I know... it's been a while since I've written an eZine. Sometimes I can produce them one after another and other times they germinate in my head for a long time. This eZine is one of those that spent a good deal of time roaming around in my head.
ASTD and Manager Versus Leader
A while ago, I attended an American Society of
Training and Development (ASTD) dinner meeting at which a speaker was talking about leaders and their communication expectations.
She had conducted a study and was talking about the results of that study. Her research centered on understanding how leaders thought about their communication with direct reports in general and specifically if leaders felt their communication was often understood or misunderstood by their employee population. Her findings were that, in most cases, leaders in companies did not feel that their communications were usually understood as they intended.
As she continued to talk about the "leaders" she interviewed, it became clear to me that she was really talking about managers, not leaders. By any definition, the people she interviewed were
middle managers and directors in their respective organizations, not CEOs, VPs, or C-level executives, those generally classified in business journals as leaders. So I asked a question that went something like this: "Excuse me. It seems to me that the people you interviewed were really "managers". I'm curious... why do you keep calling them "leaders"? Her response: "Yes, they were indeed middle managers, but 'leader' is what they wanted to be called."
Ah yes... most want to be a leader... few want to be a manager.
I have read article after article about people who want to be leaders; seldom about people who want to be managers. In fact, in my bookcase I have a book titled: "Everyone a Leader".
2010 World Series Winner
If you follow baseball you know that the
2010 World Series was won by the
San Francisco Giants. And, I submit that they won it by good management, not good leadership.
In my mind, most people seem to think of "leadership" as a process by which the leader says "Hey, everyone, follow me." The responsibility for the "doing" of the work often seems to rest with the "doer", not so much with the leader.
On the other hand, my sense is that many people consider "management" a job where the responsibility for the success of the task seems to rest with both the "doer" AND with the "manager" in varying degrees. And so, the World Series of 2010 was won with good management by the San Francisco Giants organization.
Here Is What I Mean
- The decision to move a pitcher from the minor leagues in mid-season and make him the starting pitcher in the World Series was a management decision, not one of leadership.
- The decision to remove a season-long star shortstop from the World Series lineup because of weight concerns was a management decision, not one of leadership.
- Every decision regarding who would relieve a pitcher and when, was a management decision not one of leadership.
- Every decision regarding the batting or outfield lineup was a management decision not one of leadership.
All these management decisions, one after the other, plus talented ball players lead to the successful outcome for the Giants. The management decisions, placing responsibility for success on both the players and management, ultimately lead to the World Series win.
Manager or Leader: Two Sides Of the Same Coin
Rather than fighting the "linguistic and meaning" battle as to whether it is "better" to be a manager or a leader or whether leadership is more highly regarded than management, my experience is that management and leadership are two sides of the same coin. One can't live without the other and one can't be successful without the other.
That means that a successful leader must at times be a manager and a successful manager must at times be a leader. One without the other will ultimately culminate in a career/project/business failure.
Back To the ASTD Dinner
So now back to the presentation at the ASTD dinner. The speaker was telling us that, in her study the "leaders" she interviewed lamented that they were often misunderstood. They wished that the people they communicated with would tell them when they thought something was amiss with their intended message.
Well, that's not going to happen. When someone communicates with you how do you know when you have misinterpreted their message? That would be a fine trick.
Whether you are a leader or manager (according to the speakers definition) or a combination of both (by my definition) the responsibility for being understood rests with the speaker... the person "sending the message". The person sending the message is the only one who really understands what the message is supposed to mean. Therefore, it is the sender's responsibility to verify that the message was interpreted as they intended.
And the Responsibility Goes To...
No matter who we are in the organization (baseball or business), no matter who we are in life (think of a parent misunderstood by a son or daughter) it is our job (the sender) to verify that our message has been received as intended. Whether pulling a pitcher up from the minor leagues to
starting lineup for a major league team, or placing an engineer on a project, or dealing with high-level customers in the C-suite, it always comes down to: "the responsibility for
effective communication rests with the sender--- leader or manager or engineer or parent or ... human being.
Get it?
No comments:
Post a Comment