1.2 Some Important Introductory Questions

There is an age-old, ongoing discourse as to whether “management” is really different than “leadership.” Some might claim that it’s just a matter of semantics. But we believe that there are some key differences, which we outline below.

Managers do things right. Leaders do the right thing. ManagementLargely all about efficiency in terms of dealing with people, costs, equipment, and various systems in order to accomplish organizational goals. is largely all about efficiency in terms of dealing with people, costs, equipment, and various systems in order to accomplish organizational goals. So managers attempt to perfect procedures or processes that will accomplish such efficiencies. On the other hand, leaders continually question whether procedures, processes, and even goals are even appropriate. Moreover, they continually monitor the ethics of what they and others are doing.

Managers deal with the status quo. Leaders change the status quo. Managers largely accept things, or the status quo, as they are. For example, if a procedure or a policy is in place to deal with customer complaints, a manager will simply find the most effective way to implement the procedure or policy, and then ensure that others (e.g., subordinates) carry it out. There’s an old saying that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The management equivalent is the notion of management-by-exception. In other words, managers are only likely to take action when things are going noticeably wrong. However, leaders do not merely accept the status quo; instead, they continually seek ways to change it for the purpose of continuous improvement. If existing ways for dealing with customer complaints might be improved, leaders will attempt to do so—even if it means changing formal procedures or policies. Leaders take actions to solve problems, rather than allowing problems to fester.

Perhaps you have heard the expression, “it is what it is.” Individuals who use this expression a lot are more in the mode of what management is all about. They believe that they are simply being pragmatic by resigning themselves to dealing with the status quo. However, leaders might acknowledge that “it is what it is,” but then they quickly add “it’s not what it could or should be.” In other words, leaders do not simply resign themselves to the status quo, and instead, they think more in terms of possibilities and changing the status quo.

Another distinction can be made by contrasting politicians and leaders. Politicians often postpone making decisions out of fear of losing popularity among their constituents. In contrast, leaders make decisions, even if those decisions are risky and unpopular. Perhaps this is why so many politicians are not seen as leaders.

We had a student once who was a veteran of the Iraqi war. He said that a superior officer (i.e., manager) could get soldiers into a Humvee with all of the equipment that they needed for a fight. However, only a leader could get them out of the Humvee and fully engaged in a fight. Bill Campbell, the former CEO and Chairman of the software company Intuit, used to say “Your title makes you a manager. Your people make you a leader.” Kent Thiry, CEO of the health care company DaVita, made the same point by noting that “Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, leadership is in the eyes of the led. You’re not a leader unless people decide you are.”

In his classic book, Good to Great, Jim Collins used the metaphor of a bus in describing effective leadership. He said that the truly exceptional leaders are able to first get the appropriate people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and then the appropriate people in the seats most suited for them. Further, such leaders then figure out where to drive the bus. One interesting thing about this metaphor is that it actually involves both good management and leadership. Management, especially human resource management, is partially about finding the right people and placing them in the right jobs and teams. However, determining goals and vision is the prerogative of leaders. The bottom line is that the distinction between management and leadership is largely for didactic purposes, and in reality, both are necessary for effective organizations. Further, both leadership and management can potentially be shown by the same individual, although some individuals may gravitate toward showing one versus the other in their day-to-day actions in organizations.

This question is truly classic, and it has been raised time and again in the media and in popular culture. Proponents of the leaders-born argument would suggest that leadership qualities are genetically predetermined. In Chapter 2 “Leader Traits and Characteristics”, we deal with leader characteristics, some of which are trait-oriented, suggesting a predisposition toward leadership that only some individuals might possess. Indeed, an interesting stream of research involving sets of identical twins who are separated at birth would suggest a tendency for both twins in a given set to either gravitate to leadership positions in later life, or for both to not gravitate. In other words, there is more of a tendency for both twins to end up in similar roles (i.e., both as leaders, or both as non-leaders), rather than to end up in diverse leadership roles, whereby one is in a leadership role, but the other is not. Since only the “nature” portion of the nature-nurture dichotomy is constant for such identical twins who are separated at birth, the logical conclusion is that leaders are born, rather than made. However, we must again stress that this research only identified who would end up in leadership roles, rather than whether a twin would practice effective leadership as defined in these chapters.

Contradicting the nature argument, literally billions of dollars are spent every year under the premise that leaders, and leadership, can be made. In other words, the idea is that under the right circumstances (e.g., the right approach to training or development), better leaders will result. A plethora of techniques have been used in recent years in order to try to develop leaders. These techniques include more traditional approaches, such as having individuals in leadership positions receive counseling or executive coaching, or listen to motivational speakers about the nature and importance of leadership. But they can also include more extreme approaches, whereby executives go through eye-opening, consciousness-raising experiences, such as spending significant amounts of time living in impoverished or developing economies (i.e., for the purpose of enhancing one’s perspective on the need for more ethical or socially responsible organizations).

So which way is it; are leaders born, or are they made? If you guess that both options are correct, you are probably accurate. In other words, leaders are both born and made. A compromise answer would suggest that people are born with some leadership qualities, although those qualities can be molded to take shape based on life experiences. 

Consider the following example. Research has shown that there are intrinsic and somewhat stable brain structures that manifest themselves as ongoing electrical energy patterns in the brain. Indeed, identifiable brain structures have been linked to various forms of leader qualities and behaviors, such as visionary and ethical leadership. These brain structures may be somewhat genetic in their origin, although based on the principle of neuro-plasticity, they can be shaped through life experiences and systematic interventions, such as neurofeedback. Neurofeedback is a technique that is designed to guide an individual to alter neurological pathways in the brain toward a more healthy or peak performance state. Can a technique like neurofeedback be used to help develop better leadership abilities? The answer is not clear at this point, although perhaps neurofeedback might eventually be used in combination with other, more traditional techniques for developing leadership, such as executive coaching.

We conclude that although some individuals are born with certain predispositions that might be favorable to the eventual demonstration of effective leadership in their lives, leadership capabilities are nevertheless largely malleable. In other words, leadership qualities and behaviors can be learned and developed to a large degree throughout one’s lifetime. Jim Mattis, the former Marine Corps general and current Secretary of Defense claimed that “Leadership doesn’t happen in the moment, but rather is the culmination of training and preparation for that individual moment.” This conclusion forms the basis of our approach in this book.

To many people, it may seem obvious that leadership in organizations is important. But let’s break down some of the reasons. From the viewpoint of an organization, several specifics reinforce the importance of leadership. First, better leadership is associated with the attraction and retention of better performers. When a firm has better leadership, the word tends to spread throughout that firm’s industry, and it develops a reputation as a place at which people want to be employed. The firm then has the advantage of having a better applicant pool of talented individuals in various job categories. Moreover, once hired, employees tend to not quit firms that are stocked with effective leaders. Historically, a good example is Southwest Airlines, which has combined effective leadership and human resource practices for the purpose of maximizing employee retention. However, recent problems at Southwest Airlines have caused issues for both passengers and employees alike. As such, this organization is a good example of the somewhat fluid nature of effective leadership. In other words, individual leaders and companies alike can potentially lose their positive reputations relatively quickly.

Second, employees tend to identify with, and become committed to, firms with effective leaders. Such identification and commitment lead to not only employee retention, but other positive outcomes such as customer service and productivity. Further, team synergies will result. That is, instead of having a collection of individuals who are simply motivated to pursue their own goals within the confines of an organization, effective leaders are able to get people to coalesce around team-based goals and the good of the greater organization.

Third, as mentioned earlier, organizational performance and innovation tends to follow from better leadership. But we are not just talking about financially-based performance here. Increasingly, firms are expected by their constituents (e.g., customers and the communities in which firms operate) to show socially-based performance. In other words, they are expected to be environmentally-friendly, philanthropic, and maintainers of safe and stable employment for their employees. Research has increasingly shown that more effective leaders are associated with such social performance.

You may be thinking that it’s somewhat intuitive that leadership would be associated with positive team and organizational outcomes. But what does it all mean for you personally? Does being a better leader help you as an individual in some specific way? The answer is yes—both professionally and personally. On the professional side, you may go the corporate route and attempt to progress up the proverbial “corporate ladder.” Or alternatively, you will attempt to become a successful entrepreneur. In either instance, you will need the interpersonal skills to influence others to achieve goals or visions. Indeed, leadership abilities are related to career progress.

At a personal level, individuals who practice the type of leadership qualities that we will consider in this book tend to be more fulfilled, happier, and more productive individuals. “Managing” is largely about directing and controlling. However, if one is continually engaging in such actions, over time, it is likely to wear on the individual. That is, the individual will grow weary of feeling the need to always look over the shoulders of the others who they are attempting to influence. In return, those individuals will grow weary of being micro-managed. The overall situation is not healthy or even productive for everyone involved. In contrast, with the type of leadership practices that are portrayed in this book, through empowerment, inspiration, and appropriate interpersonal behavior, self-leadership on the part of others accrues over time. Eventually, through ‘leading’, an individual does not feel the need to always be micro-managing others, which then feeds into greater fulfillment and more productivity on the part of both the leader and followers. A case in point is Ricardo Semler, a highly successful Brazilian businessman, who began his career in a highly directive and authoritarian mode, but finished in a more empowering manner. Semler credits this change in style to his becoming physically healthier, and even prolonging his life.

When one considers what effective leadership is all about, one of the first things that might come to mind is that it all depends on the situation or context. ContextThe various circumstances in which a leader finds themself. These circumstances can involve the extent to which decisions need to be made quickly as opposed to constituting less of an emergency, the nature of the tasks or work settings facing the leader, and even cultural or geographic circumstances. pertains to the various circumstances in which a leader finds themself. These circumstances can involve the extent to which decisions need to be made quickly as opposed to constituting less of an emergency, the nature of the tasks or work settings facing the leader, and even cultural or geographic circumstances. But why is it that some people may be seen as leader-like in some contexts, but not others? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not easy or straightforward, and indeed, we address the issue of context and situations in depth in Chapter 5 “Situational Leadership”. For now, suffice it to say that context comes into play in two key ways with regard to the practice of leadership. First, different approaches or styles of leadership are necessary to achieve effectiveness, depending on the context or situation. Perhaps it is not too difficult to picture how certain followers, jobs, industries, or even institutions might dictate different approaches to leadership. For example, a more directive approach is more apparent for a Marine drill sergeant, rather than an employee working for Google or IBM. But even within a given context, appropriate leadership behavior can vary depending on the situation at a particular point in time. For example, a new hire may need more directive leadership, as compared to a more seasoned employee.

The above explanation and examples are relatively straightforward and easy to picture. But what may not be so evident is how the context of some organizations may either stifle, or conversely facilitate, leadership behavior. A famous leadership scholar, Warren Bennis, wrote about this phenomenon in his book, Why Leaders Can’t Lead. In some organizations, cultures have developed over time that prevent the practice of leadership. For example, a highly mechanized or rule-based organization (i.e., bureaucratic) tends to emphasize norms of behavior that would reinforce the status quo. Obviously, since leaders are oriented toward continuous improvement and change, they would find such a culture to be stifling and frustrating. The end result is that individuals with leadership tendencies would either conform and be frustrated, or eventually end up exiting that organization. However, other types of organizational cultures (e.g., those oriented toward experimentation and adaptation) would tend to encourage leadership behavior that is oriented toward change. We will consider this issue in more detail in Chapter 12 “Strategic Leadership and Shaping Organizational Culture”.