The art in-between

ELIZABETH JOSEPH
Justicia Shipena



Would we need leadership or management in utopia? Isn’t utopia finally the place and the moment where we can get rid of all of these leaders and live free? Well, I don’t know. I think in a utopia there will be humans, hopefully, and if there are humans, they will still be social beings as well.

Everything requires leadership, so the question is: What kind of leadership should we look at? Should we look at the hero model of leadership, where the shining star is the ideal person? I do think leadership is an interesting thing and sometimes it is over-glorified. Whenever you become a leader, you have a rendezvous with reality.

Leadership and management are terms so frequently interchanged that they have almost lost their distinguishing characteristics. The images each word evokes, however, could not be more different. ‘Managers’ are uninspiring sources of aggravation at low-paying jobs.

‘Leaders’ are generals who have bronze statues cast in their honour. While leadership and management are not exactly interchangeable, they are also not mutually exclusive, and the differences between the two skill portfolios should not be confused.

When exploring the distinction between leadership and management, it is equally important to understand that effective leaders and managers are observant enough to recognise which circumstances call for leadership and which require management.

This is a true art, as it requires self-awareness to know whether one is better suited to lead or manage.

Too often self-styled serious students of leadership devote thousands of hours to attending training seminars and building a paper trail which validates their self-image as a leader. A culture of professional leadership validation through everything from leadership badges to certification programmes, originally intended to communicate one’s leadership or management qualifications to the outside world, has become cluttered.

If one characteristic serves to demystify the opacity of the ‘leadership industry’ and distinguishes leadership from management, it is that leadership is similar to management, but significantly more dependent upon personal characteristics. While not an ironclad maxim, the assertion can be made that all leaders must manage, but not all managers must lead.

Generals and admirals must effectively manage millions of dollars, facilities and human resources, before they can begin to apply their own unique leadership styles. Politicians must manage broad portfolios of relationships, risk and trade-offs.

Every organisation seems to have its own theories about which leadership styles best suit organisational missions. Given the complexity of interpersonal communications, searching for a unified theory of leadership seems almost a fool’s errand.

Whether it be employing a participative leadership style over a series of months to help an organisation develop its strategic plan or using an authoritative leadership style to lead a unit in pitched combat, a leader’s success toward achieving the organisation’s mission relies heavily on a few essential characteristics.

A manager must be an excellent communicator and a shrewdness factor in terms of resources and personnel. A leader either must be a steward or be self-aware enough to know how to lead those who are. The paramount difference that distinguishes leaders, though, is recognising the dynamic, complex nature of their human resources. Human resources are most effective when they are given purpose, motivation and direction.

I hope someday when you have to choose between the two, you will make the right choice for yourself to manage the things you need to manage, but also lead the people you are supposed to lead.

At the end of the day, leaders are essentially managers who communicate clearly and candidly, foster mutual respect, share hardship and strive to improve the organisation with their most valuable resources - their human resources.