Leadership, Management & Kipling

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

When you don't know the answer -- avoid the question. When you don't know the exact words -- invent some. That's one way to survive as a management guru.

One way. Not a good way.

The reality is that leaders are also managers and managers are also leaders. What is the difference...? ... not a hell of a lot. (Rudyard Kipling's six wise tips for leaders, by Daniel Kehoe in The West, 2 Nov 11)

Which just goes to show how little Kehoe knows.

What's the difference between management and leadership?

Despite Kehoe, there is a difference. Quite a significant difference.

Management ... is the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively. Management comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization ... or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. (Wikipedia, 7 Nov 11)

To put it another way: Your organisation gives you authority. You use that authority to plan, organise, direct and control allocated staff, in order to accomplish an organisationally-approved goal.

Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task". (Chemers M. (1997) An integrative theory of leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. ISBN 9780805826791, quoted in Wikipedia, 7 Nov 11)

To put it another way: Leadership is the art of causing people to follow you.

To point out the obvious: Leadership does not require formal authority. Leadership does not require you to plan, nor to organise, nor to staff, nor to direct, nor to control. Despite a lack of formal authority, people may choose to follow a leader.

Staff have a formal -- employment -- agreement with an organisation. When an organisationally-authorised manager directs, staff will obey. Or risk organisational sanctions.

Kehoe has written a series of management books under the general title of, You Lead, They'll Follow. Yes, that's the essence of leadership. If a manager is also a leader then staff will need less of the whip. If all managers are also leaders then the organisation will -- probably -- be a better place to work. The organisation may also operate more effectively.

Armed forces traditionally prefer management to leadership. An officer may also be a leader. In war, however, instant and unthinking obedience has generally been considered to be better than soldiers choosing to follow orders, or not.

The title of Kehoe's book series indicates that he does value leadership.

It's a pity that he seems to believe that leadership is just another word for management.

Kipling did not write that

Kehoe's article refers to "Rudyard Kipling's Six Wise Men -- What, Why, How, Who, Where and When." No, sorry, that is completely wrong.

Two minutes with Google confirmed my memory:

I KEEP six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.

(from The Kipling Society website)

There are no wise men in the poem. There are six honest serving-men.

And when quoting a poem it is helpful to (a) quote correctly and (b) preserve the rhythm of the poem. Kehoe has failed at both of these.

The rest of Kehoe's article is nonsense followed by the blatantly obvious.

Good management,
good leadership

If you want to be a good manager, use Kipling's six honest serving-men as a checklist. Use what & why & when & how & where & who to ensure that you cover key aspects of whatever you are about to plan, organise, etc.

Aside: I was interested to read that, "In journalism, [what and why etc] is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering. ... for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, [what and why etc]." (Wikipedia, 7 Nov 11) The interesting thing is that, apparently, by 1940 the what-and-why-etc approach to journalism was considered to be old-fashioned and fallacious... I believe that that says more about journalism than about the what-and-why-etc approach to understanding a situation.

So. Management is about planning, organising, directing and controlling. A what-and-why-etc checklist will help with these tasks. Directing staff requires authority -- but will be easier if you are sure of what needs to be done, why each person needs to do their bit, when to do each sub-task... and so on.

Leadership, on the other hand, requires social influence. If you want to be a manager and a leader, you need to be able to use social influence. If you want to be a leader, you probably are not (yet) a leader... Don't worry, there is hope!

The Wikipedia article on leadership lists a series of leadership myths... Right at the top of the list, it seems that leaders can be both born -- and made. Becoming a leader requires "hard work and careful observation"... Perhaps Kehoe's books will help...

Leaders do not completely control outcomes: you may be able to get by solely with good management skills. Which are more easily learnt. Anyway, leadership is not always positive: good management may be able to counter the informal leader who is influencing your staff against organisational goals.

Finally, to go back to Kehoe's first error:

Management uses authority which is a form of institutionalised power. Managers are given the authority to exert power over people. Leaders have power with people. A leader has power because people choose to follow.

Kehoe may believe that there is "not a hell of a lot" of difference between management and leadership. Kehoe is wrong.

If you are a born leader, that's great... Well, that's great if your leadership skills support your management role... Otherwise you are in for a stormy and possibly severely limited management career!

If you are not a born leader, you may be able to learn. You may, at least, be able to learn some leadership techniques. Just don't believe that use of technique equals leadership.

And if you just can't lead -- you can still be a good manager. Management techniques may be learnt. And good use of management techniques does equal good management.

Good luck... or work hard.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems. Agamedes Consulting: Support for your thought. email nick leth at gmail dot com