Chapter_1,_Fulfillemnt

Question 1: 1a) Explain the difference between effective leaders and effective managers. Can someone be effective at both managing and leading' Illustrate your answer with reference to: i. Current thinking in leadership and management ii. Leaders / managers you have experienced 1b) What are your own strengths and weaknesses as a manager and a leader and how do you balance the demands of both these roles' What impact do your own personal preferences have on your abilities as a manager and a leader' How to solve this question'' • Why would you answer this' • What are you answering' • How do you answer it' • What have you answered' Work out definitions: 1. What does effective mean' 2. What is a manager' What is a leader' 3. Difference between leader and manager' Read theories: - Which are there. Which are famous' - Compare theories on managers and on leaders. Where are the differences and where are the comparisons' - Could there be ‘overlap’' Personal experience on managers and leaders: - Managers: Henry, Rolf, Brian, Sander - Leaders: eBuddy Own strengths: - Feedback training - Compare with 1a. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes: - Not agreeing with CMI view on management. Too simplistic and narrow formulated. - CMI view on Leadership: very HR centric. Creating the framework for people to work in is missing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quotes: THEJOURNAL FOR QUALITY & PARTICIPATION Summer2006, James Kotterman page 13 - 17 Many leadership theorists have noted that there are nearly as many definitions for leadership as attempts to characterize it (Bass, 1990; Kotter, 1990, 1999; Terry, 1993; Zaleznik, 1998). A review of leadership and management performance literature reveals a wide array of definitions, usages, and results. Although most leadership theorists believe there are distinct differences, the two terms are so often used interchangeably in the workplace that the differences become blurred (Kotter, 1990, 1999; Terry, 1993; Zaleznik, 1998). Zaleznik (1998) asserts, as does Kotter (1990), that although leadership and management may be similar in a few ways, they have many very distinct differences. Both leaders and managers may have involvement in establishing direction, aligning resources, and motivating people. Managers, however, plan and budget while leaders establish direction. Managers have a narrow purpose and try to maintain order, stabilize work, and organize resources. Leaders seek to develop new goals and align organizations (Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik, 1998). Managers control and problem solve while leaders motivate and inspire. Finally, managers produce standards, consistency, predictability, and order. Leaders produce the potential for dramatic change, chaos, and even failure (Kotter, 1990). For Gardner, the differences between a workplace leader and a workplace manager are not as distinct as they are for Kotter and Zaleznik (Bass, 1990; Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik, 1998). Gardner contrasts between what he calls the leader-manager and the routine manager. The leader-manager is concerned with thinking longer term, developing an organizational vision, reaching longer-term goals and values, and motivating others. The routine manager is more strongly associated with the organizational structure; he/she thinks and acts in the shorter term, accepting and maintaining the status quo (Bass, 1990; Gardner, 1990) It is unusual for one person to have the skills to serve as both an inspiring leader and a professional manager. In large, complex organizations, these two distinct roles are even more difficult to assimilate in one person, and the tendency is to set leadership skills aside in favor of managing the workplace. Answer. Why would you answer the question' Why is it important to differentiate between effective leaders and managers' “Fundamentally, if you can't define leadership or management, you can't measure, test, make assessments, or consistently hire or promote for them.” (J. Kotterman, 2006). Without measuring the definitions, you cannot state any difference between them. Understanding the question To be able to provide a comprehensive answer on questions number 1a and 1b it’s first and foremost important to understand the definition in this context of “effective”, before any differences between managers and leaders can be determined. The broad definition of effective is “adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result” (Dictionary.com). If we refer this to managers and leaders, it means that the person is adequate in accomplishing his/her (in)formal role and be able to produce an intended or expected outcome. A clear definable measurement of effectiveness in a comprehensive way for managers and leaders in general is nearly to impossible, since the metrics may vary per manager or leader. Is effectiveness: - An employee satisfaction of 8.2' - Increase in margins of 2% - 4 mergers in 2 years' - A sales quota of 3 MLN' - Etc. In 2012 Gary Yukl (G. Yukl, 2012) focuses on the hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behaviour, which gives an outline to connect effectiveness to managers and leaders behaviour. A definition of an effective manager or leader based on these facts can be for this answer: ‘To possess and utilize the correct managerial/leadership behaviours to adequate accomplish a purpose or produce the intended or expected result in a given situation’. Defining Manager and Leader In the past half century there has an explosion on management and leadership behaviour researches and studies. One reason for this is that management is a fairly new phenomenon, due to the emergence of large, complex organisations in the last century. Another reason is that “effective leadership remains one of the most misunderstood human phenomenons and comprises one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition” (Wren, 1995). All these literature has produced a wide array of definitions on management and leadership. Most leadership researches are of opinion that there are distinct differences between them, the two terms are used so often interchangeably that the differences become unclear (Kotter, 1999; Terry, 1993; Zaleznik, 1998). Definitions of managers in literature consist of: - “Management is continually planning, organizing, supervising, and controlling resources to achieve organizational goals” (Nebeker and Tatum; 2002) - “The term manager often suggests an individual who holds a directive post in an organization, a person who organizes functions, allocates resources, and makes the best use of people” (Gardner; 1990) - “The day to day running of a function and getting the right people in the right place with a focus on implementation” (CMI, 2011) What these definitions have in common is that managers hold a formal position in an organisation, leads people and is aiming to achieve given goals. The definition of Gardner is the most comprehensive and takes especially the into account that a manager has a directive post in an organisation. The definitions of leadership are more diverged than of managers: - “The essence of leadership in organizations is influencing and facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives” (G. Yukl, 2012) - “the capacity to establish direction, to influence and align others towards a common aim, to motivate and commit others to action and to encourage them to feel responsible for their performance” (CMI, 2009) - "Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal". Northouse (2004) What I miss in all leadership definitions is the passion for a given idea/objective/meaningful direction. I think all leaders start with the passion for a certain idea or goal. They start influencing people to reach or achieve their ideas and goals. People will and want to follow leaders who have a passionately thrive for their ideals or ideas. I believe that this is the connection to influence people, which is a common aspect in all definitions of Leadership. Leaders are above all influencers of groups of people to accomplish something. The first definition is the most applicable in my opinion, due to the combination of influencing, facilitating and accomplishing shared objectives. This implies that an effective leader creates the appropriate facilities, but also creates shared objectives. Not per definition his own objectives. This definition is not 100% comprehensible, because a CEO of company X can operate according to this definition but is more ‘Manager+’. Lots of CEOs achieved that role after a long career of management positions. Some still lead the company by managerial capabilities. See page 3 for my own experiences in this field. Describing good managers or leaders These 3 pillars create authentic leadership, whether you are a manager or leader. Relations are the main driver in the world anno 2013. Because we are connected on a global scale, our relationships (and therefore trust) are more critical to accomplish a purpose. If managers and leaders have these strong behaviours they’ll produce their results, because people like to work for them, they have the courage to have vision and are able to share this (transparency) so leaders will influence their people to follow. With these behaviours someone can be effective with both managing and leading, but he/she will always have a preference for one way or another. Behavioural characteristics Difference between effective manager and effective leader. If we look at the definitions and literature on managers and leaders the following table shows the important differences: This table shows the same as Zaleznik (1998) Kotter (1990) assets and that’s despite the similarities between leadership and management, there are many distinct differences. Managers are concerned with planning and budgeting, try to maintain order, organizing resources, controlling and problem solving. While leaders are focusing setting direction, seeking new goals, have a long term vision/view, producing change and sometimes chaos to move forward. Although these sound as solid differences between effective leaders and effective managers, I dare to stress there’s only one distinction: Managers holds a directive post in an organization and leaders can be everywhere. My reasoning is closely connected to the question whether someone can be effective at both managing and leading. A person becomes a manager in a given organisation. And in that role he/she has certain KPIs and responsibilities to take care of. In this role it is important perform tasks like planning, organizing, supervising and controlling resources to achieve the organisational goals (his/her KPIs). But this same person can be the founder and leader of local political party, a charity organisation, fishing club, etc. This manager can even be an effective leader of a start-up company within a year. So an effective manager can be an effective leader outside his formal job, but he can also be an effective leader within his job. In the differences stated in table 1, the manager is, roughly speaking, only implementing and controlling. But if a manager needs to achieve his KPIs, he’ll need to motivate his employees to go for the extra mile, promotes useful changes and influences creation of coalitions, teams and partnerships. All effective leadership skils. The most successful managers (based on the definition of achieving their expected outcomes: all overachieved their targets during these examples) who managed me had strong leadership skills. In my previous company Lumesse I was managed by Rolf who showed both strong managerial as leadership skills. Managerial skills were demonstrated in clear working structures, plans, budgets, hiring the right people, clearly communicating the vision of the company and focused on predictability. But he also motivated his people, worked XLOB while managing to get shared objectives from all parties and created some chaos now and then for more creativity and was highly passionate about the goals and vision of the company. This clearly demonstrates that a person with strong leadership skills, who has a formal role as a manager, can effectively utilise both his managerial and leadership skills. My reasoning is that these studies are not comprehending the connected, global and virtualisation of todays era. The banking crisis of the last couple of years was heavily derived from managers and leaders in the banking institutions, who were following “influencing and facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives”, “continuously planning, organizing, supervising, and controlling resources to achieve organizational goals” and therefore “adequately accomplish a purpose and producing the intended or expected result”. Strictly saying: These were both effective managers and leaders acting alike, but their outcome overall was very negative. Due to a connecting and globalising world, the results were catastrophic. Therefore the similarities between the leadership skills of managers and leaders are alike: (F. Beddoes-Jones, 2012) These 3 pillars create authentic leadership, whether you are a manager or leader. Relations are the main driver in the world anno 2013. Because we are connected on a global scale, our relationships (and therefore trust) are more critical to accomplish a purpose. If managers and leaders have these strong behaviours they’ll produce their results, because people like to work for them, they have the courage to have vision and are able to share this (transparency) so leaders will influence their people to follow. With these behaviours someone can be effective with both managing and leading, but he/she will always have a preference for one way or another. My experience is that managers and leaders with a low form of ethics are not the people I tend to follow or share their vision. There’s no trust. I had a sales manager who had the “hit-and-run” sales attitude, which worked very contra productive with me. I’m declined to listening to his advise, don’t trust his word and am not committed to go the extra mile for him.