When furthering the skills of your managers and leaders, you must first define the difference between management and leadership. Mike Morrison says that many believe you can train management skills, but you develop leadership abilities, and he explores the options open to those responsible for the training and development of managers and leaders.
As our organisations change and adapt so must the people running them – our managers and leaders. In the past, many organisations have neglected to develop and train this group, letting most find their own way to their own unique management or leadership style.
The best organisations know that consistency is the name of the game for continued success. At the same time there has been much debate about methodologies – to train or to develop; to feed or to grow.
I would define the difference between management and leadership skills as follows:
- Management skills: The skills required to manage people and resources to deliver a product or service.
- Leadership skills: The skills required to engage with people and persuade them to ‘buy-in’ to a vision or goal.
You can have one without the other – but this is not without cost. Management without leadership will be fine in a culture of compliance and conformity. Leadership without management can lead to maverick behaviours.
Real effectiveness comes from an appropriate blend of both. Overall success comes from developing people at the same pace as the organisation; and developing people is as much about developing those who are running the organisation as it is those who deliver throughout it.
Business growth from people development (click image to see larger version)
To me, management is more about process, and leadership is primarily about people and attitude.
Management skills and knowledge are fundamental and can be taught. Leadership, on the other hand, tends to be a factor of personality and experience. So you train management skills and develop leadership capability.
Now, as I write this, I can here the click of keyboards all over saying but its not as simple as that… and they are right! But for the purposes of this article, that is the simplistic premise taken.
Get the basics right first
It does not matter if you are training or developing managers or leaders, the basics are vital:
- Can this individual build rapport?
- Can they set goals?
- Can they give honest constructive feedback?
- Can they make the tough decisions?
The potential list here is huge – but these are great for starters.
Training managers
So how do you train managers? Well the biggest mistake many people make is to assume that, because a person holds a senior position, they have covered the basics – this is just not true.
Some years ago, when I was head of training for a private hospital and we ran management training programmes, we encouraged people to take a step back academically, so people that would traditionally have done a diploma programme attended a certificate, and those that would have gone in at certificate level, started on a first line manager programme.
This ensured that everyone had at least a common point of reference. At the end of the pilot programme, results were well above what was expected. Indeed some 10 years on, every one of the managers that started on the first line manager programme are now heads of department, either in the original company or now in others. This is still a methodology I advocate today.
Many people forget that being a manager is a profession in its own right, and it should be treated as such. This means starting (academically) at the bottom. On many occasions as a business advisor, I was called in to help a business that had been started on the back of a MBA relationship, only to find that the basics were not in place, and while the directors knew the theory of running a business, they lacked the basics of people management and day-to-day processes.
So for me the most effective way to train managers is an input of knowledge with the opportunity to practice and get feedback in the workplace. One day wonders are just that, a passing day of interest with little impact. Change takes time and effort.
Developing leaders
Apart from some basic principles, such as goal setting, influencing and so on, the most effective leadership development is on the job, and supported by a mentor, coach or action learning set. Measurements for success can include morale surveys, staff surveys and so on.
Good leadership is developed over time. Leaders recognise their own strengths and weaknesses, they know that to move forward they must be prepared to take action (or risks) as well as have the people around them with the ideas for change and progress (creativity).
While peer review groups and coaching are great tools, it is vital that the ‘right’ people are involved. For example, an action learning set needs to be balanced; there is no point having one senior manager and four middle managers, as the senior will not gain much. Equally, there are many people purporting to be manager and leadership coaches. What underpinning knowledge do they have? What management qualifications do they have? What real business experience do they have? In other words, are they credible?
This is not to say that there is a universal ‘right’ way to train managers or develop leaders – each company and culture will need its own blend of skills and attitudes – a good reason why recruitment is so hard – you only need to look at what happens in the world of football and the coming and going of managers to know that it is not just about skill, but cultural fit.
An effective management training programme will ensure the basics are in place, and train people for the relevant policies and procedures as well as the basic underpinning knowledge required of a manager, of any sort.
To develop leaders, we need to take account of the culture of the organisation, the level of autonomy available to managers and leaders, and then we need to put in place support systems appropriate to the organisation and its culture to support the growth of people with potential.
Mike Morrison FCIPD MIoD MIBC is a trainer and coach specialising in business improvement. Over the past 10 years, he has coached and supported hundreds of managers and organisations in the development of both individuals and the organisations in which they operate. For more information, please visit www.rapidbi.com/bir
4 Responses
Leadership, Management and one other!
Sorry to add more stress to Don’s day but I not only buy into the differences between Leadership and Management (and Mike describes them well) but I’m afraid there is occasionally a third element to all this too – Command.
I’ve served in the Personnel realm of the Royal Navy for 21 years now and we not only recognise the necessity of the ability to Manage, the talent to Lead but also the requirement to Command. You could say that this is a form of Leadership (that’s of course if you believe Leadership is a seperate entity to Management!) but we make a clear distinction between the two.
We teach people to manage and we develop their leadership abilities (not all have them though!), however, the power of command can make the difference between a strong leader and a weak one. This is an ability to impress upon others that the authority lies with you.
Ahh! The complex world we live in!
Managers versus Leaders
Oops! I think I forgot to tick the comment box when I first relpied, and I’d really like to know what you think, as you post your reply.
This is such a big topic, and I am quite sure there are no easy answers – only healthy discussion.
Kind regards
Jeremy
Leadership v Management Skills: Apples and Pears
Notwithstanding Don’s rather acerbic comments below, which I wouldn’t wish to gainsay, I thought Mike’s article was rather good.
Apart from any professional jealousies in this field, which I do not presume but do understand, I find many such debates on this topic can be built on a false premise in comparing apparently like for like ‘leadership’ qualities and ‘management skills’.
Is it therefore helpful to agree the following?
– Management is a task, usually job-specific.
– Leadership is a quality, most often person- and then situationally-specific.
– Both are organisationally specific.
In any organisation, one may find great managers who are poor leaders and, even if less often, vice versa. Both may be culturally and thus organisationally specific.
Great managers and superb leaders are quite capable of failing in the ‘wrong’ culture for them, and poor ones may well blossom elsewhere.
At a senior-enough level to be influential, whether hierarchically or just intellectually or socially, both great managers and leaders may create their own ‘cultures’ to be effective. But if so, the tendency is to call such people great leaders, even if they are not really. (If you want an example, and I am not too sure about this, I suspect Arnold Weinstock was a great ‘manager’ in such a mould, but not inherently a great leader. Maybe also Lord Hanson and Jack Welch? And the past ‘leaders’ of other process-driven conglomerates such as Siebe Gorman, BTR, FKI and many others? Also quite a few iconic Trade Union ‘leaders’?)
In any organisation, ‘leaders’ can be like elephants. You can clearly identify them but they can be hard to define. Especially for others who want to emulate and follow them. Because becoming yet another ‘elephant’ in their mould may be in danger of becoming one of the white variety.
So in terms of developing ‘leaders’ – may we not best stick to the *qualities* required and not confuse these with the *skills* required to be a ‘manager’?
‘Apples and pears’, don’t you think? The execution of either may need to be ‘simple’, but the underlying processes are surely both deeply complex and entirely different.
Best wishes
Jeremy
Leadership vs Management
Well I don’t buy into this differentiation…..never have and never will.
How on earth we can expect our managers/supervisors/team leaders to interpret this fad which has been perpetrated by people looking to create another income stream. The whole proposition just leaves me wondering who we set out to help……..ourselves or the manager.
The fact is that for every manager, from the front line supervisor/leading hand/foreman, through to the CEO, you cannot split up and suggest [which this line of thinking does]that we might manage today and if we have the right inclination, lead tomorrow. If you are going to be successful in managing people, then you have to learn all the skills of leading. The reverse applies.
So why do we not forget the complications, and get on with helping people to manage their teams……by engaging with them;
by letting them know from time to time that this is the way the organisation wants things done, and until someone comes up with a better idea then that-is-it;
by creating a vision which they identify with and work towards…….and so it goes on.
And one last parting shot………is this not one of the reasons we have in place so much theory on management, yet continue to have so many managers/leaders not doing their jobs as they should??? So how about trying to simplify rather than complicate this vitally important job we require people to undertake. Cheers.