“Most managers were trained to be the thing they most despise — bureaucrats.”
… Alvin Toffler (b. 1928) US author
It is easy to be unsure about what it means to manage and to lead. This uncertainty often stems from the words being used interchangeably and can be exacerbated by the use of the words ‘manager’ and ‘leader’ to define organisational roles. This confusion extends to some people seeing leading as part of the domain of managing and others seeing the opposite. Personally, I prefer to distinguish them as different approaches to dealing with groups of people.
Every community of people involves two aspects – people and tasks (outcomes). Any leadership or management approach has to deal with these two aspects and will necessitate a certain emphasis on both to be effective. The fundamental difference I define between managing and leading lies in which one has primacy. No doubt many people would say they are both as important as each other. This is not the point. Although we can place an equal emphasis on the importance of outcome and people, in the end we think in some sequence – one thought follows another – and this pattern subtly defines primacy. In other words, does one think of the task first or the people first?
So how does this apply to the concepts of managing and leading?
I define ‘managing’ as giving primacy to task or outcome. With this approach, the boss defines what outcomes are required and then finds ways to get their employees to achieve those defined outcomes. It is task first, people second. Although many ‘managers’ see the importance of their people in getting the task done, the tendency set up by this approach is to seek to control others to get them to do what is required. Strategies are then employed to ensure people do what they should do. This tends to be done through the use of hierarchy, systems and policies that place limits on people. Ultimately this leads to a lessening of trust between those involved.
Conversely, ‘leading’ is giving primacy to people. Here a boss ensures the creation of shared meaning and direction within the group to align people in order to achieve the best outcomes. It is people first, task second. There is a recognition that people do tasks and the more people are aligned, energised and capable, and able to work in an environment supportive of their actions, then the better the outcome will be. It is an approach based in developing high trust, which is the antithesis of control.
An outcome of these preferences can be seen in an organisation’s culture. When task has primacy, the effort of executives goes into getting things done and culture is seen as something to be done but not THE thing to be done – culture is just another task. When people are given primacy, the executives focus on culture as THE thing to be done and believe this will lead to optimal performance and outcomes. This difference in focus is easily seen in executives’ conversations and where they direct their energy and effort. For leaders, a constructive culture really matters and is not just a bonus.
These two approaches have vastly different implications for relationships and trust in the organisation. To be clear both people and outcomes are important. Achieving the necessary organisational goals should not play second fiddle in terms of importance. The distinctions I am drawing here speak to the approach used to achieve those outcomes. Ultimately the primacy of task or people has huge implications for organisation’s culture and employee engagement.
You may not agree with my definitions of ‘leading’ and ‘managing’, however I invite you to reflect on the difference and how the primacy of people or task plays out in your organisation.
Related Concepts
The Basis of Relationships
Collective and Personal Authority
The Paradigm of Control
The Paradigm of Trust
The Phenomenon of Listening
Effective Listening and Speaking