* * * AN ARMY OF LEADERS * * *
Two words might have completely different meanings. However, if we see and hear them being misused over and over again, we might start using them interchangeably –causing even more misunderstandings.
The terms management and leadership are a good example.
We often hear sentences such as “The leadership team is meeting this week,” “Organization leaders are concerned about the stock price,” and “Leaders from both government agencies should come to an agreement.”
Are those sentences truly referring to leaders? Or they are referring to management positions?
Although management and leadership share some characteristics and functions, they are completely separate roles requiring different skill sets and different environments to thrive.
The traditional view of management focuses on organizational structure and processes. Therefore, managerial development has been built around managing resources and retaining control.
Over decades business schools and MBA programs have trained students for executive–, project management–, and consulting–type jobs, creating armies of process-oriented people who:
In graduated programs waves of future managers are taught to believe that theory matches reality –where step-by-step charts, checklists, industry best practices and long-term plans form a magical intersection point. Business students have been sold on the idea that, with that knowledge, they can as managers “instinctively” resolve problems quickly –without even fully understanding a problem’s context and significance.
The “getting things done” mentality becomes the main driver, which certainly requires planning, organizing projects and controlling processes and people. Therefore, once “someone” high up in the organization set “the (specific) goals” –usually high-level management team, PMO/portfolio directors, etc.– managers become responsible for three aspects:
Since corporate goals materialize through managerial goals, the latter arise out of operations and project needs rather than desires from customers or teams.
Is that one of the reasons why managers tend to adopt impersonal –and even passive– attitudes toward goals? Is that why they refrain from questioning policies, processes and/or metrics? Or avoid not only asking but also answering fundamental questions about purpose and value? Or refrain from challenging the status quo or setting the stage to pivot if necessary?
In any case, mangers are not encouraged to raise those issues or challenge assumptions. Their understanding is, the more deadlines we meet the better managers we are; the more goals we achieve, the more rewards we attain.
In that environment, what matters the most is the original goal –regardless of who set it, when it was set, the particular context, or the reasoning behind it.
It might not be relevant whether the goal is right or wrong, worth pursuing or not, profitable or unproductive, beneficial or detrimental to the organization. Regardless of what the nicely framed “Organizational Values Chart” says, “getting it done” is what matters –not the customer, not the teams, not the long-term vision.
This army of managers has been missing some pretty fundamental requirements for success:
The formula worked for a long time. The recipe seemed to be effective. Organizations and managers were satisfied. Until recently, when everything in the world started to change very quickly: new technologies come out every month and much more information and options are available every day –customers, employees, influencers and investors can come and go instantly, without giving any notice or warning.
“Instantly” is the key word that is changing the playing field for any organization. That is the word that makes traditional management methodologies ineffective and heavy management approaches inefficient.
It is not to say that managers are wrong. Completing tasks is certainly a key to perform effectively, but a new approach is required. One that focus on people and value delivery. One that questions assumptions and takes risks early and often. One that avoids re-work and brings innovation.
It is essential that the managerial process has options for flexibility. There is where the word “leadership” emerges and the Agile mindset comes into play.
Each organization has the power to decide which is more valuable: having an army of managers or an army of leaders, having a brigade of methodology and framework-followers or a brigade of innovators.
agile-thoughts was born to support the latter.
Useful? Interesting? Inspiring?
The best gifts become bigger when we have the opportunity to share them. If an article, a paragraph or just a sentence resonates with you, use it for your personal and professional growth…and multiply it. Spread the word.
Tell your colleagues, former students, clients, teams and friends about agile-thoughts.
Use the opportunity to:
LinkedIn, Slack, Facebook, email and a picture through a text message are effective ways to say,
“Hello, I saw agile-thoughts and thought about you!”
If you believe what we believe, pass this gift along!
2021 © Virginia, USA | Bogota, Colombia | Madrid, Spain
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means.
Individual pieces –including charts, graphs and diagrams– are protected by copyright as collective works or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States of America and other countries, they are strictly for personal use, and cannot be used for commercial purposes without the individual author’s written authorization.