A New Look at the Leader-Manager Distinction

Managers are often characterized as straightforward, process-oriented and efficiency-minded people while leaders are portrayed as insightful, achievement-driven and forward-thinking individuals who have a corner on inspiration and vision. Let’s face it; leaders are always cast in a higher caste than managers. Management seems like something people settle for when they do not have the “right stuff” to be great leaders. There may be a vein of truth in this with regard to some people. Not everyone is “cut out” for leadership; some are more ideally “fit” for management. But this should never be viewed as suboptimal from a career perspective, especially when an individual has the ability to function as a highly effective manager, and does so as a matter of personal choice.

Most authorities (thought leaders and practitioners) are careful to make distinctions between leaders and managers. In his book, “On Becoming a Leader,” Warren Bennis says that Managers are people who do things right, while leaders are people who do the right thing.  But what if Dr. Bennis was only partially correct with his conclusion? What if this categorical thinking has actually led us astray? I know, that sounds like complete heresy given the status and reputation of Dr. Bennis, not to say anything about the countless others who ascribe to the same line of thinking. Still, I believe we need to be very careful when making these types of fine distinctions. It is not that we need to avoid them, but rather that we need to be thoughtful when drawing them so that we steer clear of overgeneralization and oversimplification.

Taken at face value, Dr. Bennis makes his distinction according to how people behave and how they perform. He is not basing the distinction on role design or work demands. The implication is that people’s capabilities and competencies place them at a particular point on a continuum – or rung of a ladder – with a label of “manager” at the low end and “leader” at the high end. In our society, low is bad and high is good.

My point is that I believe we have seriously undervalued and sometimes consciously devalued the role of the manager. For years we have stripped companies of managers, thinking they are obsolete because of technology advances and greater employee empowerment. At the same time, we have seen quality decline in many business sectors and customer service go to hell in a hand basket. We have also witnessed an all time high in corporate fraud and scandals, in large part because of issues of personal greed and breakdowns in compliance. Moral compasses have gone haywire and oversight and accountability systems have failed. Integrity is supposedly the domain of leaders.  Processes and systems have traditionally been the domain of managers – you know, the depleted and dismissed roles occupied by the Steady Eddie’s and Darla Doer’s of corporate America. I wonder if some of the tragedies of the past decade could have been avoided if we would have held the role of the professional manager in higher regard.

I am not arguing that we need to repopulate our organizations with a new layer of managers. I am, however, suggesting that it is time that we elevated the role and status of professional managers. We need to hire, develop, reward and recognize capable managers – people who get things done. These are the people who form and run the teams and operations that ensure the quality, safety, reliability and efficacy of the products and services that we sell and consume day.

Rather than drawing charts and making tables to highlight the distinctions between managers and leaders, I believe we need to rediscover the symbiotic relationship between the roles. Both are critical. One is not more important than the other. Neither role can survive or be successful by itself. Without effective managers and competent leaders working together, no organization is sustainable.