Reinventing Leadership and Management is a paper in the Ivey Journal that caught my eye. Author Mitch McCrimmon argues that “leadership hogs the lion’s share of the responsibility and credit for driving organizational success,” leaving management with little to do. [Really?]

McCrimmon says that leadership is different from management: leadership promotes new directions – management executes existing directions. He then asserts that leadership is a function which shifts from one person to another. Everyone engages in some management and leadership, regardless of role. ”Companies need to slim leadership down, management must be given more to do. This calls for a major upgrade, making management a more proactive, positive force in organizations.” 

I see that happening now. In truth, it takes more than a bit of leadership to excel in any job. Business is dynamic, and leaders today are dramatically changing the expectations of middle managers. To an astounding degree, senior executives want their managers to be leaders too – a trend that enriches many jobs in the middle and makes businesses more productive. At the mid levels of major companies, however, we still find managers who stonewall change or are reluctant to take the risk of initiating new ideas, even when converging forces challenge the viability of their jobs. They should be expected to lead, build and change their organizations.

• Managers are leaders too, because the manager’s job is complex. Business innovation and change happen at all levels and it all places, from back office to the jobs that deal directly with the customer.
• Of course, leaders are managing. They are accountable for execution and results.  They regularly insert  themselves in the work process, in business reviews, strategy sessions, and discussions of functional priorities. Only when they are actively engaged in the business do they fully understand the issues. In all cases, they are accountable for how the organization conducts its business. 

The idea of leader/manager is not new. Professor Emeritus Leonard Sayles at Columbia Business School explored the concept in depth as early as 1979. Sayles noted that the job of the manager is defined by rhetoric, although reality is very different. Rhetoric, for example, says that objectives and goals are clear and consistent, yet in the real workplace, goals are often interdependent involving different groups with conflicting interests and priorities. Rhetoric says that authority is equal to responsibility. In the real world, managers normally don’t control all of the resources required to achieve their objectives, and the deficiencies can be substantial. The reality of being a manager is far different from the expectations.

For anyone who is a “manager,” taking charge of a problematic relationship is an act of leadership. You are leading when give your boss the tough message he needs to hear to make the business successful. Leadership is about adding measurable value to a business, motivating people, and creating a sense of ownership for the team’s results.

My Advice: I encourage managers and leaders to reach beyond the boundaries of their jobs. Success oftens requires a look beyond ”my domain.” Take the initiative and ask the right questions.

Managers and leaders often assume more authority than formally assigned. It’s safe, as long as they are sensitive to their colleagues. Organizations with too much deference to hierarchy and structure become beaucratic.

Doing more than what’s expected makes work exciting. It is an act of leadership, and anyone who chooses to work this way will be invited to participate in initiatives that are difficult and important.

Bureaucracy in Action:  The rigidity of the old model of leader versus manager hinders performance, productivity, and creativity, and well as speed. For anyone who wants a chuckle, here’s a quote from Dr. Sayles book,  Leadership: What Effective Managers Really Do and How They Do It, that illustrates why management is so difficult and good managers are so scarce:

Even the President of the United States, with the august power of that imposing office, can be overwhelmed by the incredible obdurateness of the organization. The New York Times relates how, after assuming office, Carter detected mice in the Oval Office; the very focal point of the Presidency. He called the General Services Administration who then came and handled the matter. Shortly after, Carter continued to hear mice; but worse, one died in the wall and the stench was quite noticeable… However, when he called the GSA again he was told that they had carefully exterminated all the mice, therefore, any new mice must be exterior mice, and exterior work falls within the responsibility of the Interior Department. They at first demurred, but eventually a joint task force was assembled to deal with the problem.

I had a much easier experience with the mice in my office. Perhaps working in private industry has its benefits.