About two years ago, I was tasked with doing a summary of the essential differences between management and leadership. This is one of the great topics in all of management and organizational behavior literature. Walls of books line bookshelves by experts from every field, from sports to defense to business.
This difference impacts all of us, because the effects of good or bad leadership filter down to all of us, either as government policy or work environments, or in extreme cases, life and death outcomes as seen in conflicts raging in Syria, South Sudan, and other troubled areas.
As someone working in public health, I am acutely aware how this woefully underfunded field needs inspirational leaders to tackle the challenges posed by public health threats, but also to inspire and steer public thinking and win support for greater public health funding.
Without strong leaders, from small agencies to leading scientists to figureheads like the U.S. Surgeon General (see my post that touches on how Dr. C. Everett Koop set the standard), the profession may continue to be relegated to third-tier funding status in federal budget priorities and not gain greater acceptance by a wider majority of Americans. (Note to my international readers, I am writing this post with an American context.)
With management and leadership issues very much on mind this past week because of some interesting developments I have observed, I have decided to publish a short summary document I did on this topic two years ago focussing on Abraham Lincoln as an example. He continues to inspire me, even when I hit roadblocks and get discouraged. And isn’t that what good leaders do, inspire?
“Towering genius distains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.” Abraham Lincoln
What Is Management and Who Are Managers:
Management has been defined as “the art of using all available resources to accomplish a given set of tasks in a timely and economical manner.” Management provides the basis for the system of control needed to maintain and operate an organization. It is also about getting things done through others and delegating work. Managers motivate employees to accomplish tasks with a variety of tools (intrinsic or extrinsic awards).
Typical Management Activities:
– Planning, decision-making, organizing, staffing, directing/actuating (the process of leading through teaching), directing, and controlling (determining what the organization does in relation to its mission).
– “Classic” management theory, dating back to the 1950s and 1960s, suggests managers have to rely less on technical skills and more on conceptual skills the more senior rank they hold. However, in the down economy as our class’s manager interviews found, managers at higher levels in lean organizations still have a lot of technical skills because they are doing a lot of frontline/skills-related activities.
– Classic models: Henry Mintzberg’s “10 managerial roles” (informational, interpersonal, and decision), similar to Robert Katz’s “skills of an effective administrator” (technical, human, conceptual).
Management vs. Leadership:
Managers marshal resources to achieve the vision of others, and if they are good, help each person cultivate their talents and grow. Leaders are “visionaries, strategic thinkers, activators.” A talented few may excel at both.
Managers: rely on analysis and rationality, stress conformity, more like scientists, project power over people, seek obedience, emulate other successful managers/leaders.
Leaders: envision, rely on intuition, have self-confidence and take risks, project power with people, are creative and spontaneous, emphasize team building, explore new possibilities, inspire people to follow their vision.
Key Characteristic of Great Leaders: Emotional Intelligence (the principal theorist of this theory is Daniel Goleman):
- Self-Awareness: Ability to recognize one’s emotions and their effects.
- Self-Regulation: Ability to think before acting and suppress disruptive moods.
- Motivation: A passion for the work beyond salary or status. Optimism, commitment, drive to do better.
- Empathy: Ability to understand people’s emotions and treat them accordingly.
- Social Skill: Good at building relationships and networks, finding common ground.
Leadership: Innate Ability Helpful, Practice Is Essential
Management experts debate if leadership is innate or learned; research suggests the latter. But innate traits such as drive, desire to lead, integrity, intelligence, and skill make it more likely that an individual will become a leader but are not the only factors in play. Research has shown that individuals can develop their leadership skills if they are given the right opportunities and mentored.
– Leadership as Innate: Intelligence and technical skill are key, and both are at least partially determined by genetics. Emotional intelligence—main predictor—tends to run in families and be greatly influenced by personality and childhood experience.
– Leadership as Learned: Businesses believe leaders can be created and invest a lot of time and money to identify and train individuals to assume leadership positions.
– Transactional Leaders, focus on meeting organizational goals. Make adjustments as needed to complete tasks for group.
– Transformational Leaders use personality/relations with followers to inspire the team to go above and beyond expectations. They are defined by charisma, vision, integrity, symbolism.
Abraham Lincoln, the Embodiment of Strong Leadership:
- Lincoln Model, Emotional Intelligence: By the time he had become President, Lincoln had mastered his emotions and exercised great control by not sending “hot letters.” When the time came for action, he acted decisively, but only after deep analysis of the full situation. His greatest asset was his astounding empathy to understand his rivals, allies, and especially his opponents, including the slaveholding South. He was also a beloved storyteller and well-liked and admired by his peers. Lincoln also learned from missteps and made amends with opponents when victorious, and he did not carry personal grudges. He was driven to have a life that fulfilled a higher purpose and to preserve the Union—a nation he believed that had great future promise.
- Lincoln Model, Learned Leadership: With just one year of schooling, Lincoln embodied personal drive and self-learning, as well as integrity. Lincoln spent years practicing his craft, in Whig party politics and then in the Illinois Legislature. He lost to his then-more renown rival Stephen Douglas in a U.S. Senate bid in 1856. He then won a brokered convention of the Republican Party in 1860, held in Chicago, after becoming the foremost speaker on the greatest issue of his day, the expansion of slavery. He credited the assistance of many benefactors and friends for believing in him and helping him rise to political prominence.
- Lincoln Model, Not One Style of Leadership: Lincoln mixed authoritarianism (suspending the writ of habeas corpus, etc.) as a wartime president, but had a democratic style with his cabinet (his “Team of Rivals,” the most capable politicians of his day he personally recruited). He was transformational; his peers recognized his greatness, inspiring them to work harder.