Leading and Managing
Communication and Impact Oriented Programme Management
See Required characteristics of the project manager
See also Ethical Leadership Principles:
11. Politics, Power, and
Influence
12. Decision-Making
in organizations
Guidelines for Promoting the Most Good for the Most People
Politics, Power, and Influence
Leading Meetings vs. Managing Meetings
In this module we examine
the dynamics of leading, following, and managing. The origins, nature, and styles of
leadership are summarized and contrasted with those of management. Overviews of
gender-related leadership styles and leadership pitfalls are also provided.
Managers manage. They get things done. Management is a function that is used to
establish budgets, develop plans and schedules, and make sure that everything is moving
along the way it is supposed to.
Leaders lead. They can get people and entire organizations to change. They have
a relationship with the people they lead, and those people follow them.
"Managers do things right, while leaders do the right thing.”
“Leaders stand out by being different. They question assumptions and are suspicious of tradition. They seek out the truth and make decisions based on fact, not prejudice. They have a preference for innovation.” John Fenton
“Leaders must let vision, strategies, goals, and values be the guide-post for action and behavior rather than attempting to control others.” Daniel. F. Predpall
“Leaders are observant and sensitive people. They know their team and develop mutual confidence within it.” - John Fenton
Leadership has been defined
as the effective use of power and influence. Power is the capacity to influence the
behavior of others. Power use gets results. Influence is the process by which
people successfully persuade others to follow their advice, suggestions, or orders.
Leadership can also be thought of as making a significant difference vis a vis a goal or
objective.
Leaders take risks by
challenging existing ways of doing things and undermining authority when necessary.
Leaders resolve conflicts. Leaders motivate people. Transactional leaders
motivate people towards established goals by clarifying roles and tasks. They
resemble ‘managers’. Transformational leaders motivate people to transcend
self-interest and self-imposed limits for a greater collective vision. Leaders build
community based in shared values. And leaders are role models; showing people how to
subordinate personal interests in favor of the greater good advocated by the leader.
Ever since F.W. Taylor
advocated Scientific Management at the beginning of the 20th century, managers
have been associated with a more mechanistic, distanced approach to people.
Organizational leaders, on the other hand, are still expected to resemble leaders we
follow in other areas of life. Managers try to control complexity; leaders often
thrive on chaos. Managers plan and budget to implement organizational goals.
Leaders set the direction the organization might take. Managers are taught to
control people and push them in the ‘right’ direction. Leaders tend to
motivate people by satisfying their higher needs. Managers think; leaders
vision. And yet in the end leadership and management complement each other.
“It’s a
terrible thing to look over your shoulder when you are trying to lead and find no one
there.”
Because leadership is a
relationship between the leader and the led, people are likely to follow leaders based on
both the leader’s and the follower’s focus of attention. For instance,
some leaders and followers focus primarily on the character of the leader. Often
such leaders have ‘referent power’, that is they exercise power and influence
because the followers admire the leader’s character, enthusiasm and integrity –
aspiring in some ways to be like the leader. Other leaders and followers relate to
their shared focus on getting the job done as a team and the leader’s boldness in
making that happen. Some leaders and followers focus on technical competence and
intellectual prowess, believing in the rightness, perceptions, judgement and fortitude of
the leader and their cause. And other leaders and followers may connect through
collaborative interaction that inspires service to for a greater-collective good. In
all four situations there is a relationship between the leader and the followers.
There are some physical
metaphors from dance that might provide interesting insight in the dynamics of leading and
following. In partnered dancing the leader is expected to hold a organization frame,
signaling to the partner the moves they need to make. The follow needs to know the
steps, allow the leader to lead, pay attention to the signals and interpret them
correctly. The leader is expected to pay attention to the environment (the other
dancers and the floor) and maneuver the follower safely through the space. Both
leader and follower are actually dancing to the tune of the music (the situation), and
leader and follower must maintain a fairly close distance (contact) to maximize efficiency
in communication of directions. It makes both the leader and the follower look bad
if either one does not do their part properly – if the leader fails to lead well and
the follower in unable or unwilling to follow. Partnered dance provides a metaphor
for the same issues involved in leading in following in our organizations.
The leadership research has
typically taken a perspective on one of three positions when trying to understand the
dynamics of leading and following:
1.
Leaders are born with certain traits that destine them to
become leaders. (Trait Theory)
2.
Leaders are made through the interaction of the individual
with his or her life circumstances. People learning to lead – sometimes through
necessity. (Leadership Development)
3.
Leaders are a function of a person rising to the situation
that calls for someone to step forward and make a positive difference.
(Situational-Contingency Leadership)
Each of these positions has
implications for understanding human behavior. For instance, those who believe
leaders are born focus on determining which traits are most strongly associated with
leadership and how best to identify those traits in human beings. Those who believe
leaders are made focus on leadership skill transmission and development – how best to
teach people to lead. And those with a situational-contingency perspective seek to
identify the conditions under which a leader is likely to emerge, and the skills required
to be effective given the situational context. So far, there is research to support
all three positions – leaders are born AND made AND are people who rise to the
occasion when situations require them to do so.
Trait Theory: Leadership is
associated with three types of traits – technical, human relations, and
conceptual. In the early stages of leading the technical competencies are important
as a source of power. As the leader has more responsibility their interpersonal and
human relations skills become important since they are starting to influence, involve and
persuade people to follow their guidance. At the highest responsibility level the
conceptual skills – visioning, telling a powerful and engaging story, aligning people
with purpose – become the more important skills for leader effectiveness.
Leadership Development:
Leaders perform several functions in organizational life. Leaders challenge the
existing ways of doing things, inspire a shared vision, enable others, model the way, and
motivate others. Challenging the existing ways of doing things requires some
knowledge of how things work and other ways that might work. Education in a wide
range of areas and contact with lots of different perspectives on life and work can help
people learn the content necessary to successfully challenge existing processes.
Willingness to share those views is also required. Many leaders learn to inspire a
shared vision by learning effective communication skills. Enabling others means
being willing to share knowledge and teach people how to do things, rather than doing it
for them. Enabling others is also expressing personal support for others,
empathizing with them, and believing in them. Modeling the way is practicing what
you preach. And motivation skills include setting clear standards, paying
attention and giving your attention to what people do well, and personalizing recognition
and feedback. Leadership development programs help people from all walks of
life learn the skills associated with these leadership functions.
Situational leadership
theory is a model designed to explain what type of leadership style is most appropriate
given the type of relationship and task behavior required to meet a goal.
When the situation (the
interaction of task and relationship) calls for getting the job done quickly and well but
there is little or no need for socio-emotional support of the people doing the job, then a
directive leadership style may work. The directive style provides specific
instructions about what to do when. This makes sense in a situation where the leader
knows what to do, how to do it, and is willing to make a decision but the followers do not
what to do, how to do it, nor do they wish to make a decision.
When the situation calls
for lots of support from the leader to followers who are unable to make decisions but who
are willing to learn, the leader’s most effective style is a sell style. To use the
sell style a leader explains decisions and provides opportunities for the followers to
clarify the reasoning.
When the leader does not
feel a strong need to be involved in the performance or outcome of the task, but does have
to influence the followers to do something, a more participatory style is effective.
In such a situation the leader shares their ideas and facilitates a leader-follower made
decision. This is appropriate when the followers are able to make a decision but
unwilling to do so for some reason.
The leader delegates when
they are willing and able to turn over decision making to the followers who are both
willing and able to make a decision.
Organizational behaviorists
have been interested in another question: Are leaders different from managers? And
if so, what difference does that difference make? Abe Zaleznik answered these
questions through his research with many leaders and managers. In his view, leaders
and managers are different. Leaders are seen by others as brilliant, lonely, heroic,
visionary, effective, imaginative, creative and self-reliant. Managers are
seen by others as rational, problem-solving, directing, task-oriented, efficient,
persistent, tough-minded, hard working, intelligent, analytical, tolerant, practical and
innovative.
When they were young
people, leaders often felt they did not quite fit in the world, so they sought to change
the world around them, developing themselves through personal mastery and strong,
independent character. As a result these people as adults are prone to challenging
the status quo, even creating (thriving on) chaos. Managers, in contrast, frequently
talk of growing up with a sense of fitting in yet wanting to make the existing systems
work better. As adult managers these people seek and maintain order – even if
they sponsor change, they want that change to be orderly.
Leaders use their influence
to change people’s views of what is desirable, possible and necessary. They
have deep interpersonal attachments and an ability to evoke the ideals and expectations of
those who follow them. Managers are more likely to use their influence to implement
organizational goals. They tend to have a more impersonal attitude towards the needs
and desires of the individuals involved. Managers are therefore often good with
tactical plans, bargaining, negotiating, using rewards, and coordinating different
approaches to issues. Leaders explore and encourage fresh solutions to existing
problems – encouraging people to examine a wide range of options to manifest the
vision. Leaders tend to focus on the meaning of events and decisions to participants
in a personal way, thereby gaining commitments to idea(l)s. Managers tend to relate
to roles – theirs and others’ – gaining commitment to the processes
required to implement goals.
Kotter added to
Zaleznik’s research by adding that both managers and leaders care about creating an
agenda, developing a human network for achieving that agenda, executing the agenda, and
certain outcomes. They differ in how they do each of those four things.
Managers create their agenda through planning and budgeting. Leaders create their
agenda through establishing a direction. Manager’s networks are designed by
organizational charts and staffing decisions. Leaders what networks of humans emerge
as people are aligned using the leader’s vision. Managers execute the agenda
through control systems with a problem-solving approach. Leaders motivate and
inspire through the force of their vision and charisma. And the outcome managers
desire is order, predictability, and consistency – maintaining systems and processes
that work. The leader seeks change.
Kotter argues, and many
agree, that both leaders and managers are important to the success of our
organizations. Leadership produces useful change while management controls
complexity and chaos. Leaders set the directions; managers make sure things happen
so the goal is actually reached. Leaders align stakeholders though their vision and
credibility; managers organize those stakeholders for efficient implementation of that
vision. Leaders motivate people by satisfying some basic human needs; managers
motivate people by the strategic use of reinforcement, punishments, and
conditioning. Leaders involve, support and include; managers delegate, direct, and
discipline. Leaders use informal interpersonal networks (the social web); managers
coordinate information flows through organizational structure, informational channels and
chains of command.
In practice we do not make
such a fine distinction between leaders and managers. Frequently we refer to people
in positions of responsibilities as leaders – whether they see themselves and
function more as leaders or managers often varies by incumbent.
Many of us think
immediately of charisma when we think of leaders. Charismatic leaders are
motivating, envisioning, and enabling. They are motivating because they demonstrate
personal enthusiasm for a goal. They show incredible personal confidence in their
and their followers’ ability to attain the goal. And they are quick and
willing to celebrate achievements.
Charismatic leaders
envision a future where they and followers meet high standards. They are willing to
lead the way to this future by example, exemplifying the attributes, qualities, skills,
and benefits of trying things ‘their way’. They develop this vision with
their followers and are quick to give credit to followers who have helped them develop and
articulate the view.
Finally charismatic leaders
are enabling. They express support for followers in a personal way. People
feel seen, heard, cared for and respected because of their empathy. They express
confidence in others – often more confidence than those people have in
themselves.
We often think charisma is
something people are born with. Yet charisma, according to the research, can be
constructed by:
·
Paying attention to followers needs and
meeting them.
·
Developing empathy for follower concerns
– understand and value their perspective.
·
Expecting the best from people.
·
Personalizing recognition.
·
Sharing your own trials and triumphs so
people – set an example.
In addition to the general
research into leadership, many people have systematically explored differences in
leadership between men and women. So far the research consensus is that there is no
apparent qualitative difference between men and women in effective drive, learning
ability, or analytical problem-solving skills – all traits and skills associated with
leaders.
All leaders must be seen by
their constituents as honest, forward-looking, inspiring, and competent. And any
leader can have an autocratic (direct, controlling, dictatorial), democratic (cooperative,
responsive, flexible, participatory), or empowering (coaching, enabling, empathetic,
allowing) style.
However, there does seem to
be some difference in leadership style and corresponding expectations about leadership
style associated with gender. Style matters because leadership is from the eye of
the follower. Women and men have been said to come from different cultures –
and in those different cultures one is seen to be or not to be a good leader through the
lens of the follower’s culture. Women are seen to be more effective as leaders
when they use either democratic or empowering styles. Both women and men expect
women to be more cooperative, relationship-oriented, involving, and collaborative.
Men may effectively use any of the three styles, including the more traditional autocratic
style, since that style is accepted in the male culture.
We have discussed
leadership so far as if all leaders are successful. Leaders can fail when they
appear insensitive, cold, abrasive, aloof, arrogant, or corrupt. Leaders who do not
keep their word, betray a trust, fail to delegate, and have no strategy may also fail.
Machiavelli put forth the idea that people may lead through the use of fear as well
as love – but a leader is more likely to fail if they are seen by their followers in
a negative way. Positive and negative when describing leaders are from the
perspective of the followers. Many of us assume leaders will make a positive
difference in the world. One of the things we have learned in observing human
behavior is that the exercise of power and influence need not be for the benefit of
everyone – only for relevant constituents.
Three Leadership Rules to Remember
Dr. James N. Farr, founder of Farr Associates, a behavioral science consulting organization
based in
See also: training diagramme ; Project Team Training Plan
From Lao Tzu –
The wicked leader is s/he
who the people despise,
The good leader is s/he who
the people revere,
The great leader is s/he
who the people say
“we did it
ourselves.”
Assignment and Test Questions
True False:
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
Multiple-Choice:
a.
Sell
b.
Delegate
c. Anticipate
d.
Direct
Matching the Columns:
Match the characteristics
to either leader or manager from Zaleznik’s research.
Seen as brilliant, lonely,
heroic, visionary.
(Leader)
Developed through personal
mastery and strong, independent character.
(Leader)
Seen as problem solvers.
(Manager)
Prone to challenging the
status quo.
(Leader)
Felt they fit in the world
yet wanting to make things better.
(Manager)
Seek and maintain order.
(Manager)
In this module leadership
was defined and described. We then examined four types of leader-follower
relationship, three perspectives on the origins of leadership (trait, learned,
situational-contingency), differences and interfaces between leading and managing,
gender-related differences in leadership styles, and possible leadership pitfalls.
Many times we focus on the differences between leading and managing. What has become
clear from the research is that the two sets of skills complement each other when it comes
to organizational effectiveness.
Bibliography
Conger,
Jay A. “Charismatic leadership in organizations: perceived behavioral
attributes and their
measurements.” Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 15 pg. 439-452 1994
Drucker,
Peter F. “Leadership: The Effective Exercise of Power and Influence” in
Kolb, David A.; Osland,
Joyce S.; Rubin, Irwin M.; Organizational
Behavior: An Experiential
Approach, Prentice Hall:
Goleman,
Daniel, “What Makes a Leader?” Harvard project/programme purpose Review, Nov/Dec.
pg. 93-102 1998
Hofstede, Geert. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions
and Organizations Across
Nations, 2nd Edition.
Zaleznik,
A. “Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?” Harvard
project/programme purpose Review,
Mar/Apr 1992, 70(2):
126-135
Leadership
Development: Leaders are created through the interaction of the individual with his
or her life circumstances; learning to lead through necessity.
Referent power: The
power of leaders whose influence derives from followers’ admiration for the
leader’s character, enthusiasm, and integrity.
Situational theory:
An individual rises to the situation that calls for someone to step forward and make a
positive difference by providing leadership.
Trait theory: Leaders are
born with certain traits that destine them to become leaders.
Learning Objectives:
·
Gaining an overview of leadership
theories
·
Understanding the fluid interplay of
leading and managing
Understanding
some of the different expectations for leading associated with gender
Questions and Answers
Question 1: Are
Answer 1: Not necessarily.
Geert Hofstede, a culture researcher from the
Question 2: Will you give an example of a
leader who challenged the status quo successfully?
Answer 2: Kouzes and Posner, researchers
in the area of leadership, have many examples of leaders in society and in project/programme purpose who
have successfully challenged the status quo. In my leadership class we read about
Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi – an Indian trained to be a barrister (lawyer) in
Question 3: When
is the masculine leadership style – command and control – most effective?
When is the feminine style – involvement – most effective?
Answer 3: Command and control is effective when
there is an emergency or crisis, when there is no alternative, or when you are in a time
bound situation. Involvement is effective when you need creativity, when you need
psychological buy in, and when you need the people on the team or in the organization to
reach a particular goal. With the hierarchical-command-control-autocratic leadership
style the focus is on getting a specific task done. With the flat-involvement-democratic
leadership style the attention is on the process. The task focus takes less time and
is therefore effective in time bound situations. The process focus get more long
term commitment, hence it is more effective when you need committed performance. The
key thing to notice is that BOTH styles are effective in different ways at different
times. It is also important to note that both men and women expect women to lead in
certain ways. A woman who goes around issuing orders outside of those conditions
where command-control works best as a style is more likely to find herself in difficulty
than a man would with similar behavior used in a wider range of contexts. Women may
display assertiveness but are expected to do so within a narrower band of behaviors.