Out with Old.... In with the New

The theme of the day Leadership...


I recently read a blog by Michael Cardus stating his belief that we shouldn't separate the terms Manager and Leader


I can understand his perspective on this, in many ways the premise that differentiating the two terms and roles is only down to semantics. However, I personally believe it's important that we do differentiate the terms and create a dichotomy. There is a wide chasm between the attitudes of people that are placed in these positions of authority.

My personal differentiation is along the lines of: 
MANAGER: 

• Displays the old school attitude of we are the "Officers" they are the "grunts"
• Cover their backside and play the political games, will often stall a decision or have someone else make it if risk involved. 
• Works only to procedure, "because that's how we've always done it!" 
• Protect their personal interests first, the company's second, their staff at the very bottom of the pile. 
• Doesn't readily accept input from others, because they are always right 

LEADER: 

• Accepts all responsibility 
• Isn't afraid of making a tough decision 
• Encourages input from others and happy to admit there are alternative ways 
• Display trust to their staff and shows EQ in dealing with them 
• Isn't afraid of mistakes, doesn't place blame, focuses on the lesson, breeding a culture of measured risk and innovation 
• Puts staff first, understanding the right staff will rise to the company goal and therefore support him 

Australia has seen a revolt against the former today (Thurs June 24th 2010), with a Prime Minister being kicked out of the top position after dropping from 70% approval ratings to 35% just 18 months ago. Kevin Rudd was a Prime Minister with a reputation for his "Manager" style attitude, unwillingness to yield after making poor but colossal policy decisions without consultation, very high staff turnover within his office and many anger tantrums. 

Politics aside, in every organisation I walk into today, the "Manager" style of leadership is all too prevalent. Despite all the training available, despite all the research and information available, for some reason many in authority still believe that wielding the whip will get the best results. This fallacy is long dead, I learnt this at the ripe old age of 24 leading a team on the construction site. If I'd used the same "manager" style of leadership that I always seen around, I would have ended up with a shovel in my head!

I think the movement to create the dichotomy is a healthy one, while the semantics of words regarding the fact that they still have to accomplish similar tasks, the major difference is in attitude.


As you make each leadership decision and each time you talk to your staff... Ask yourself this simple question: "if I was on the other end of this conversation, how would I react?"


If you'd like to read more regarding this differentiation, I found this wonderful article that explains this from yet another perspective, that "While a manager receives their authority based on their role, a leader's authority is innate in their approach."