It is said, “Cut off the head, and the body will wither.” During World War II, the Germans made every effort to kill off enemy officers, assuming that without their leadership Allied troops would crumble. But a funny thing happened: Every time a leader was put out of commission, someone else stepped up and assumed the role—whether or not he held rank.

The impromptu replacements didn’t think about it, discuss it, or worry about whether they could successfully do it; in the chaos of battle, they took the initiative, did what was necessary, and became “leaders in the instance.”

Leaders aren’t born, nor are they promoted, appointed, or anointed. Leaders develop by doing; they develop with assistance from their managers and company, without it, and, sometimes, in spite of it.

Once in a management role, they have no choice, because today’s workplace requires an enlightened, demanding, and independent workforce that has no problem voting with its feet when unhappy.

Decades ago, a major disservice was done to business when the idea that managers and leaders were separate and that leaders were “better” than managers was introduced. Sadly, that attitude is still in force today, but look carefully at these distinctions, from Warren Bennis’s On Becoming a Leader, and ask yourself how well any manager or leader can perform in the twenty-first-century workplace without both sets of skills.

• The manager maintains; the leader develops.
• The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.
• The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
• The manager accepts reality; the leader investigates it.
• The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

The difference between being labeled a good, mediocre, or bad manager is often the difference between how many of the so-called leadership traits the manager embraces. Leaders are said to have vision and the ability to communicate it to their people, but that is exactly what every manager, even the lowest-level team leader, must do, within the scope of their role, if they want their people to be productive and innovative.

It is good to remember that people do not join companies because of the CEO or a few top executives—they join for the culture and the people, specifically their team and manager.

These two areas are tightly interwoven; there is an overall company culture and a subculture perpetrated by the manager to whom they report, no matter how junior. And each subculture is influenced more by the person directly above than by the person in the corner office.

Therefore, disseminating these skills throughout the organization requires a concerted effort that starts with the CEO and extends across the executive ranks, because it is on the rocky shores of culture that this effort usually sinks.

To lead means to show initiative, which means taking risks and braving the possibility of failure.

In a culture where failure is cause for anything from private sarcasm to public belittling and even dismissal, who in their right mind will show initiative? If the messenger is killed, who will speak up when the news is bad?

In short, senior managers have no choice but to push leadership down through the ranks—just as responsibility was pushed down forty years ago, as organizations flattened and companies stripped away management levels.

Life and work are always about choices, and promoting leadership throughout your part of the organization is a matter of choice, whether or not those above you make the same choice.

This article was first published in the October 2009 issue of The Conference Board magazine.

Image credit: Free Images

“There is a profound difference between management and leadership, and both are important. To manage means to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct. Leading is influencing, guiding in a direction, course, action, opinion. The distinction is crucial”  –Warren Bennis

The links below are to a series I did in 2008 refuting Bennis’ thesis.

According  to Bennis

• The manager administers; the leader innovates.
• The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

Link

• The manager maintains; the leader develops.
• The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.

Link

• The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
• The manager accepts reality; the leader investigates it.

Link

• The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.
• The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.

Link

• The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his or her eye on the horizon.
• The manager imitates; the leader originates.

Link

• The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.
• The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.

(How weird; this post is nowhere to be found.)

• The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

Link

Think about it; would you work for a boss who exemplified just one side or the other?

Wally Bock said it best on Monday, It’s not about people. It’s about different kinds of work. If you’re responsible for the performance of a group you have to lead and you have to manage and you have to supervise. You don’t get a choice.

As to so-called leadership, remember that real leaders are proclaimed as such by those around them, not by themselves.

Flickr image credit: Robert Couse-Baker

This post is a follow-up to Wally Bock’s leadership critique yesterday — only I wrote it in 2009.

Leader, Manager, Bureaucrat

Frequent readers know that I am not a devotee of Warren Bennis, who famously propagated the idea that leaders and managers are not only different, but that ‘leaders’ are higher on the food chain possessing far more value than the lowly manager.

I have devoted numerous posts to dispelling this attitude, much like Don Quixote tilting at his windmills. (It’s not a new attitude; I’ve had a statue of Quixote and Sancho Panza for years:)

I was discussing this over lunch with several executives and voiced my thought that no manager at any level can function successfully in today’s climate unless they are a leader.

This brought forth a terrific response from one CEO that is well worth sharing.

“A manager who doesn’t lead is a bureaucrat.”

An astute, simple and very accurate statement for people who are, or aspire to be, in charge, no matter of what or at what level, to frame and hang on their walls.

If you don’t want to

• craft and share a vision of what, why and when {whatever} needs to happen and leave the ‘how’ to your team;
• share information openly and willingly;
• take the time to craft communications that can be heard and understood by all;
• help both your company and your team become all that they can be;
• shoulder the responsibility, but give away the credit; and
• think ‘them’ before ‘me’;

then you shouldn’t be in charge.

More on the subject tomorrow, but for more leadership insights today be sure to read the June Leadership Development Carnival.

Flickr image credit: Richard Heyes

Wally Bock is one of the smartest guys I know on the subject of being a boss. I find his approaches on everything to be based in the kind of common sense that is easily recognized as being bang-on.

If I knew Wally better, and he didn’t live on the other coast, I would have kissed him for his post last Friday.

But,  since that isn’t possible, I’m reposting it here — in total gratitude.

Leadership “wisdom” that makes me crazy

May 28, 2015 03:00 pm | Wally Bock

Did you know that there are almost 300 books that Amazon thinks contain “leadership secrets?” Do a Google search for the phrase and you’ll get more than nine million results in about half a second. That makes me crazy.

We’ve studied leaders and leadership for millennia. Is it really possible that there’s a secret out there that we haven’t uncovered? This sounds to me like those “medical breakthroughs” that are announced in infomercials.

Those thoughts started me thinking about other “leadership” things that make me crazy. Here they are in no particular order.

Anyone can lead

Really? In theory maybe, but in real life there are people who don’t want the accountability. Others are pathologically afraid of confrontation. And there are others who won’t make decisions. Anyone can have influence, but not everyone is willing to lead.

Don’t bring me a problem unless you bring a solution.

Oh right! If I see a problem and can’t find a solution you don’t want to know about it? Do you really think it’s better to go on in blissful ignorance until the problem blows up all over you? Besides, problems are often where progress starts.

That stupid bus!

Getting the right people on the bus and then deciding where to go sounds good, until you think about it. First off, most managers don’t get that luxury. They have to achieve the goals they’re given with the people they’ve got. But more fundamentally, how can you know the characteristics of “the right people” until you know where you’re going?

For the record, this might make sense for some start-ups. It did for Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard.

Leaders versus Managers

Argh! I don’t care what Warren Bennis said. It’s not about people. It’s about different kinds of work. If you’re responsible for the performance of a group you have to lead and you have to manage and you have to supervise. You don’t get a choice.

For the record, Peter Drucker never talked about leaders and managers as separate kinds of people, but he did discuss leadership and management.

Flickr image credit: US Army

Frequent readers know that I am not a devotee of Warren Bennis, who famously propagated the idea that leaders and managers are not only different, but that ‘leaders’ are higher on the food chain possessing far more value than the lowly manager.

I have devoted numerous posts to dispelling this attitude (See series starting here.), much like Don Quixote tilting at his windmills. (It’s not a new attitude; I’ve had a statue of Quixote and Sancho Panza for years:)

I was discussing this over lunch with several executives and voiced my thought that no manager at any level can function successfully in today’s climate unless she is a leader.

This brought forth a terrific response from a CEO that is well worth sharing.

“A manager who doesn’t lead is a bureaucrat.”

An astute, simple and very accurate statement for people who are, or aspire to be, in charge, no matter of what or at what level, to frame and hang on their walls.

If you don’t want to

• craft and share a vision of what, why and when {whatever} needs to happen and leave the ‘how’ to your team;
• share information openly and willingly;
• take the time to craft communications that can be heard and understood by all;
• help both your company and your team become all that they can be;
• shoulder the responsibility, but give away the credit; a
• think ‘them’ before ‘me’;

then you shouldn’t be in charge.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: scriptingnews on flickr

One of the most important things to keep in mind as you study and work to develop your personal leadership abilities, the ones you’ll use throughout your life, whatever you’re doing and no matter the position, is that they’re neutral.

That’s right, leadership skills and abilities are without prejudice, neither good nor bad—you might say they swing both ways.

According to Warren Bennis, a leader innovates, develops, focuses on people, inspires trust, has a long-range perspective, keeps an eye on the horizon, originates, and is his own person.

Does that sound like someone you’d like to emulate? Because it’s a perfect description of Bernie Madoff.

Leadership actions are a MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) function. In other words, it’s not the actions that are worth emulating, but the MAP.

Notice I said emulating, not copying.

Consider those people you respect, as well as those lower on your list. Even when you disagree with parts of their MAP, you may agree with others, which means you can draw from many sources, but in the end it’s your MAP and that makes it absolutely unique to you.

During this holiday season, think about it. The economic mess with which the world is dealing was created by people with great skills and, to be polite, challenged MAP.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

According to Warren Bennis there are 13 differences between leaders and managers. We previously discussed whether the modern workforce can actually be managed without doing both.

Last week we talked about being an original; now let’s look at something that underlies several of the items on Bennis’ list.

Among the 13 things that leaders do are investigate reality, ask what and why, and challenge the status quo. They may sound different, but the same action underlies each one.

The ability to do all three of these means that you do not make assumptions (the ‘A’ in AMS).

What will you find if you start your investigation from the viewpoint that certain parts have more validity than others?

How can you hear all the input when questioning the premise of an action if you are predisposed to hear one thing (or person) above another?

How can you challenge, let alone upset, what currently is if you blindly accept any of its underlying premises?

Typically, assumptions are buried in your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) and require a heightened level of self-awareness to recognize them. With effort, it’s possible to build an automatic MAP monitoring system that sends a warning when assumptions start creeping into your actions. Remember, assumptions are insidious, sneaky and often masquerade as common sense/logical thinking.

For instance, you are assuming if you

• evaluate/judge a speaker based on looks, clothes, position, cohorts, even reputation;
• request information, but already have your position roughed out; or
• consider your ideology inviolate and not open to question.

Ridding yourself of assumptions is difficult; in fact, it’s one of the most difficult skills you’ll ever develop, but you can develop it by staying aware of your own thoughts and being brutally honest with yourself.

Assumptions blind you so you cannot see and deafen you so you cannot hear.

Now, repeat after me: “Assumptions are bad!”

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

In a post last spring, I listed Warren Bennis’ leadership skills and in 7 follow-up posts discussed why today’s managers find it hard to do their job without these skills.

But, in fact, everybody needs them in today’s world; they’re the skills that help you live a better life, raise kids and make a better world—no matter who you are or what you do.

Many of my posts touch on the same facts, but we’ll zero in on more how-to information in this series.

Bennis says that “leaders are originals, whereas managers are copies,” but what does that mean to an individual?

Foremost, it means that you think for yourself, instead of buying into an ideology, religion or what parents, friends, colleagues or the commuter who sits next to you every day say.

That doesn’t mean that you always do things differently or ignore everything you hear, but it does mean that you reserve your right to question, modify and partly or totally reject whatever it is.

This isn’t always obvious. Most adults honestly believe that they are originals, but they forget that their MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) has been shaped since childhood by all those outside forces.

This is even truer of business and political leaders who are rarely original; rather they conform to a general pattern laid down by pundits, benchmarks, and expectations.

As an individual, your MAP is still your own. You can reject all or part of the external forces and, as it used to be said, ‘do your own thing’.

Being an original means that you choose what is best and what to do in each given situation; it means taking in all the wisdom, mundane advice and foolishness and synthesize them into the best decision that you’re capable of making.

As you’ve probably figured out, being an original isn’t the easy way to go. It’s far more comfortable to be a copy; to follow without question the ideology, religion, parents, friends—anyone or anything that takes away the fear of making the wrong choice.

I’ve always been an original, much to my family’s consternation when I was growing up, and to many of the bosses I’ve had since; I even adopted Frank Sinatra’s My Way as my personal theme.

I don’t really remember feeling scared as I careened through my early life doing what I thought was right, but I do know that I learned what my thought process was called when I was in my early twenties. From then on I did it consciously and it’s never let me down.

It’s that process that I want to share with you, because it works.

It’s called “worst case analysis.”

What you do is look at what you’re planning and think about the absolute worst thing that could happen if you do it. Then think through whether and how you would deal with that result. If you can handle it, then you go forward; if it’s too much you go back to the planning board. Works every time.

Do this, and at the end of your life you, too, will be able to say,

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows –
And did it my way!

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit:

Post from Leadership Turn  Image credit: danzo08  CC license

It’s not unusual for me to come up with what I think will be a great post and then find someone else thinking about the same thing.

Last Thursday I was sorting through ‘leadership’ articles and blog posts, once again disgusted with all the references to ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’ that had little to do with leading and much to do with position.

Suddenly the proverbial light bulb went on and I realized that I could actually define my version of leadership without using the l-word (I hate words that are defined using variations of themselves). I decided to let the idea simmer for a couple of days and see if it still looked good Sunday.

Then Friday I ran across Dan McCarthy’s post challenging his readers to define leadership as well as offering up a number of famous definitions.

Now that you’re primed, here’s my epiphany, feel free to shoot it down, tell me why and offer your own, but first some background.

On April 29 I wrote Leader/manager = leadager and followed it up with a seven-day series arguing that Warren Bennis’ statement “There is a profound difference between management and leadership…” doesn’t hold true with today’s modern workforce, i.e., great managers have to embrace Bennis’ leadership traits in order to motivate and retain their people.

OK, here’s my definition.

A leader is a great manger who is also a mensch.

What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: Sam UL

After all this talk about the need for managers to possess strong leadership traits, I have another question for you.

According to Warren Bennis’ list, a leader

• innovates;
• is an original;
• develops;
• focuses on people;
• inspires;
• investigates reality;
• long-range perspective;
• asks what and why;
• eye on the horizon;
• originates;
• challenges the status quo;
• is his own person;
• does the right thing.

What percentage of these traits is possessed by the people you see who are termed leaders?

“Influence” has become the hallmark of leadership. What percentage of these traits is possessed by those around you who influence?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL