Leadership + Management — not Leader or Manager
If a person performs a mix of management and leadership functions in different circumstances, is that person a manager, leader, or something else? Or, is this a problem that is only limited to traditional organizations that have firm job descriptions? Alternatively, if job descriptions are replaced with roles, the likelihood of functional blending would be reduced as dissimilar roles are performed at different times. However, this still leaves the challenge of how that person describes themselves when asked outside of a role specific situation.
For background, Manager and Leader are terms that are often used interchangeably with some skewing toward leaders higher in the organization hierarchy and managers more down line toward first level supervisors. However, there is a basic functional difference between management and leadership that often gets overlooked in daily use of defining roles as a manager or leader.
Separating management functions from leadership functions gets very messy with different authors defining these terms from different perspectives and with separate but overlapping domains. To avoid a detailed academic analysis, this quandary was posed to ChatGPT to sort through the OpenAI knowledgebase.
Management functions — operational planning, organizing, directing, staffing, coordinating, reporting, budgeting, motivating, communicating, decision-making, and controlling
Leadership functions — visioning, goal setting, organizing, motivation, direction, policy making, alignment, driving change, influencing, and strategic planning
Note that these functions are not exclusionary when performing a role but complementary in getting work done. There is even some overlap when comparing how different authors define the terms which adds some confusion. What changes is the mix of these functions over time as different situations are faced. So — can we keep it simple and agree, in general? -
Management and Leadership can be defined as complementary activities –
Management is more focused on maintaining and improving the current operation (efficiency), often done through control.
Leadership is more focused on preparing the organization for the future (effectiveness), often done with influence.
Another way of saying this — Leadership is change, otherwise you are managing the status quo.
These differences deal with present versus future and the ability to control versus influence. Both functions are needed — depending on the situation and objective at that time. In this way, the Next Generation Leaders need to balance both perspectives while breaking free from Industrial Era paradigms that often hold organizations back from preparing for the future by the decisions they make in their firefighting today. However, things get confusing when these two functions are overlaid with position descriptions using manager and leader in job titles.
When shifting to role descriptions, the functional differences are usually ignored, and rank starts to enter the picture with leader being seen as higher ranked than manager. To try to overcome this blurring of terms, there is often a cry for “leadership at all levels” which starts to recognize the team leadership role while further adding confusion with “strategic leadership.” This raises the question — do we need a term for positions that includes both management and leadership functions performed by the same person? If so, what is this combined term? Or, are we better to scrape static job descriptions and focus on performing multiple job roles that evolve over time with business leads?
If we are to stay with job descriptions, one term that combines leadership and management functions is “orchestrator” that brings in aspects of assigning roles within a collaboration and managing the collective workflow.
“Orchestration” in the context of combining leadership and management functions in an organization conveys a holistic and synergistic approach to organizational effectiveness. In this merger, leadership and management retain functional separation while unified in role delivery. This fits in the contemporary business landscape, characterized by rapid changes, increased complexity, and a need for adaptability with a dynamic integration of both elements to create a harmonious and agile organizational system.
- Alignment of Goals and Actions: Orchestration implies the harmonization of leadership’s strategic vision with the managerial execution of tasks. Rather than seeing these functions in isolation, orchestration ensures that goals set by top executives are seamlessly translated into actionable plans operationalized by the organization.
- Flexibility and Adaptability: In a post-Industrial world, organizations need to be agile and adaptable. Orchestration allows for a quick response to changes by integrating leadership foresight with management ability to execute adjustments promptly. This approach is crucial in a business environment where unforeseen challenges and opportunities are prevalent.
- Employee Engagement and Empowerment: Orchestration involves not just a top-down approach but also encourages bottom-up contributions — inspiring a sense of purpose while empowering employees to contribute their skills and ideas. This collaborative approach enhances employee engagement and fosters a sense of ownership in the organization’s success.
- Continuous Learning and Improvement: Orchestration acknowledges that both leadership and management roles require continuous learning and improvement as roles change. By combining these functions and not separating them into different positions, organizations can create a culture that values innovation and adaptation.
- Customer-Centric Approach: In the post-Industrial era, where customer and employee demands are ever-evolving, orchestration helps in aligning organizational efforts towards a customer-centric approach. Leadership functions set the customer-focused vision, while management functions ensure operational processes are geared towards meeting those customer needs efficiently.
This leaves us with a key question — do we need to revise how we define manager and leader in job descriptions? The term orchestration encapsulates the idea that the modern organization should not merely balance leadership and management functions but should integrate them into a cohesive and dynamic system. This approach is vital for organizations seeking not only survival but thriving in a rapidly changing and competitive business environment.
Or, should we sidestep this issue and scrape job descriptions entirely, moving even further toward a desired future where job roles evolve with need and management and leadership functions are included in these roles as needed.
Practicum -
Reflect on these questions -
- What is your “working definition” of Leadership? Management?
- How are these organization functions captured in job descriptions (or defined roles)?
- Which functional expertise are you lacking? What are your plans to close this competency gap?
Authored with some assistance from ChatGPT supervised closely with my subject matter expertise, and then edited for clarity of purpose & personalization.
