Do Organizations value Managers over Leaders?

After posting my last blog, that had to do with the difference between Leadership and Management, I was asked by one of my friends on Facebook to do a follow up blog on "why organizations tend to reward Management over Leadership?".

So for this blog I would like to make an attempt to answer or at least examine in greater detail what that question means. I would like to start by asking this, do organizations reward management over leadership? I would submit that it is not the organization, per say, but people in leadership positions who choose to be managers themselves. Why would someone choose to be a manager? you might ask. It is a choice after all to be a manager and not a leader, so why would someone choose to be that. The short answer is it is easier to be a manager than to be a leader. If you remember in my last blog I shared that managers tend to view all people as things to help them accomplish their goals. With that view of their troops, how much do they need to know about their troops and their individual needs? The answer is not much, they treat them all the same, so knowing anything about their personal lives or their individual needs is not necessary. They will view their troops as a resource to help them accomplish their goals. 

When we talk about leadership we need to have an understanding of French and Ravens Bases of Power. French and Raven's research basically showed that there were 5 bases of power that leaders will draw on to get things done. Those power bases are; Coercive (the hammer - the ability to punish), Reward (the ability to provide a reward), Legitimate (the rank or positional authority), Referent (people do what is asked because they like or respect you), and Expert (they do it because they trust your knowledge - you know what you are doing).  When we talk about people who view their troops as things to help them accomplish their goals, these supervisors will tend to lead with the hammer, in other words they will rely on Coercive or Legitimate power bases to accomplish their goals. These are the people that will point at the stripes on their sleeve or the brass on their collar and say do it because I said so, or do it or I will discipline you. People who lead with the hammer tend view all people as lazy and that the only way to get them to work is by force, threat or intimidation. 

The question then becomes why do they do it, they can't be successful, can they? The answer is yes they can, but they will only be successful to a certain level. People they supervise will perform (out of fear more than anything else), but they will only perform to a level that is just enough to avoid getting whacked by the hammer. I would then ask what do you think happens when the hammer takes a day off? The answer is the troops take a day off too, and their performance will actually drop when the hammer is gone. So what message does the drop in performance send to that supervisor? It actual confirms, or verifies, their belief, "see if I'm not here pushing them they won't do anything." Meanwhile the Leader who knows their people and strives to meet their individual needs, what do you think happens when they take a day off? The answer is the performance will sustain and may even go up. 

An example that I have shared with my students of the way individuals performance will drop when the hammer takes time off is an experience I had several years ago when I was a Detective. We were doing our vacation vote, which is based on seniority, and I was waiting for the Detective senior to me to vote his vacation so I could vote mine. I asked him why he was taking so long and he stated he wanted to know what vacation the Sergeant took so he could vote the two weeks before and the two weeks after, that way he would get 6 weeks off. People will actively look for ways to avoid working with or around the hammer type of manager. 

So why do organizational leaders tend to reward this type of supervision? As an organizational leader do you know the interactions that all of your subordinates have with their troops? The answer is probably not, you are relying on some type of performance tracking data (stats for example). And as I already said the hammer type of manager can be successful, it won't be overwhelming success but they will be getting performance, it will only be to a certain level though. The organizational leader only sees the success reflected in the stats and as long as that level of performance is acceptable to their standard, they don't get caught up in how it is being done, they are simply satisfied that it is getting done.

People who choose to be a hammer type of manager, do so for a couple of reasons. Number 1, it is easier, as I already addressed but it is also more exhaustive in the long run (these are the supervisors that will often tell us they can't take any time off). But another reason that is far more prevalent in our profession, is that they don't know any better. Earlier in this blog I mentioned that this type of manager will rely on Coercive (the hammer) or Legitimate (the rank or position) power bases to get things done. Supervisors in our profession are promoted from the officer ranks, what power bases do officers rely on to get things done in their interactions with the public? More often than not they rely on Coercive (do it or I'll take you jail) and Legitimate (do it because I am the police and I said so). We organizationally take that same officer and promote them to sergeant or some other supervisory position and expect them to know how to be a supervisor with no additional training on how to lead people. Is it any wonder then that when they are supervising their troops that they rely on the same power bases that worked for them in their interactions with public?

I don't know if I fully answered the question I was originally asked but as you can see it is a very complex question (in my mind anyway). Remember we are talking about people and not every supervisor is the same or does things for the same reasons. I like to think I have done my best to be a good leader during my career but I know that there are probably people I have supervised over the years that can point to times they believed I was the hammer. My motivation in doing this blog is to provide information so we can all take a hard look in the mirror at what we are doing with the people we supervise, and hopefully, in the process become better leaders. We can talk about and share our past experiences and try to learn from them but I guarantee every hammer that we complain about at one time was a peer who said he or she would never be that type of leader. 

To be a good leader takes a lot of work and conscious effort, and we should always remember that the rewards are big, not only for you and the people you supervise but the community and organizations that we all serve as well.

Leadership or Management?

During the last year I have had the pleasure of speaking to Law Enforcement leaders from all corners of the state of Colorado on how to become a better leader. I usually start with a discussion of what it means to be a Leader and what it means to be a Manager, and ask is there a difference? The answer in a nut shell is "you lead people and you manage things". Why is it important to understand the difference? The majority of what supervisors deal with in Law Enforcement revolves around people, therefore, our profession needs more leaders than managers.

While speaking to officers of all ranks, I have found that all Law Enforcement agencies struggle with many of the same issues. Law Enforcement as a profession traditionally operates as a para-military organization, typically with autocratic, top-down leadership. This type of leadership is problematic on several levels, particularly when you are supervising people. To illustrate this I will ask officers to think of the behaviors of the worst leader they ever worked for and conversely the behaviors of the best leader. Interestingly no matter where I am at or who I am talking to the behaviors of the two types of leaders are usually the same:

The worst leaders tend to think of themselves as the smartest person in the room, demonstrate a lack of trust, are knee jerk and reactionary (lack a vision), and micro-manage (we will talk more about the behaviors that lead to this analysis in a later blog). I then ask for someone to share an example of the worst leaders behaviors in action. For example, the worst person I ever worked for (I will never call the person a leader) once told me that I needed to know that everyone who I supervised was "lazy" and it was my job to make them work (he then put his thumb on the table to demonstrate what he believed I needed to do with my troops). His statement really showed his view of the world, all people are lazy and it's managements job to make them work. In my mind his statement said more about who he was as a troop than anything else.  

The best leaders tend to know their people, communicate effectively, educate, inspire/motivate, trust, reward publicly and council privately. As an example, the best person I have ever worked for did all of these things and more. He allowed me to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. He trusted my decisions, and once told me that while he might have done something differently, he knew there were a number of ways to get to the same goal and what works for him might not work for me. I operate with that philosophy today. He also helped me understand the greater control you give your people over those things that have a direct impact on them and their work, the better they will perform.

The difference in the level of performance of the personnel assigned to these two people was substantial. The worst person I ever worked for was such a failure that he was isolated by the organization and put in a position where he only supervised things (manager). While the best person left a lasting legacy within the organization (leader). Forty-two of us who had worked for him during his career had promoted to higher ranks. He retired a few years ago and we all thought so highly of him that we wanted to do something special for his retirement. We decided to take a photograph of all the people he had inspired to promote, and have it placed on a plaque to be presented to him at his retirement. In my mind the photograph was a physical representation of the legacy and impact he had not just on us individually but on the organization as a whole.
  

Organizations that want to be successful and better serve the public need to focus and work to develop leaders and not managers. We as individuals can learn from the examples of both the best and worst supervisors and we should constantly be evaluating our behaviors and the messages we are sending our troops (in words and actions). As a leader the better you know your people and work to meet their needs the more they will work to meet the needs of the community and organization. If you treat your people poorly, and like a thing for you to use to accomplish your goals, don't be surprised when the complaints come in from the public about how they are being treated.by your officers. If you want your officers to respect and treat the public in a professional manner make sure you are modeling that behavior in your interactions with your people.

If you focus on communicating, empowering, inspiring and coaching your people, they will amaze you with what they can do!