Expert Copywriting and Marketing Consulting in Medical Technology
Lessons in Leadership
The Differences between Leadership and Management
– by Lynn M. Little
Most of us were trained, formally or informally, in methods of management. Those methods served us well―until we were asked to lead. Then we found that management techniques did not help us to lead. The reason for this is simple: management and leadership are not the In his excellent book, A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management (NY: The Free Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc., 1990) Dr. John P. Kotter, Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Harvard Business School, points out that management is getting things done through (1) planning and budgeting, (2) organizing and staffing, and (3) controlling and problem-solving. In contrast, leadership is getting things done through (1) establishing direction, (2) aligning people, and (3) motivating and inspiring.
Management has to do with today, maintaining the status quo, efficiency, and doing things right. Leadership, on the other hand, has to do with tomorrow, change, effectiveness, and doing the right thing.
Management requires establishing a plan, setting goals to implement the plan, and achieving objectives to accomplish the goals. Leadership, on the other hand, requires creating a vision, defining a strategic direction that leads toward the vision, and pursuing individual strategies that make up the strategic direction.
Leadership, by itself, never keeps an operation on time and on budget, year after year ―because that’s not its function. On the other hand, management, by itself, never creates significant, useful change―because that’s not its function.
To be successful, an organization must (1) meet its current commitments by planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-staffing (i.e., managing), and (2) meet its future commitments by establishing a vision, setting direction toward the vision, and aligning followers who will work toward achieving the vision (i.e., leading).
Leadership and management activities are similar. That’s why we get them confused. But―here is the central point―in their essence, their functions are opposite. And the fact that their functions are opposite sets up an inevitable tension between leadership and management that must be balanced.
Management attempts to control things in the present to prevent change. (Once an activity has been developed and refined, management’s function is to ensure that the activity is performed in the same way, without change, every time.) In contrast, leadership challenges things in the present to promote change. Thus, leading creates change, while management controls change. Both functions deal with change, but in opposite ways.
Leading -—-> CHANGE <-—- Managing
(creates) (controls)
Both functions are necessary to meet current and future expectations of stakeholders. Organizational survival requires establishing a healthy balance in the tension between management and leadership. The organization’s goal should be steady, controlled growth based on constant but managed change.
One cannot manage one’s way to leadership. Remember, the functions of management and leadership are opposite. Doing something faster and with higher accuracy (i.e., more efficiently) does not promote leadership (which is all about doing things differently and more effectively, not faster or more accurately.) I am reminded of the airline captain who came on the intercom and announced, “I have good news and bad news. We’re making excellent time. We’re hopelessly lost.” This pilot was demonstrating good management but poor leadership.
Most organizations today are over-managed and under-led. What about your own organization?
Lynn M. Little retains the copyright of this column. No portion of this article may be republished without his express written permission.