Leaders are manipulators?
Geoff Webb wisely observes, “There’s a thin line between leadership and manipulation. Both can be defined as influencing others.”
Manipulators and leaders:
- Recognize and compliment the strengths of others
- Tap into the emotions of others
- Exhibit vision and make plans
- Create buy-in
- Understand that people want to matter
- Identify enemies
- Help people come to their own conclusions
- Have passion to make things “better”
- Help others succeed (or believe they are succeeding)
- Reward desired behaviors
3 Differences:
The differences between leaders and manipulators include authenticity, transparency, and generosity.
Authenticity
Leaders love; manipulators hate. If love is seeking the highest good of others, doing what you love establishes authenticity.
Love the value you bring to others. Love your organizational mission and vision.
Leaders that love are authentic; leaders that hate, manipulate.
Transparency
Manipulators lurk in the shadows with secret agendas while leaders walk in the light. Leaders are open and honest.
Recently a friend of mine explained that I made another person uncomfortable. I was doing what I love to do, asking questions. My friend explained that I hadn’t laid the ground work to ask the questions I was asking.
Transparent correction establishes trust.
Generosity
Manipulators serve themselves at the expense of others. They maneuver and manipulate to benefit themselves.
Manipulators make life easy for themselves and hard for others.
On the other hand, leaders serve others. They leverage their own skills and the skills of others for the benefit of all stakeholders.
Conclusion
There’s a thin line between manipulation and leadership. Love, transparency, and generosity determine on which side of the line you stand.
What shared tactics do manipulators and leaders employ?
What other qualities distinguish leaders and manipulators?
Great post, Dan! In the strictest of terms, “manipulation” means to bend. To bend another’s path is the very essence of leadership. After all, if a team of people didn’t need someone to change their course collectively for a greater good, then there is no need for the leader. The key is “the greater good.” The self-serving coercing person abuses others when they bend their efforts toward their own desires. It all boils down to intent. The key to leadership then is stewardship. Dr. Timothy Clark covers this well in his book “The Leadership Test.”
Dan,
Great insights on the leadership-manipulation issue. So glad you wrote this post! Authenticity, transparency, and generosity are clear standards for keeping us on the right side of that line. Thanks!
Geoff,
It was fun teasing you that you stole my post! Thanks for dropping in and being an encouragement. I love what you are trying to accomplish.
Best to you,
Dan
Very interesting post Dan.
One more difference between leaders and manipulators — the latter is very self-serving even when they posture that it’s for the org.
My latest post on communication touches a bit on communication that manipulates vs. engages and collaborates. From communication, you can see who is manipulating vs. truly embracing others’ ideas for a great outcome.
——
http://katenasser.com/people-skills-killer-questions-that-don%E2%80%99t-ask/
Another great post from you…. thanks!
Have an authentic engaging day.
Kate
Kate,
I enjoy how you add to the conversation. Thanks for the good word and thanks for leaving a link to another resource. You know that I love your work.
Best regards,
Dan
Kate is a featured contributor on Leadership Freak. You can read her bio at http://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com/kate-nasser
Great distinction.
I’m a firm believer that quality leadership is the outward expression of inward qualities.
A person isn’t just a great leader because he or she employs a few management/leadership techniques (we can usually see right through those people) – instead, a person is a great leader from the inside out: authenticity, transparency, and generosity are observable traits that represent inner character, and there is great alignment between this inner character and the observable traits.
On the flip side, manipulators use visible actions to create a facade that hides their inner character – what they do is not a representation of who they are underneath, but a disguise. There is little (if any) alignment between their inner character and outward actions.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your comment. Love the whole comment and particularly love the first line.
Have a great day!
Dan
Good insight, Tim.
Jim
Motivation is in the best interest of the one being motivated.
Manipulation is in the best interest of the manipulator.
Clever!
I started to say that anything that removes individuality, freedom and choice from another person is manipulation. However, that’s a broad brush that requires qualification, since that statement can be interpreted a few ways. Still I think the point is, are the people you lead pawns or partners and fellow humans? Because if people are just chess pieces (or pets) to you to achieve a certain outcome, then you are in the wrong place. No matter how well intentioned.
Same goes for manipulating circumstances to push people into choices they wouldn’t otherwise make – in particular without their knowledge. Leaders should be leaders, not play Roman god.
To me this is akin to folks who are willing to use “the dark side” for a “good” cause. No matter how well intentioned the outcome, if we do anything bordering unethical, ruled by emotion without logic, out of anger or otherwise imbalanced in the pursuit of something “good,” the results we seek can’t help but be tainted. Now this isn’t a discussion of good anger vs. bad anger, but it is a discussion of positive state vs. negative state and which pool we draw from as leaders and the relationships we build.
A healthy organization is much like a healthy family. A manipulative wife, husband, father, mother, child does not a recipe for success create.
I concur Julia. The fundamental difference is leaders have crossed an internal line where they do what they do for the good of others. Manipulators do what they do for the good of themselves, regardless of their position, title or place.
Julia,
I feel your passion. Thank you.
Your expression, “Pawns or Partners” captures the essence of this discussion. Ka Pow!
Secretly using tactics and techniques to manipulate inevitably taints authentic leadership.
I can’t wait for Doc to get his hands on this one. 🙂
Best to you,
Dan
Julia is a featured contributor on Leadership Freak. Read her bio at http://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com/julia
Brilliant! Thank you. A friend & I were just hashing this out recently.
Appreciate your posts so.
Hi Allie,
A good word feels great to me. Thank you.
Dan
Great post, and I find it makes me really analyze the difference between the two.
What shared tactics do manipulators and leaders employ?
What other qualities distinguish leaders and manipulators?
As far as shared tactics, I think many people who lead (and manipulate) have an intangible “follow me” quality about them. And it can be heady for these leaders to amass followers. I think it must require tremendous discipline at times for leaders to remain committed to growing others when they could just be basking in their ability to “pull strings” as your graphic illustrates.
The difference between a leader and a manipulator I think sometimes does not manifest itself immediately – if years later the people who shared time with him/her find themselves leading and influencing positively based on their experiences, this is a solid testimony. If they are more inclined to know “what not to do” then it is unlikely they had the gift of a true leader.
Dan, great stuff on a topic that is important to create distinction. I really like your “love/hate” distinction. What it captures is intent. I also like Julia’s pawns or partners. My experience is that people who see the world in a narrow, what’s in it for me, what can you do for me struggle to see a larger, greater good vision. If they get to a leadership role, their motives as more of a manipulator are eventually “found out” and often limits their influence and success long term.
Tim G’s comments about “inside out” development of great leaders is right on target. I haven’t found leaders with true authenticity, integrity, and a motivation for achieving a greater purpose that are manipulators.
Jim
“If they get to a leadership role, their motives as more of a manipulator are eventually “found out” and often limits their influence and success long term.”
But isn’t it many times the case that people get into their positions precisely BECAUSE of their manipulative motives and behavior?
Manipulators exist in organizations because their results are largely indistinguishable from the results of leaders. I suspect that as long as definitions of and rewards for success are solely based on outcomes (that is on ends alone and not also on means) there will be no shortage of manipulators.
Dennis I understand your point and don’t disagree in principle however if an organization is solely focused on the bottom line, what is its true longevity. I would suspect that permanence would not be in the cards for them and I am also not sure what their staff retention would look like. I concur that for the short term those leaders focused on results exclusively will be tolerated but long term I don’t believe they will be considered viable assets and the organization will flounder. Just my two cents. thanks, Al
That seems right Al. And that’s what worries me. Focusing on bottom line, short term gain is the norm often enough to reinforce whatever behavior is perceived to have led to it. A systemic problem to be sure.
And it occurs to me that a manipulator is unlikley to possess the self-awareness required to question his or her own authenticity.
Everything I believe about leaders & manipulators was said in this post. It really sums up all my thoughts on the topic. I think it has a lot to do with how that person views the subordinate. I think that if there is a level of respect there- the person is more of a leader. Without that respect- they are more of a manipulator because they care more about the outcome for themselves rather than the outcome for the person they are controlling or the good of the organization as a whole.
Manipulators and Leaders are clearly two different animals as you clearly state Dan. I also understand all of the other comments and particularly like the Pawns vs. Partners tidbit. From a different perspective I would think being a manipulator takes a lot of more energy and effort than a leader motivating. If the passion, VMV are not with you a conscious effort needs to be made to use techniques that would otherwise flow naturally for a person influencing for a greater good other than a personal agenda. A “staccato” conversation if one is careful and observant can easily be differentiated from a nicely “humming” message a leader believes in and wants to promote. Manipulators tend to talk more than they listen, why listen I know what I want vs. Let me engage and listen more so that WE can make this project work TOGETHER! Unity is not one of the traits of a manipulator whilst for a leader it is an imperative. Manipulators are not worried about fostering the team rather taking all of the shots themselves and taking credit for them. True leaders I believe would find it very difficult to use manipulation at least knowingly because it would literally make them uneasy, uncomfortable and sick. Great post and a topic that I had not seen before. Thank you for keeping us on our toes. AD
Thoughtful and insightful, thank you.
What other qualities distinguish leaders and manipulators?
..Principle-centered v. ambition-centered
As managers, we walk fine line in quest to get others to do what we want. In end, employees do what you ask becuz they like, trust you and feel vested in outcome. Your advice is sound. I always try to be up front, genuine and tell the truth (as permitted). Your team are not your kids. You cannot tell them to do something just becuz… Doesn’t work with teenagers and doesn’t work at work.
I am sure it has been gone over by many authors before, but the author that stands out the most about this subject when it comes to Leadership is Stephen Covey. It is when he speaks about deposits and withdrawls from the emotional bank account. The one deposit that has a direct relation to this missive is best described as a deposit which was patience and persuasion and the withdrawl, physical force or coersion. Clearly different ways to lead people but clearly a different relationship is created from these two very different attributes. I have had the experience to work with people who could not tell the difference. I felt they were products of the peter principle or just really lucky. I spent alot of time in frustration of the manipulator but that time of my life I learned how NOT to manage and lead people. (Thanks for the free education!!!)Currently, I keep my team isolated away from this manipulator type of leader and act as a buffer. The no news is good news leadership keeps the big man out of my area and he spends all his time putting out fires. I wish he would read some of Dan’s or Stephen’s things but I feel he would be insulted if I kept forwarding this site to him. Plus he has already read everything there is and feels he created Leadership. I am not sure if this planet is big enough for all of the people on this planet and his head! LOL
Great post and timely as I consider a particular relationship in my life. I’d love thoughts on the difference between leading others and attempting to control others.
Thanks Even. Great question. If you spend some time reflecting. I bet you can think of people who you felt tried to control you and those who led. What differences do you see?