With the caveat that skills required by managers in supply chain roles--especially in retail, logistics or manufacturing--might not be weighted the same as required by managers in other verticals, leadership and thinking are more important than operational expertise or technical knowledge, as arguably is true of all upper-level and middle management roles.
At middle levels, what we might call “management” skills are important, beyond the specific technical skills any associate has relied upon in former roles.
Think of the common process in the telecom industry, software or hardware industries where talented engineers or coders discover as they move up the ranks that they no longer are writing code or doing engineering but instead mostly are managing people and information flows.
The ascension to the “C” suite is even more startling, as there is a difference between leadership and management that typically goes unrecognized. In fact, leadership and management involve different skills: they are not different words for the same skill.
The analogy I have long used is that “leadership” is conferred by those who follow; “management” is conferred by a role within an organization. People follow leaders because of some non-bureaucratic and personal source of authority.
In combat, formal authority (management) does not matter as much as leadership. Soldiers under fire must follow their officers, because those officers have formal authority. But soldiers in great danger willingly follow those they trust, no matter what their rank.
That is what I mean by saying "leadership is conferred by followers," not by formal legal authority. Second lieutenants have formal authority, and can manage, in essence. But it often is the case that leadership is exercised by others in a platoon, no matter their rank.
People obey management because they work for organizations that say employees follow the directions given by managers.
Oversimplifying, management has power conferred by the organization. It is a function of role.
Leadership is assent conferred by followers, not dictated strictly by organization titles, reporting lines and structure. In describing the difference between management and leadership, management often is viewed as “authoritarian,” where leadership is said to be motivating.
That mostly is a gross exaggeration, and unfair. Managers are not necessarily "authoritarian," but they command because they have lawful organizational authority.
Leaders might, or might not, have proper and lawful authority. What they do command is the willing followership of others, given on a voluntary basis.
People often mistake leadership and management as the same thing but in essence, they are very different. The main difference between the two is that leaders have people that follow them, while managers have people who simply work for them
Another useful, but oversimplified summary might be that “management” is mostly the required skill people need in middle management. At the “C” level, in line roles, leadership skills are more important.
Look at the sorts of questions would-be CEOs are urged to answer:
- Why do you want to be a CEO
- What is your value proposition for the organization
- Do your skills and experiences match the organization’s strategic objectives
- How do your values align with the organization’s values
- What have I learned from failures and successes that help the organization\
- Where are the company’s strategic opportunities
None of those sorts of questions would really make sense for a competent middle manager.
Make no mistake, mastering management is not the same as mastering leadership. And leadership has to be learned, just as management has to be learned.
No comments:
Post a Comment