Managers and Leaders

Back in 1977, Abraham Zaleznik wrote a classic article in the Harvard Business Review called "Managers and Leaders: Are they Different?"

The simple answer was "Yes, they are. But he goes on and elaborates on a number of different points. He dips into some psychology, which is definitely different from the majority of business leadership articles written today. This is a seminal work and definitely worth a read.

So how do Managers and Leaders differ? I would first preface this with saying that all leaders or managers fall on a sort of "Manager / Leader Continuum". There really aren't any "pure leaders" or "pure managers". We need them both, and depending on someone's style, they will use more tools from the leadership toolbox or from the management toolbox.

Well first of all we would typically stereotype managers as lacking creativity and ethics.

Alright, calm down... this is not validation on your suspicions that your manager is a heartless baby candy snatcher... this just means that taking a strict Max Weber-esque definition of a manager, we will see someone who painstakingly follows the rules and does nothing else. They don't have their own self-ethics. (Think someone who will refuse emergency care to a dying patient because they haven't filled out their paperwork). Similarly, they lack any creativity because they are always worried about going by the book and ONLY by the book.

Leaders on the other hand are painted as dynamic and creative, working "for the people". Granted this may be an over dramatization of leadership, but it helps paint a picture of the ideal.

The second stereotype about managers and leaders that Zaleznik discusses is that leaders are proactive while managers are reactive. This dovetails into the stereotype about managers being "tactical" thinkers while leaders are "strategic" thinkers. Again both are merely different spots on the spectrum with both types of thinking being necessary in order to be effective.

Zaleznik also describes managers as being able to "play the game" referring to politics, while leaders are more often tough and direct. He also alludes to theories in psychology, stating that leaders are "twice born", people who have had lives filled with struggle and living with a feeling of being separate and not belonging. Leaders therefore have a strong sense of duty and responsibility to "make things right", while managers who are "once born" are more comfortable with "making things the same".

Zaleznik finishes with an open question about the development of leaders within today's business culture of pitting peers against each other and seeing who come out on top. He rails on the fact that this will merely excessively reward aggressive behavior (something that is ultimately self defeating).

I would say that Zaleznik is at least partially giving a critique of the current status of people who we call "leaders". I would have to admit that many of my own postings have come out my critique. I also find his work to be a great starting point for a discussion on the difference between leaders and managers, however I would have to say that the research has advanced since the time of his writing. Specifically, I would have to say that Zaleznik's critique on "management" is overdone. Most of it would more accurately be pointed towards "ineffective leadership", because I do believe that effective management has its merits.

Thanks for the read, and as always comments are requested and appreciated.

Until next time,
-Jason