I do not happen to be a person from the OB/HR management domain. But in spite of that there are certain areas outside finance which have always fascinated me as a reader and follower. I have come across many discussions wherein a lot of interesting thoughts have been put into finding out the difference between a true leader and a good manager. Here I have made an attempt to make an effort.
The biggest difference between managers and leaders is the way they motivate people who work or follow them. This sets the tone for most other aspects of what they do.
Many people, by the way, are both. They have management jobs, but they realize that you cannot buy hearts, especially to follow them down a difficult path, and so act as leaders too.
Managers have subordinates. They have a position of authority vested in them by the company, and their subordinates work for them as they are told to. Management style is transactional in that the manager tells the subordinates what to do. They do this as they have been promised a reward (at minimum their salary) for doing so.
Managers are paid to get things done, as they are subordinates too, often within tight constraints of time and money. They thus naturally pass on this work focus to their subordinates.
An interesting research finding about managers is that they tend to come from stable home backgrounds and led relatively normal and comfortable lives. This leads them to be relatively risk-averse and they will seek to avoid conflict where possible. In terms of people, they generally like to run a 'happy ship'.
Leaders have followers and do not have subordinates when they are leading. Those who do have subordinates are because they are also managers. But when they want to lead, they have to give up formal authoritarian control. To lead is to have followers and following is always a voluntary activity.
Telling people what to do does not inspire them to follow you. You have to appeal to them, showing how following them will lead to their hearts' desire. They must want to follow you enough to stop what they are doing and perhaps walk into danger and situations that they would not normally consider risking.
Leaders with a stronger charisma find it easier to attract people to their cause. As a part of their persuasion they typically promise transformational benefits, such that their followers will not just receive extrinsic rewards but will somehow become better people.
Although many leaders have a charismatic style to some extent, this does not require a loud personality. They are always good with people, and quiet styles that give credit to others (and take blame on themselves) are very effective at creating the loyalty that great leaders engender.
Although leaders are good with people, this does not mean they are friendly with them. In order to keep the mystique of leadership, they often retain a degree of separation and aloofness.
This does not mean that leaders do not pay attention to tasks - in fact they are often very achievement-focused. What they do realize, however, is the importance of enthusing others to work towards their vision.
In the same study that showed managers as risk-averse, leaders appeared as risk-seeking, although they are not blind thrill-seekers. When pursuing their vision, they consider it natural to encounter problems and hurdles that must be overcome along the way. They are thus comfortable with risk and will see routes that others avoid as potential opportunities for advantage and will happily break rules in order to get things done.
A surprising number of these leaders had some form of handicap in their lives which they had to overcome. Some had traumatic childhoods, some had problems such as dyslexia, others were shorter than average. This perhaps taught them the independence of mind that is needed to go out on a limb and not worry about what others are thinking about you.
No comments:
Post a Comment