to become leader3
managers. Which key components should a leader-manager training program contain? Synthesizing the insights of Elmuti et al. (2005) and others, we suggest the following simple breakdown: 1. Fundamental knowledge and skills required for both leading and managing. This component of the training program includes “hard skills” such as the ability to use information technology but also “soft skills” like cultural sensitivity and the ability to communicate with others. 2. Understanding leading and managing. The essence of each of the two functions – leading and managing – should be imparted to the learner, as should the dynamic interaction between them in an organizational context and the associated challenge of switching mindset. The ultimate objective is for the learner to understand which conditions call for which activity. 3. Action-based training. Simulations and case studies can help aspiring leader-managers to recognize real-world conditions that require managing and leading, respectively. Only through practice can learners accumulate experience and hone their ability to judge which activity is more suitable in a particular situation. The second component is important because it fosters an awareness of the challenges involved in achieving a proper leading-managing mix, which is an essential precondition for building the capacity for mentality-switching. Yet it has received scant attention in the literature and in practical settings. We humbly hope that the present article can inspire efforts to improve this situation.
Conclusion Companies today require that leaders know how to manage and managers know how to lead. Fortunately leader-managers are made, not born. Academic courses and company training programs alike must recognize the complementarity of management and leadership skills but also the challenges involved in switching between managing and leading. At the individual level, leaders and managers should be prepared to adopt either role depending on the situation – regardless of their job title.
Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2003), 'Managers doing leadership: The extra-odinarization of the mundane', Human Relations, 56(12), pp. 1435-1459. Bennis, W. (2003), On becoming a leader, Perseus Books Group, Cambridge, MA. Elmuti, D., Minnis, W. and Abebe, M. (2005), 'Does education have a role in developing leadership skills?', Management Decision, 43(7/8), pp. 1018-1031. Kotter, J. P. (2001), 'What leaders really do', Harvard Business Review, 79(11), pp. 85-96. Mintzberg, H. (2009), Managing, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1972), Management of Organizational Behavior, 2nd edn, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
4
