Tom Finegan - Amplifiers

1 1.Definition from Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+are+the+dictionaries&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS795US796&oq=what+are+the+dictionaries&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j0i22i30l2j0i10i22i30j0i22i30l5.12572j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#dobs=leader.

Leadership and management are not the same. Amazingly, people often get this wrong. Bosses are frequently confused with leaders, and subordinates are confused with followers. That said, a boss may very well be a leader, but it is not a foregone conclusion. Just because a boss has the title or power in the relationship, doesn't mean that boss is a leader. We have all seen these bosses in action—the titled executive or manager who oversees a large team but has no followers. Some employees do as they are instructed by the boss, but not because they are being led or because those employees are drawn to follow, but rather because they fear the boss's reprisals. This is not leadership.

Sometimes we see this demonstrated in nonbusiness settings, such as politics. All too frequently, we find ourselves governed by a politician who, although they were voted into office, they are not an actual leader. These individuals may not even have the credentials to be qualified for the role. Although they certainly have the position, they do not garner a broad following.

My favorite book on explaining the differences between leadership and management is A Force for Change by John Kotter. We confuse leadership with people in managerial functions. Kotter lays out the stark differences between mobilizing groups of people in a common direction (leadership) and organizing a group of people to accomplish a task or run a function (management). Kotter makes a special point to parse leadership from the commonly misused title of someone who sits atop a business function or organization, what we call in this book, a titled executive .

Kotter rightly argues that simply by virtue of holding a position at the top of a team, department, or an entire organization doesn't imply that the person is actually providing leadership. Despite the book having been written in 1990, we continue to imbue the elements of leadership unwittingly onto these managers and titled executives.

What is amazing, though, is when these teams or departments produce extraordinary results despite the lack of leadership at the top. How is it that teams can function despite this lack of leadership at the top? In some cases, it's momentum from a previous manager. In other cases, the product carries itself. But more commonly, success is driven by followership in action. Professionals who are not in the top spot are able to step up to fill the leadership void by wielding influence among their peers.

What motivates people to fill the leadership gap left by their managers? Some employees are motivated by their own career aspirations, seeing the void as an opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities. Others are motivated by serving the customer out of a need to simply do the right thing. These employees are driven by the greater purpose their organization is pursuing.

Titled managers or executives have power. Simply by nature of their title or position, these bosses can get others to do their work. Confusing this with leadership can lead to disastrous results. Some companies mistakenly have managers run leadership development training sessions. Such training sessions likely merge the concepts of leadership and management, but these two disciplines require very different skills. Companies can and should train separately for good management and for good leadership. Far too often, companies conflate the two and they wonder why the results are suboptimal.

Leaders do not need to be good managers, but depending on how high up in the organization the position, good management requires leadership. We have seen many good leaders who cannot manage well. If these good leaders are self-actualized, they recognize that they need to have good followers who are also good managers. They can delegate the management skill far more effectively than a follower can fill a leadership void.

There is an abundance of research on the science of management, and much has been written about how to manage more effectively. The “modern” father of management discipline is Peter Drucker in his 1973 book, Management . A significant amount of derivative work has been written based on his principles. Many of the current-day management philosophies are driven by his concepts. Even as these management practices have evolved over the past decades since Drucker wrote his material, little work has been done to discover traits that make great workers great.

Unlike theories on management, which focus on the “elite few,” very little has been written on individual contributors. Yet these individuals—those who are being managed—make up the majority of employees at many companies and are largely responsible for carrying out the organization's strategic goals. Understanding workers—whether they are subordinates or followers—is a worthwhile study for any leader or manager. Flipping the management theory coin and taking a closer look at employees who are being managed reveals greater insight into how to achieve higher performance from those teams.

Delving into the prevailing wisdom on management highlights several key gaps. We are increasingly operating in a world with a greater number of remote or virtual workers, especially because we've experienced a forced work-from-home environment during the global COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Managing these remote workers requires a different set of tools. Managers cannot manage by walking around, pulling subordinates in for quick conversations in real time, or interacting easily with workers in an informal manner. Culture trumps strategy, and building a strong culture with remote workers is difficult. All these factors and others necessitate the use of differing methods and tools to connect with workers. The effectiveness of these tools remains questionable as the modern workforce grapples with how best to deploy them.

Another change in how knowledge workers get work done is the agile method of running projects and accomplishing work. This style democratizes the nature of work, placing more emphasis on the workers responsible for getting the work done than on the managers overseeing the teams. The following summarizes a few key characteristics of good workers.

Subject Matter Aspects

Subject matter expertise or competency

Accreditation and special training

Company and industry knowledge

Technical Aspects

Project planning and oversight

Team construction and oversight

Problem deconstruction and solving

Risk management and contingency planning

Nontechnical and People Aspects

Communication

Performance management

Professional development

Administrative Aspects

Risk and issue resolution and management

Budgeting and forecasting

Goal setting and tracking

Compliance

“If you think you are a leader and you are out there and turn around and there's nobody behind you, you're not a leader, just a guy out there taking a walk.”

—John Hope Bryant

There is so much confusion regarding what leadership is and what it is not. There is an abundance of books and articles written about leadership. Many universities have courses devoted to studying leadership. But far too often we miss the point. Simply because someone occupies a chair does not make them a leader. Additionally, leaders with charisma or popularity can seduce employees by their style. When we follow these individuals, we often find ourselves in regrettable positions.