Trade descriptions act violated?

Over the past few years, a great deal of management development has been improperly branded as ‘leadership development’; mostly because it sounds better, not because it really is about developing leaders.

This could be construed as fraudulent! However, trainers and developers get away with it because so many providers, clients and managers have bought into it.

It’s time to stop the hype and sort out the tangles. ‘Leadership’ is not just a sexy name for management. It is fundamentally different from management, and one day, someone is going to call the bluff on everyone who is peddling management training under the banner of ‘leadership’.

Take a look at your own training programmes. Are they management, are they leadership, or are they, like so many offerings around today, a bit of this and a bit of that?

Why is This Important?

With the rapid increase in flatter organisations, matrix structures and the demands placed on good employers to meet the changing needs of Generation Y-ers, there is now a greater need for effective leadership.

Trainers and developers recognise this, and have risen to the challenge. However, even in some of the most prestigious institutions, I have seen old management development programmes simply rebranded as ‘leadership development’, with little or no substantial alteration to the content or style with which they are being delivered.

This kind of misbranding turns off real leaders, sends mixed messages to organisations, and dilutes the potential value of both management and leadership development.


So What is the Difference?

When you think of the phrase “manager of people”, what comes to mind? What is that person doing? What do you expect your manager to do when he or she manages you? Consider your responses to these questions.

When you think of the phrase “leader of people”, what comes to mind? What are your thoughts? How is this different from “manager of people”?

Even a simple set of questions like these tells us that management is different from leadership, but I think we ought to be more thorough.

In short, management is an institution; the exercise of authority of one person over another; a set of organising processes that ensure stability, control and continuity. It is embedded within the concept of organisation. Leadership is a relationship; the way one individual influences another; preparedness by one person to follow and rely upon the guidance of the person who leads. Good leaders may not be good managers, and vice versa. It follows that management development should be very different from leadership development.

To be well managed, you need good processes; to be well led, you need good people. Systems need to be managed; people need to be led.


The Difference is in the Detail

MANAGEMENT
LEADERSHIP
Defined by rank
Not a function of rank
Doing things prescriptively
Implies discretion
Systematic
Personal
Depends upon authority
Depends upon relationships
Relies on technique, which can be taught
Grows out of character, which can be developed, but not taught
Demands process capability
Demands emotional maturity

Let us look more closely at some of these differences.

Rank
One of the reasons why people confuse management with leadership is that it has become commonplace to use the word ‘leader’ to define anyone in a senior role within an institution, be it organisational or political. People refer to senior managers as ‘the leadership’, simply because they happen to be near or at the top of a hierarchy.

I have come across better leadership at the lowest ranks of many organisations that I have found at the top. Being senior does not make someone a leader; it simply means this individual has potential for leadership. Whether they exercise this potential is another matter.

Discretion
One of the defining features of being in a leadership role is the amount of discretion an individual has: how he or she actually decides what to do, why, and how to do it.

But how much discretion does anyone actually have? This is as much a matter of attitude and character as it is of rank. Budding leaders within almost any organisational context are often those who feel they can take discretionary action, and do so. Leaders often differentiate themselves from others, not by what they do, but by how they do it; how much they take the initiative and create the space to put their own stamp on even the most menial and trivial roles.

Leaders seize discretion; managers, as such, do not and should not.

Individuality and Character
No two leaders will lead in exactly the same way. To succeed in leadership, lacking the formal authority of management, demands that people are willing to follow. They will not do so unless they believe in you.

So much of the research into successful leaders shows that what people buy into is not your ideas, your policies or your arguments, but you. It also shows that the essence of the ‘you’ that people buy into is your character.

The research has identified a direct link between leadership and leaders’ characters. It shows that individual leaders are most likely to be effective if their strategies for leading are closely aligned to what they believe in, and how those beliefs manifest themselves through character.

Successful leaders act with the integrity that comes from being true to themselves and what they believe in. Good leadership comes from being good at being who you are.

Managers, as the word implies, manage organisations, systems, processes, as well as people, all of which demand a degree of uniformity across the management population. Good management comes from being good at what you do.

Managers gain much of their authority from their position in a hierarchy. Even poor managers can get people to do things, because they have that authority over them. Leaders rely on influence.

Technique
Managers need to operate within the system; leaders transcend systems. Managers need to acquire knowledge of and skill in the techniques that make an organisation’s systems and processes work smoothly; these are things that can be taught. Leadership grows out of individual character; this cannot be taught, but can be developed.

Emotional Maturity
Managers know when they are getting it right; the systems and measures within an organisation provide confirmation and certainty. Because a leader has discretion, and because leadership is demanded in ambiguous, uncertain and complex situations, leaders need the qualities of emotional maturity – self-belief, emotional resilience, a sense of purpose, empathy for others, and social skills – to be effective.


Developing Leaders

Leadership cannot be taught, but leaders can be helped to develop. This can only be effective when our leadership development programmes and interventions are designed, developed and delivered with leadership, not management, as the focus.

It is in the nature of management development that the focal point of any intervention is the organisation. Management development starts with the systems, processes, competences and behaviours that managers need to learn about and respond to. Implicit in management development is the message, “This is how we want you to do things.” One of they key tasks of management developers is to teach managers how to acquire the skills and capabilities to do those things in the desired ways.

A management development programme is about getting people to behave in certain ways. Managers adapt their behaviour to fit the norms of the organisation.

Because leadership comes from character, leadership development starts with the individual. A leadership development programme is about helping people to acquire insights into themselves, their character and personality, and how they differ from, or share certain similarities with others. This enables each and every leader to discover and develop their own personalised strategy for leadership. Leaders develop behaviour to influence the norms of the organisation.


Management Development is not Dead

We still need good management development programmes. Organisations that are all leadership and no management are likely to collapse in very short order, just as organisations that are all management and no leadership will stagnate.

The trouble is that, unless we in the industry clearly separate these two development streams, we are likely to be delivering neither good management development nor good leadership development, but a confused set of potentially contradictory messages that may confuse even the most enthusiastic participants.


What’s in Your Portfolio?

Here’s a challenge. Look closely at what you are offering and delivering to the market or your internal clients. Is each intervention clear about whether it is true management development or true leadership development? Are you calling your management development activities, ‘leadership development’, just to be trendy? Do your clients really understand the differences between management and leadership? Are you delivering management development, leadership development or both? If it is ‘both’, how clearly do you differentiate between the two?