About the Author:
Chandrasekhar M (Director at Indian Institute of Management Visakhapatnam)
A couple of centuries into management evolving as a formal domain deserving special attention, yet, this argument refuses to die down. Are Managers lowly mortals and Leaders of superior genre? Are Managers for Shopfloor and Leaders for C-suites and Board Rooms?
More than a century ago, Henri Fayol defined planning, organizing, leading, controlling, and developing (oneself and others) as the five functions of management.
Thus, the first aspect to recognize is that Leading is an essential ingredient of Managing as a whole and that Managing would be incomplete without Leading. So, Leadership, visible in powerful communication, motivation and influencing is a fuel and nutrient that makes Managing holistic and wholesome.
Hence, Managing and Leading are indispensable to each other. Without one, the other is incomplete. To be successful, each is a necessary condition; not a sufficient condition.
The aim of Managing is to generate maximum possible value out of the capital – be it natural, physical, human, social, cultural or economic. Leading lends traction to that effort.
Let us put this discussion in the framework of 4 “T”s that Ms. Ameeta Chatterjee [an IIM Bangalore alumna, management professional, successful social entrepreneur, corporate leader, practitioner of fine arts and a distinguished Member on the Board of Governors of IIM Visakhapatnam] referred to, in her book “Joyful Living: Reflections of a Happy Soul”.
The first and foremost “T” is Truthfulness. This is about honesty. “Truth alone triumphs” goes the popular saying. We are expected to speak, as evolved individuals, the truth, the only truth, the complete truth and nothing but the truth. “In a conflict between the heart and the mind, always follow your heart. Because that’s the crucible of your conscience. That’s the one that drives virtues and values; morals and ethics” said Swami Vivekananda. Truthfulness applies to institutions and individuals – practicing and demonstrating rectitude and righteousness in acts and deeds is equally important for both, for, that is what is recognized and respected in the ultimate analysis. As public figures or policymakers, as professionals or practitioners (teacher, doctor, lawyer, engineer, accountant, scientist, management specialist) the barometer of stature, standing and statesmanship is being truthful. “Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching” were the wise words of Charles W Marshall, the famous author. The measure of integrity is that our acts and deeds are purposive and in public interest; fair and just; fit and proper; consistent and predictable; transparent and traceable. Truthfulness is to be practiced, felt and experienced; Mere professing won’t do.
Being truthful equips and empowers an individual to deal with real-life situations more squarely, without fear or favor. It helps in being frank and forthright. It gives the power to look straight into the eyes of the person sitting opposite. Honesty is demonstrated in subordinating individual incentive to institutional interest. “It is true that integrity alone won't make you a leader, but without integrity you will never be one” exhorted Zig Ziglar, the well-known American author.
Practicing truthfulness reduces complexities and comprises; and boosts one’s confidence, character and credibility. Being truthful therefore, has a lot to do with leading.
The second “T” is Tenderness. This is about humility. “Everyone is ignorant, only in different fields” said Will Rogers, the famous American actor and comedian. Empathy is the building block of Tenderness. It is a part of, as I would see it, the “Open Heart” concept of the “Adaptability Quotient” developed by Otto Scharmer, founder of the Presencing Institute at MIT. As Scharmer puts it, display of empathy is the ability to see a situation from the other person’s eyes and being considerate. It helps build stronger network-capital. Tenderness fosters trust. It’s a demonstration of kindness and shared values. Of care and compassion. Humility endows the individual with the patience to listen to the views, suggestions and concerns of others. It teaches self-awareness, self-regulation and self-realization. An “Open Mind”, as Scharmer says, makes one see the world with a fresh set of eyes and remain open to new possibilities, without one’s own biases coloring the learning experience. It makes one comprehend better, the context, complexities, and conflicts from the perspective of the other person (subordinate or senior). Tenderness is therefore essential to leadership.
The third “T” is Togetherness. This is about harmony. “Trust is the building block of motivation” said Abraham Maslow. For any cooperative, collaborative or co-working effort in organizations to sustain and thrive, trust is sine qua non. There cannot be issues of common focus or converging interest without mutual trust. Conflict-resolution and consensus-building are non-existent without trust. It’s important to recognize that trust cannot be “managed”. It needs to be built, nurtured, cultivated and sustained. Trust is too important a trait to be reduced to and communicated in writing, as a rule or diktat. It has to be fostered. It should manifest itself in one’s actions and deeds. It has to be demonstrated in the natural process of dealing with individuals. It has to be felt. It’s borne out of “Open Will” that Scharmer describes i.e. letting go of one’s ego and joining hands with others for collective effort. Maintaining Status Quo could be very tempting, says Scharmer. Togetherness is about embracing the discomfort of the unknown, in the larger interests of creating value. Togetherness based on trust and adaptability is the outcome of leading.
The fourth “T” is Thoughtfulness. This is about humanism. Being thoughtful drives one towards logical reasoning, rational thought (critical thinking), analytical perspective, normative approach and evidence-based analysis.
Thoughtfulness prods and propels one towards a professional (impersonal) approach. It leaves less scope for discretion. Herbert Simon (Economist & Psychologist, Political Scientist & Computer Scientist; Professor at Carnegie Mellon University; Nobel Prize Winner in Economics – 1978) in his book “Administrative Behavior”, first published 1947, puts forward the concept of “bounded rationality” and “satisficing” meaning – satisfactory under a given set of circumstances. He explains about behavioral and cognitive processes of human beings playing a role in decision-making (making rational choices), with the decision-maker wearing two hats, one of an Economic man and the other of an Administrative man. Simon defines the task of rational decision-making as selecting the alternative that results in the more preferred set of all the possible consequences. Correctness of decisions is thus measured by the adequacy of achieving the desired objective and the efficiency with which the result is obtained. This, he suggests, is implemented through a three-step process - identifying and listing all the alternatives; determining all consequences resulting from each of the alternatives; and, comparing the accuracy and efficiency of each of these sets of consequences. He states: “As a member of an organization, an individual must make decisions not in relationship to personal needs and results, but in an impersonal sense as part of the organizational intent, purpose and effect. Organizational rewards should all be designed to form, strengthen, and maintain this identification” is the valuable advice of Simon.
Thoughtfulness makes an individual pause at points of inflection (when things start witnessing changes in direction) and introspect. Reflecting on one’s own actions and deeds, helps one develop insights that could bridge foresight with hindsight. Therefore, thoughtfulness has a judicious blend of managing and leading in it.
Management drives efficiencies of work outputs through planning, organizing and controlling; leading makes the outcomes emerging from the outputs, more effective.
As John Humphries puts it in his book on “How to Manage People at Work”, integrity, flexibility, open- mindedness, decisiveness, trust-worthiness, being without bias, enthusiasm, imagination and humor are traits that showcase the “leadership”, the DNA of the individual. If one has these “leadership” attributes, communication, listening, motivation, delegation, innovation, planning, controlling and influencing are qualities that can be easily learnt, acquired, nurtured and imbibed for “managing” efficiently.
Broadly, managing focuses on the objective and quantitative dimensions, while the impact of leadership is visible in the subjective and qualitative dimensions. They complement each other. To conclude, Managing builds competence, capacity and credibility. Leading builds confidence, character and commitment. Neither is superior to the other. Neither is a set that an individual could do without.
No comments:
Post a Comment