The Difference between Management and Leadership

“Most US corporations today are over managed and under led”. This statement by Kotter could equally apply to European corporations but on this side of the Atlantic there is not necessarily the reflex that the solution to this problem is more (or even some) leadership. In France, the word for leadership is “le leadership” – it is often treated as an Anglo-Saxon concept that is literally quite foreign. A big problem for leadership development programs in France is that you cannot necessarily expect candidates to arrive at a course knowing what leadership is, wanting to learn it and wishing to apply it! The starting point is therefore to at least explain what leadership is…

The first “defining” article on this subject was written by Abraham Zaleznik in 1977 and asked the question “Managers and Leaders: are they different?”; however it is Kotter’s later simplicity which drew me back to his 1990 article looking at “What Leaders Really Do”. (Reprint R0111F at www.hbr.org). He builds on Zaleznik’s earlier work and whilst clarifying the differences, he also emphasises that management and leadership are complimentary.

Here's the summary followed by my culturally biased critique (“et alors”).

The difference between Management and Leadership, or “What Leaders Really Do”.

Management is about coping with complexity whereas leadership is about coping with change. They both involve deciding what needs to be done; creating networks of people to accomplish the objective; and then ensuring that the work actually gets done. However, managers and leaders achieve these tasks in different manners:

Planning and budgeting versus setting direction

·         Managers try to predict long-term orderly results from a complex environment.

·         Leaders have a vision of where the business ought to be in the future and direct strategies to achieve that goal.

Organising and staffing versus aligning people

·         Managers get the right people in the relevant positions to ensure processes and plans are followed correctly and efficiently.

·         Leaders constantly communicate their vision and strategy to all stakeholders and empower employees with a clear sense of direction.

Controlling activities and solving problems versus motivating and inspiring

·         Managers follow up on the plan, the budget and the process and then correct as necessary.

·         Leaders energise people – they inspire people with their vision and know how to motivate people at a human level.

Et alors?

Kotter really has made it simple. Unfortunately, in its simplistic form it can appear to readers working in big corporations the only place for leadership is at the very “top” of the organisation; however that is not the case (and not Kotter’s message).  There is room in big corporations to add value through leadership at all levels of the hierarchy. There are always going to be changes to be made at all different levels and those changes will require leaders to achieve them. Visions, strategy and direction don’t necessarily have to be sky-high – they need to be relevant and targeted at the right level.

Planning versus direction? What about those big corporations working in mature industries built on expert technical and engineering knowledge? The strategy department usually takes care of the long-term plan and it does not always seem like a change is even possible! In France, the difficulty starts with the “vision” thing. There are leaders in France and they do have visions, the trouble is however that those visions have to go through a complete Cartesian review to make sure that they can “survive” as a vision. Things might have moved on by the time the vision is “released”. A famous quote from a French government official once was “yes we know it works in practice, but does it work in theory?” The visions have to be “bullet-proof” in the French environment. Accordingly, the downside is that the occasional pragmatic try-and-see approach is not going to get very far; the upside is that when a vision does appear, it really is absolutely brilliant!

Organising versus aligning? With the occasional brilliant vision the old-style French leader never really felt compelled to embark on an Anglo-Saxon marketing campaign to “align” his stakeholders. Customers could be confused; partners would be baffled; governments might rather talk to others; and staff could argue but to no avail (better to spend some time getting back to the long-term plan)! But the vision made absolute sense and the responsibility was on others to make the effort to understand! Alas, this approach is no longer viable. In a multicultural context, leaders in large corporations of whatever national origin are going to have to “sell” their visions to all the stakeholders. Expectations amongst customers, partners, governments and staff are all going to be different in different countries and for the French, there are not many other countries in the world with a Cartesian mindset!

Controlling versus motivating? Without any sense of irony I have had French colleagues approach me saying “I can’t understand it, but my team is really unmotivated” as if it were none of their responsibility and the staff themselves were at fault (like naughty children)! An even more common phrase heard in French offices is “that new person on the team – she’s really well motivated”. The locus of motivation is more on the individual than on the manager in France, in contrast to the American model where the responsibility for providing motivation seems to rest with the leader. Is the solution not somewhere in between? Both the staff and the hierarchy have to provide some motivation. As Kotter said, management and leadership are complementary. So here’s hoping that all those big corporations in France continue to have good managers, but let’s not neglect the leadership aspect!