Only One in Ten Have the Talent to Manage
“Gallup’s research reveals that about one in 10 people possess the talent to manage.” (Gallup)
The myth of the great leader riding in on a white horse pollutes our thinking about the value of good management.
Both:
All leaders manage. All managers lead. It’s useful to divide the two roles for analysis and training. But in practice, the functions blur and blend.
The needle tips more toward management the closer you are to the front-line. The higher you go in an organization, the more leadership skill matters. But both skill-sets matter.
12 shared responsibilities of managers and leaders:
- Care for people.
- Connect.
- Speak to purpose.
- Exemplify organizational values.
- Communicate effectively.
- Focus on performance.
- Delegate authority.
- Build morale.
- Cultivate mutual accountability.
- Teach, mentor, and coach.
- Monitor and measure progress.
- Celebrate success.
4 things managers do:
- Answer the questions: What do we do and how do we do it?
- Set near-term goals that move organizations toward long-term objectives.
- Improve efficiency by developing and refining systems and processes.
- Stabilize – more than disrupt – in order to reliably deliver results.
4 things leaders do:
- Answer the questions: Who are we and where are we going?
- Look down the road and over the hill.
- Improve effectiveness. Drucker wrote, “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.”
- Disrupt in order to break new ground.
4 Core ideas:
#1. Stagnant organizations need leadership. Chaotic organizations need management. Read, “That’s Not How We Do it Here,” by John Kotter.
#2. Managers think near-term. Leaders focus on long-term. Everyone is concerned about both. It’s a matter of degree.
#3. The disruptive nature of leadership and the stabilizing nature of management make tension between the two expected, normal, and healthy.
#4. Managers ask, “How do we do things better?” Leaders ask, “How do we do new things?”
What shared responsibilities between managers and leaders did I leave off my list? Which are most important?
What differences do you see between the role of manager and the role of leader? (Think role, not title.)
Added resources: “What do Managers Do” (WSJ)
Well said Dan. It is so helpful to be reminded how important it is to value management and leadership both. Your two lists of 4 things managers leaders do, in my opinion, are right on! Thanks!
Great list, Dan!
Something that I learned that has always helped me is that managers, if not monitored and are intentional about it, can simply create followers. Whereas leaders develop, empower, and deploy other leaders.
Taking this perspective allows me to view people in a completely different way!
This blog should be required reading for every Management Team and Leadership Group. By understanding the characteristics of each function, a self or 360% assessment would help identify which skill set one most closely matches. Then you could focus on improving the skills in your current function, while understanding what’s needed to go to the next level — should you have the skills and desires to go there. Also — it would help avoid, to some degree, the tendency to assume every good Manager would make a good Leader — and therefore promote a good Manager into a Leadership role they will almost certainly fail at. Happily, it could also help find that Manager who should move to a more substantial Leadership role.
As always, thanks Dan!
I have been an Assistant Principal in a school system for 14 years. I have always felt I was a strong manager and many times have question myself as not being a strong leader because of my ability to manage and less concerned with having a vision. Frankly why I never want to be principal. I have always said I like being #2 and every Principal needs a good #2. Your line “The needle tips more toward management the closer you are to the front-line.” validates that It is ok to be a manager.
Thanks for all the great articles you have shared over the last 2 years I have been getting them.
Dear Dan,
An interesting post with lot of good differences between Managers and Leaders!
I would add 3 specific roles to bring in the needed clarity on the subject matter.
1. While leaders have a basic role of providing the futuristic direction to an organization with visionary skills, managers take the role of execution.
2. Leaders identify right good talents to steer the organization growth and utilise them for key innovation whereas managers have a role of building good teams to convert new plans into actions leading to the desired profits.
3. The decision on reinvestment of funds in the potential areas of growth become the major focus for leaders while managers work on capital sourcing and management.
I just love these three: #2. Managers think near-term. Leaders focus on long-term. Everyone is concerned about both. It’s a matter of degree.
#3. The disruptive nature of leadership and the stabilizing nature of management make tension between the two expected, normal, and healthy.
#4. Managers ask, “How do we do things better?” Leaders ask, “How do we do new things?”
At my current role, I fill the Leader position whilst helping the Management of the near term. I used to be totally focused on the near term; consumed to some extent but some readjustment here has allowed me to focus a higher percentage of my time on the future and I am being successful in building that future and a transition to a different dynamic. I have the support to do so also because I’ve been here for so long, have seen the market change and understand what is happening. My biggest challenge is to manage my frustrations with others on the near term stuff while maintaining a focus on the the long-term. It is fun but only when I tamp down my frustration.
“The higher you go in an organization, the more leadership skill matters. But both skill-sets matter.”
Bingo! I often teach that “Managers” learn to lead, and “Leaders” don’t forget how to manage.
Often, only the differences between management and leadership are emphasized, and the interdependence of the two roles is neglected. Thanks for making these points!
Managers adapt (tactical – how? At what expense?) – their primary focus is to coordinate and align … HERE, NOW, today and THIS week. Benchmarks/measures and milestones/achievements.
Leaders transform (strategic – why? To what end?) – their focus is to set the destination and the path … SOONER, not later … but over the horizon not yet upon us. Vision/faith and inspiration/energy.
Paradoxically, the best leaders can be concrete, and the best managers creative.
Why isn’t managing and leading a shared responsibility at all levels of an organization? Some members are better at one or the other, and some organizations need more of one than the other, that’s not a surprise. What if every employee at the US Postal Service was told to think about ways of doing things better and of doing better things? Tesla?
Thank you Dan this is a great post.
Depending on the size and style of business some leaders need to know when to manage and when to lead. They must do both. The best leaders can take a high level long term approach but know how and when to drill down to the detail.
Great leaders know what makes people tick and how to engage them as humans and get the best from them. They are excellent at articulating and demonstrating what they mean. They have a growth mindset and they are able to inspire and grow others. EQ is key to a great leader.
Great leaders know how to hire great people and can see their potential.
Dan,
You make some very good points here, but I take exception to Gallup’s position that only a few possess the talent to manage. As you point out, real management is a combination of leadership and management skills. In over 40 years of working with leaders at all levels, I’m absolutely convinced of two facts.
1. Leadership (and management) ability is not an inherited gene. I’ve found very few people that don’t have the ability. What’s often missing is the desire to lead or the development of the necessary skills. Although it’s true that some seem to adapt to the responsibilities of leading more easily, in fact, leadership is a learned skill. I actually find that the “born leaders” usually do more damage than good.
2. Leadership is a continuum. While it may seem counter-intuitive, interpersonal leadership (by which I mean one-on-one or one-to-a few) is more evident at the lower levels of supervisory and managerial responsibility. The farther up the organization one goes, the less interpersonal and more institutional leadership (by which I mean leading groups and organizations) is necessary.
Of course leaders in the second category will be more successful if they learned the skills necessary in the first category. And that’s what’s important. Developing good leaders from the very start pays dividends as they move up. And that’s why I don’t like Gallup’s comment. I believe it comes from the vast number of companies who do not take early leadership development seriously. Without a good leadership development program, more senior managers may appear to not have the talent when in fact, they just never had a chance to learn how to lead and manage.
I am in a role where I am supposed to be a leader but company culture dictates that leaders get into the weeds…..We all eventually end up managing rather than leading. We don’t allow our staff learn to manage and our managers learn to lead because we are all expected to get in the weeds and manage minor problems.
The devil, or God, is in the detail.
The craftsman cares about the detail … no matter who may or may not see it.
Is the leader a craftsman, or a hack?
Isn’t doing things better doing new things? any change is new/ different than before… a play on words, leaders, and managers do both… and labeling leader vs. manager is sometimes not useful because all qualities/behaviors (regardless of title) are needed depending on content and responsibility to run a biz or fulfill a role.
Interesting statistic: “about one in 10 people possess the talent to manage.” I was with a company where the primary qualification for management was tenure. The results (and direct reports) were too often miserable. On a related note, I wonder if that one-in-ten ratio is higher or lower when it comes to leadership.