Leadership, when viewed in isolation, has its limitations.

Management often seems overshadowed.

If one were to gather a hundred current corporate leadership coaches or experts and request a definition of leadership, it’s likely that there would be at least two hundred varying interpretations. This variance arises because leadership is inherently contextual and situational, leading to a multitude of dimensions. The more precise we attempt to define it, the more we must align with the specific context and circumstances at hand.

To construct a workable definition of leadership within the corporate sphere, we might elevate our understanding to a broader perspective. A plausible definition could be:

“Leadership is the process of influencing and motivating others to work towards achieving a common goal or vision, while empowering and enabling them to contribute their best efforts.”

In 2024, I suspect it would be challenging to find a hundred individuals willing to identify themselves as management coaches or experts. If such individuals were gathered, reaching a consensus on a definition of management might be simpler due to the more straightforward nature of the topic. Their collective definition might resemble:

“Management is a set of capabilities that refer to the skills, competencies, and attributes that enable individuals to effectively plan, organize, coordinate, and control resources and activities to achieve organizational goals and objectives.”

While leadership is dynamic and motivating, focusing on inspiration and empowerment, management tends to be perceived as mundane and mechanistic, centered around control and efficiency.

In the corporate realm, which often reflects broader societal trends in the Western worldview, management has come to be regarded as the less glamorous counterpart to the appealing and trendy concept of leadership.

The surge in emphasis on leadership.

The post-industrial economy, along with subsequent developments such as the knowledge and attention economies, emerged from a strong focus on management. This economy was well-organized, regulated, and designed for efficient management, with efficiency being a key indicator of success. Such a foundation facilitated technological advancements, contingent upon their effective integration into existing systems.

In that post-industrial context, 'management' was revered within corporate environments. It wielded considerable power, and the title of 'manager' was highly sought after. When challenges arose, management was often held accountable.

However, during the 1980s and 1990s, the rise of personal development brought the term 'leadership' into our corporate vocabulary with newfound significance. It began to symbolize a critical necessity, emerging from the realization that management alone could not meet the demands of the evolving economies.

Influential figures like Robbins and Covey captivated audiences, while Kotter urged us to lead change. Collins illuminated the distinction between good and great organizations through an emphasis on leadership. CEOs and senior leaders, often former managers, published memoirs under the guise of leadership guides.

This led to an explosion of leadership discourse, further propelled by technological advancements that transformed the processes of research, writing, and publication.

Today, leadership remains a fashionable topic, which is well-deserved. However, I sometimes question if the pendulum has swung too far or become stuck. In our relentless pursuit of leadership, are we undermining the value and necessity of the skills and attributes that strong management fosters?

As someone who has engaged in numerous transformations, I ponder whether the frequency of change in workplaces has fueled the rise of 'leadership' or whether it has been a reaction to it.

The need for both leadership and management.

The distinction between leadership and management within Western corporate culture is fascinating. Yet, I firmly believe that both are vital, and we cannot afford to prioritize one set of attributes excessively over the other.

A balanced perspective on both management and leadership skills is scalable. The behaviors that stem from such a balance apply equally at individual, corporate, and community levels.

In a previous article, I expressed my fondness for comparing and contrasting management and leadership attributes, which lends itself well to a two-by-two framework. This approach helps illustrate how these attributes interact and emphasizes the potential consequences of an imbalance between them.

A lack of both leadership and management can result in a state resembling a chaotic children’s birthday party — Utter Chaos. This scenario leads to confusion, poor discipline, and an environment prone to stress and reactive behaviors.

Conversely, environments with low leadership but high management skills may yield Uninspired Efficiency. In such settings, established work patterns go unquestioned, cultivating a breeding ground for toxic cynicism where change is resisted.

Cultures characterized by low management skills and high leadership qualities can experience Unsustainable Progress. Innovative ideas proliferate, often justified by terms like 'disruptive,' yet the absence of discipline hinders the establishment of reliable systems for sustainability.

The rare environments that successfully emphasize both high leadership and management skills create Undeniable Momentum. These cultures recognize that effective ideas require structure to materialize and endure, even if only in the medium term. They also understand that these structures must be adaptable enough to respond swiftly to an ever-changing landscape.

So, what's next?

To strike a balance between leadership and management, we must reacquaint ourselves with essential management skills and apply them within the context of the interplay between the two.

Three considerations arise in this endeavor.

1. The Importance of the Outer Rings. Simon Sinek’s book Start with Why delves into the Golden Circle concept, emphasizing that successful individuals and organizations focus on their 'why' rather than merely their 'what' or 'how.'

Sinek asserts that understanding and articulating our purpose inspires action and drives long-term success. He identifies three components of the Golden Circle:

• Why: The fundamental purpose or belief behind our actions.
• How: The strategies or processes employed to fulfill that purpose.
• What: The tangible products or services offered.

Sinek illustrates this with examples from successful companies, highlighting how effectively communicating their 'why' resonates deeply with people, fostering loyalty and engagement. However, in embracing Sinek’s message, we often overemphasize the 'Why' and neglect the 'How' and 'What,' which are equally significant. Sinek encourages us to start with why, but not to end there.

2. The Role of Systems and Processes. Every output is a product of a system. To disregard the system perspective means that even the most compelling vision becomes mere wishful thinking.

Adopting a systems thinking approach is essential for both leadership and management. It involves recognizing the interconnectedness of components within a system and understanding how they interact to create emergent behaviors.

Systems thinking values the connections among elements and advocates for a holistic view of issues. It involves working with feedback loops and identifying the underlying structures that shape complex systems over time.

3. The Significance of Data. In today's data-rich environment, data is crucial for effective leadership and management. Insights derived from data inform decision-making, drive strategic initiatives, and enhance organizational performance.

Data empowers leaders and managers to make informed decisions grounded in evidence rather than intuition. By analyzing relevant data, we can better understand market trends and customer preferences, enabling us to anticipate changes and proactively address challenges.

A data-centric approach fosters agility, allowing organizations to remain ahead in a rapidly evolving business landscape. Moreover, data enables us to track progress, monitor performance, and measure outcomes, which helps identify areas for improvement.

Data-driven performance management cultivates accountability and transparency, aligning efforts with organizational objectives. It also supports a culture of continuous learning and innovation.

Data serves as the foundation for evidence-based leadership and management practices. By leveraging data to substantiate our decisions, we build trust and credibility within our organizations.

It’s time to stop regarding management as an inferior concept, the 'poor cousin' of leadership.

Leadership has its limits; effective management is equally essential.