Dedication to a cause and it’s associated goals implies commitment.    A clear sign of commitment is agreement to complete an action by a specified date.

Do or do not!

Maybe, if, and I will try are indicative of a lack of commitment.  Although agreement to make an attempt (try) is viewed as a commitment by some I am much more conservative.

Yoda, a seminal character in the Star Wars franchise captured my own perspective on this topic perfectly when he said “do or do not, there is no try”.  My view of this is, the doing of something does not preclude failure,  but psychologically this is very different from just trying.

Doing does not equate to trying for me, but rather it is indicative of full unbiased  commitment.  That is, doing it, whether you succeed or fail represents whole hearted committment while trying indicates a recognition you might fail before even doing it.

In this case the committment is only half hearted.

Why Commit?

The power of full commitment lies in the probability of success.  Back to Star Wars, Luke Skywalker, a young Jedi master is seeking to move a large object with the force. He is unable to do so after trying again and again.  Yoda advises him to do or do not, there is no try.  Following this advise he succeeds.

I put this story  down a an illustration that the reduction of the risk of failure, when failure is not accepted as a possibility before you have even started can lead to success.

So the next time you are challenged to do somethings, accept it with a time to complete by or do accept it (fully).  Remember, there is no value in trying, if you are no going to do it, just say so up front.

Yesterdays post focused on the concept of a manager.  There was a time that C series positions in organizations were considered senior managers.

Today it’s more likely to hear them referred to as leaders.  In fact from senior to mid levels of management, even low level managers and some supervisors are thought of as leaders.

Leader/Manager, what’s the diff?

While both leaders and managers get things done through others, that is where the similarity ends.  The difference is both what is done and how it is enabled.

Managers use planning (schedule/ strategy), organizing (processes/ policy/reporting lines) and control ( monitoring/governance) to get the work done, make sure it is the right work and done efficiently with high quality.

Leaders collaborate, motivate, communicate (two way), understand, guide, facilitate and so on.  These practices, particularly enabling the creation  of visions and strategies to inform the tactical work, are intended to get work done through others, but are believed to be far more effective than just planning organizing and directing.

As I noted yesterday neither leaders nor managers typically physically perform the work they are getting done through others.  Their work, and this applies to both roles, is ensuring the right work is done in the best way. (Best meaning highly satisfactory to all stakeholders).

Understanding the Principal

While leadership practices outshine basic management, understanding the core principal in basic terms, i.e., the goal is to get work done through others, is absolutely fundamental and key to becoming effective as a leader.

First management basics, second leadership.

The classic business school definition of a manager is very goal and task focused.  Managers get things done through others.  The three top skills are plan, organize and control.

Leadership is a skill that can be leveraged by managers, supervisors or anyone else for that matter.  Typically managers and supervisors are given granted power but skilled leadership gets things done through collaboration, buy-in and leveraging the power of everyone ( albeit must be earned).

What do you do?

In a manager role, whether through a direct reporting heirarchy or an assignment specific basic (often called matrix because granted power is lower and earned power critical), I have been asked “What do you do?”

The short answer is I complete no task work.  Tongue in cheek, I do nothing.  If I am skilled at my main goal, getting work done through others, others complete the activities and tasks efficiently and effectively .  They know what to do when.

If the goals and objectives are achieved because the work is completed I am successful although I probably did nothing beyond facilitate, motivate guide and lead.

In a manager role (e.g., a project manager) I am accountable to plan, organize and control.

A good manager recognizes when those doing the work push back and complain,  the manager just needs the self confidence to smile knowingly and hold their tongue.

Complaints  about the lack of work the manager does including accusing them of just being just a scheduler or administrator questioning why they are even needed is typically initiated without the maturity or experience to understand the real value.

Through experience I have seen the results when there is no or poorly executed management.  The results are costly and painful.  Managers don’t do anything but without their skilled planning, organizing and control disaster reigns (losses, low quality, bad morale, high turnover, just to name a few symptoms.