Consistent Leadership

We're going to revisit the issue of "managing" versus "leading" today.  I received some great comments and noted some good trackbacks on my post about Adaptive Management Style, which is great.  Bloggers live to get feedback - positive or negative.  However, I'd like to be sure my position and thinking on managing versus leading is defined, since I think we're using these terms in a way that unfortunately overlaps and could confuse.

In any endevour, there's got to be one leader.  Leaders are visionary, strategic, charismatic and usually not worried about the details.  Think Steve Jobs.  Steve can come out, lay out a vision for the future, really pump up the crowd, but I doubt he gets into the details much.  In fact it's probably a liability if he does.  Now, imagine the scene within a firm where there is more than one leader.  Multiple visions are created, factions build around different individuals, teams receive direction in conflicting directions. 

However, by definition there are multiple managers within any organization.  Managers convert the vision of a leader into tactical actions and make sure the work gets done.  Managers usually work at a more tactical and operational level than a strategic leader, but there are exceptions.  There are CEOs and company leaders who are in effect "managers" who happen to be running a firm.  In those cases (H-P for instance with Mark Hurd), those firms needed less vision and strategy (less Carly Fiorina) and more tactical, day to day operations and housecleaning.  Hurd is a leader at H-P - he has defined a vision that other CEOs weren't willing to lay out, and he has cut jobs and people.  He is also a very detailed manager, which is a fairly unique combination at his level.

The reason I am trying to break out these two roles and titles is that in Adaptive Management Style I recognized that my preferred management style - very hands off - does not work with all the people who report to me.  I have to be willing to change my preferred style as necessary based on how the people who work for me want and need management.  Conversely, for the team I run, my leadership has to be consistent.  We are building software to become a leader in the innovation software space, and my vision and goal is to be the leader in that space.  We have to believe in our own mission, and we have to be consistent within the vision and mission.  Similarly, when Mark Hurd wears his "leader" hat, he is consistent when he talks to H-P employees about why he is cutting jobs and his vision for H-P long term, just as Steve Jobs is consistent when he positions Apple as an innovator in the technology space.  Leaders must be consistent and must not waver from their message and position once it's established.  If they do, they send conflicting messages to managers and the troops.

I may adapt my management style on a person by person basis - but I can't adapt my leadership message and position in a similar manner because the message and its intent will be garbled.  Consistency in leadership is what got Washington through the American Revolution, how Grant won the US Civil War, and how Roosevelt and eventually Truman won WW II.  Leadership consistency, at least to message, vision and purpose, is crucial to any business.

Comments

[Skip]

I have to respectfully disagree with your definition of leaders vs. managers. Leadership isn't a particular position or personality type, but can be a part of anybody's role. There can be quiet leaders as well as charismatic. They can come from the CEO or a co-worker on your team. Here's my definition:
Leadership - directing others towards a definitive future. Management - ensuring that the current status quo is maintained and past mistakes aren't repeated.

To me, it's all about time. Reviewing the past and focusing on the present is management. Determine and working towards the future is leadership.

[laurence haughton]

I like to think of leaders as "someone who takes others where they'd like and need to go but wouldn't be able to go on their own."

But I also remember the wisdom of the ages. "A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say 'we did it ourselves'."

[laurence haughton]

As for managers the traditional role has been "counting stuff." That role has been downsized for two decades (since the adoption of enterprise software).

Coaches are leaders, mentors are leaders, good front-line executives are leaders, good followers are often leaders too... Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Jack Welch, every front man (or woman) depends on leaders at every level for their accolades.

It's a mistake IMHO to think that one leader is ever enough. One leader is like a one-man band (with a harmonica in his mouth, drum in one hand, and a pair of cymbals strapped to his knees... hardly competition for an orchestra.

[Krams]

A One man band cannot be an orchestra but the analogy is flawed.

Taking this analogy we 'd be seeing an organization with just one person - doing the marketing, sales, accounting and developing the product and supporting the customer.

What we are talking about here though is one composer - the visionary who writes the music and a conductor who then manages the interpretation and execution of the piece(s), a stage manager who manages the stage, a PR Manager who handles the PR etc ...

So I think multiple managers - one leader is still true.

and Yes one person playing all the roles would be infintely lesss effective than a whole orchestra being able to produce the music, but at the same time multiple visions for the original score would be confusing.