Nearly 10 years ago, I was supporting an organization in their Agile ways of working as a young Consultant and part-time Scrum Master. In one of the Sprint Retrospectives, one team member exclaimed, that she could not deliver a piece of work because her manager was calling her to attend another task. The highest-ranking guy in the meeting immediately jumped on it and said, “We don’t have Managers, we have leaders”.
At that time already, I found that odd, albeit I did not have the experience nor the acquired knowledge of Management and Leadership as today. Nowadays, I feel that this Manager was probably completely misguided by the oversimplifications of the understanding of those terms and how easily they are just mixed up wrongly.
Management vs. Leadership – what is the deal?
In the past, I might have categorized management as a position of authority, contrasting it with leadership, which I viewed as a skill. However, as I continue to learn, I realize that leadership transcends mere skill—it’s not merely about possessing a set of abilities, but rather it’s a systemic attribute inherent within an organization. Unfortunately, our focus often gravitates towards a simplistic Command & Control paradigm, which oversimplifies the nuanced dynamics of organizational leadership. This oversimplification is evident in the common use of one-liners that attempt to distill the complex differences between a boss and a leader into a single image.
This article serves as an exploration of my thoughts on this topic, offering insights into my understanding of management and leadership. While I draw inspiration from various sources, it’s important to note that this piece is more of a philosophical essay based on my personal interpretations, rather than a strictly scientific dissertation. I invite you to engage in discussions and share their perspectives, as I am eager to continue learning and expanding my understanding of this subject.
The Reputation of the Word “Manager”
In discussions about the term “‘Manager”, particularly in my Learning Organization workshops, resistance frequently surfaces among individuals who harbor negative perceptions of the term. They often recount past experiences with managers who stifled autonomy, lacked inspiration, or exhibited micromanagement tendencies. However, it’s crucial to recognize that the problem doesn’t stem from the term “Manager” itself, but rather from how managers interpret and fulfill their roles.
This negative perception of management can be attributed to at least three factors that influence managerial behavior within organizations:
Our View on People
A brief introduction to Theory X and Theory Y by Douglas McGregor sheds light on contrasting views of human nature and motivation in the workplace. While many profess to subscribe to Theory Y beliefs – that individuals are inherently self-motivated and seek responsibility – practical application often reveals a different reality due to organizational pressures and dynamics. Despite our theoretical endorsement of Theory Y, our discourse often suggests that team members require constant motivation and inspiration. At times, individuals even categorize themselves as Theory Y people, implying that others fall into the Theory X category.
Interestingly, McGregor did not argue that there are Theory X people; rather, it is a perspective we hold about others. This leads to the consequence of adopting a Theory X mindset ourselves when we perceive others as Theory X.
Dependence on Predictability
Managers often face the task of meeting organizational expectations and delivering results. Consequently, they tend to place heavy emphasis on measurable targets, goals, and key performance indicators (KPIs). While these targets themselves aren’t inherently problematic, their overemphasis on measurability can inadvertently cultivate a culture of micromanagement. Moreover, the common practice of assessing individual performance against these targets can lead to the misconception that we can accurately predict the future based solely on past performance.
This pressure on managers to achieve results further strengthens their inclination towards control, prompting them to adopt various tools and practices aimed at ensuring certainty. These may include implementing Career Development Plans, instituting Performance Review Systems, or establishing Metric or Target systems, among others.
Lack of Understanding of Management Alternatives
In organizations, the reliance on familiar practices often arises due to a lack of time to explore alternative management approaches. As a result, managers tend to mimic the behaviors of their predecessors, perpetuating outdated or ineffective practices. This failure to invest in comprehensive management knowledge further escalates these behaviors. Often, we implement these activities without taking the time to understand the complexities of teams, organizations, and their systemic behavior.
Notably, organizational experts like W. Edwards Deming advocate for a deeper understanding beyond surface-level practices, emphasizing the importance of profound management knowledge. Similarly, Peter Senge’s emphasis on system archetypes underscores the necessity of systemic thinking to navigate the complexities of organizational dynamics.
The “Leader” to the rescue?
Due to the factors outlined above, the term “Manager” has acquired a tarnished reputation. Few aspire to managerial roles when they are associated with negativity or discontent among colleagues. As organizations began to recognize that teams and organizational structures are not simply mechanical, as proposed by Taylor, a new emphasis on leadership emerged. This shift led to discussions about the role of Leadership and the need for individuals to step into these positions.
However, this transition raises a critical question: Are Leaders simply rebranded Managers? With the rise of Transformational Leadership, Leaders are now tasked with articulating and inspiring visions for their organizations. They are expected to empower, motivate, and align teams. But isn’t this what we once expected from Traditional Managers?
Renaming roles without addressing underlying behavioral patterns may only worsen existing issues. This phenomenon can be likened to the “Shifting the Burden” system archetype, where superficial fixes fail to resolve root problems, potentially worsening the situation over time. Read here more about System Archetypes or join our Learning Organization Workshop.
The complexities of Human Systems
Understanding System Archetypes like Shifting the Burden is crucial for understanding human behavior. Our traditional Command & Control approach to leadership treats organizations like machines: if something does not work, we simply replace the faulty part. This method served us well in the early 20th century.
However, in the 21st century, the challenges run deeper. Often, issues cannot be attributed to individual factors but stem from complex relationships and behaviors within organizations. While we recognize that our people are our most valuable assets, we tend to address problems by tinkering with policies and practices rather than understanding the underlying systemic behaviors. These superficial fixes are akin to applying band-aids to a deep wound. While they may temporarily conceal the issue, they do not address the root cause.
Addressing systemic issues with such band-aids does not bring meaningful change in organizational behavior. At best, they foster compliance, not commitment. Compliance means to do something as otherwise we would be punished, whereas commitment is a result from a genuine belief in the value of the action.
Embracing System Thinking as our primary approach to understanding teams and organizations allows us to grasp the cause-and-effect relationships in teams. Rather than relying on individuals to rectify issues, we acknowledge that behavior is non-linear and shaped by the system’s design.
Every negative reaction to proposed changes — such as “I’m too busy”, “My team is not ready” or “We’ve tried that before” — should not be attributed to people’s unwillingness to change. This simplistic view serves as an easy scapegoat, allowing us to dismiss challenges with a resigned “Well, we tried!” People are often resistant to change not because they inherently despise it, but because they perceive the potential loss as outweighing the benefits.
The Pitfalls of Unprepared Leadership
In organizations, individuals are often promoted to leadership positions based on their reputation as problem-solvers, proactive contributors, or top performers in their roles. Consequently, they become the de facto “heroes” of their teams. However, this reliance on perceived leadership qualities overlooks the essence of true leadership. It does not necessarily ensure that these individuals receive adequate support and training to fulfill their authority roles effectively.
This approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of leadership. Merely granting someone authority does not equate to effective leadership. Without adequate support and training, these individuals may inadvertently perpetuate dysfunctional systems within the organization.
Organizations implicitly expect managers and authority figures to possess the knowledge required to create high-performing systems. However, they often fail to provide explicit support for acquiring this knowledge. This oversight becomes evident in exercises like Deming’s Red Bead Experiment, which highlights how teams are set up for failure due to systemic flaws, only to blame individuals for the outcome.
Despite our professed allegiance to Theory Y — a belief in the inherent motivation and capabilities of individuals — the experiment described above portrays a Theory X mindset. Even as we claim to prioritize people, our actions reveal a deep-seated inclination toward control and blame-shifting.
The Myth of having “Leaders” in organizations
Organizations and teams function as complex systems, similar to gardens, that evolve regardless of intervention. However, like gardens, systems cannot be improved solely by addressing individual components; rather, their environments must be tended to for growth. This responsibility falls on management and formal leadership, starting from the top with company owners.
Contrary to popular belief, leadership is not solely embodied by authority figures; instead, it becomes visible through the system as an inherent attribute. Viewing leadership as a standalone entity often results in the misguided belief that appointed leaders can single-handedly resolve systemic challenges. However, true leadership emerges organically from the collective behavior of the system.
The notion of “needing” leaders in an organization is a fallacy, often indicative of a desire to shift the burden of responsibility onto an external intervenor. This perspective overlooks the inherent capacity of systems to foster motivation, trust, inspiration, and collaboration without enforced intervention. Instead, it is the role of authority positions to facilitate and cultivate these systemic qualities by creating supportive structures within the organization.
Don’t teach leadership, allow authenticity
Reflecting on a different view on leadership, one vivid example that comes to mind is Herb Kelleher, the former CEO of Southwest Airlines. In a “60-Minute” video, Kelleher proudly recounts dressing up in a costume at 2 a.m. to surprise mechanics in the hangar — a gesture that represents his genuine and approachable leadership style. When asked, what school of management this approach would be, he first starts laughing wholeheartedly. Nobody would assume, he would fake this laugh. Then his response: “Probably the school of management of fooling around.” Unlike many authority figures who rely on formalities and one-line vision statements, Kelleher’s authenticity shines through in his unscripted interactions.
His ability to connect with employees on a personal level fosters a culture of openness and camaraderie becomes evidence with cabin crew members who mirror his lively spirit during safety demonstrations. Southwest Airlines’ sustained profitability over the years shows, additionally, that such a leadership style may even contribute to higher financial success.
In contrast, consider the example of Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling introducing the vision and values of Enron in a video. The stark contrast between Kelleher’s authenticity and the staged presentation by Lay and Skilling underscores the importance of genuine leadership in fostering trust and commitment within organizations. In the end, we all know what happened to Enron.
Authenticity inspires more than vision statements
Authentic leadership transcends mere managerial authority — it inspires trust and fosters commitment. Yet, many organizations fail to prepare their managers adequately for leadership roles, leading to a proliferation of inauthentic leadership behaviors. Managers ill-equipped for their roles often resort to impersonation or manipulation, resulting in diminished team morale and eventual attrition.
This underscores the pivotal role of authenticity in leadership. People are naturally drawn to authentic leaders whom they trust and respect. Authenticity engenders commitment and alignment, driving organizational success. Rather than focusing solely on technical aspects, organizations must prioritize creating environments that nurture authenticity and empower individuals to be their true selves. While at the very least, authority figures should be at the forefront of authentic behaviors, a system performs better, when everyone has the freedom to be who they are.
Instead of teaching leadership through prescriptive methods, organizations should focus on fostering authentic leadership by creating environments that encourage vulnerability, adaptability, integrity, and empathy. Authentic leadership emerges organically when leaders embody these competences, inspiring others to do the same. Ultimately, authenticity shines through every aspect of leadership, shows trust, and commitment throughout the organization. All the factors for high-performance organizations.
