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.

Complications arise when circumstances create an obstacle, require effort to hurdle through and move ahead or a problem arises that appears difficult to resolve .

I wonder how much of these complication are in fact of our own making.  In our head, so to speak, we devise problems that don’t exist.

To some degree I have observed others devise and communicate complications during a team collaboration, a behaviour I suspect is largely a way to gain recognition and be percieved as important.

Without Accountability

One of my greatest frustrations is when individuals are participating in a meeting,  or other collaborative activity, without clear purpose or accountability.

In these case the temptation for them to create complications simply to justify their presence is high.  What a waste of both everyones effort and of course efficiency and effectiveness fly out the window.

Hidden Agenda

Less frequent but just as frustrating are those occassions when someone raises complications just to be purposely disruptive.  These cases are usually motivated by some hidden agenda (e.g., derail the work, stop a change from occuring and so on)

Relax, Coast on Thru

Frustration, anger, paying attention to these silly complications in any way just feeds the disruptors motive.  Firm, polite facilitation toward the goal (which is was clearly stated up front) is a great mitigator of those who complicate.

I frequently find other participants readily support going back on track.  By not paying attention or getting hooked by extraneous and unecessary complications you will find the odds of achieving your objective rise significantly.