Manage or Lead?

Many of us have experienced the leadership gap and when we do it is almost always painful. Heartbreaking even.  As an HR and Change leader, I rely on other leaders to partner and collaborate on the most complex issues facing an organization. I need them to lead. And I usually do not have the luxury of time to teach them how.

But there are so many leadership development programs (LDPs)! Many of you reading this have participated in an LDP in some fashion as a creator, student or both!

So many of these programs include topics like Performance Management and Time Management.  They focus on doing more with less, adjusting to constrained and ever constraining resources. Just writing those words increases my heartrate, my stress level.

But has anyone asked if these are truly the right topics? Will fixing these close the leadership gap?

Too often we start with great intentions of discussing and building leaders, but we get confused and focus on managers and management tactics instead. And we do not hear any news of the leadership gap closing. In fact, we continue to see increasing disengagement, “quiet quitting.”  And while talent development programs continue to lose funding, we rarely see that financial decrease in those targeted at “leaders” (VP+ population). 

But LDPs that do not objectively close the leadership gap can feel the same as flushing money. Last time I checked, most organizations were not eager to waste money.

So why does this continue happening? Why do we get redirected to management when we started with leadership? Well, management is more tangible, easier, more tactical.  It is also more comfortable. Management creates an illusion of control- particularly over other people.   You never hear the phrase micro-leading and certainly not as a reason why people leave their jobs. Leadership exists on a macro level.

A fundamental truth – neither people who feel controlled nor those stressed by the illusion of having control thrive.

Repeat- neither group thrives.

Which brings us to the point which seems so obvious but apparently is still very difficult to put into practice. Management and Leadership are not synonyms.  We need to stop using these words interchangeably.

If we changed our language to focus on leadership rather than management, could we transform the behaviors we enact, see in others, and reward?

Language is important because it reflects and influences both our mindset and then our behavior. If we want more leaders, then we need to speak a language of leadership to support that goal.

Let’s get specific- Management puts the onus on the employees. Leading is harder and puts the onus on the leader to own the successes and FAILURES of the team. Leading means creating space for innovation, for creativity, for collaboration and for meaningful work.

It is the shift in mindset, created by a shift in language that ignites the spark needed to begin closing the leadership gap.

Put simply – every time you want to say management, say leadership instead. It will feel awkward at first as all change does.  But if you commit to this language adjustment, sooner rather than later you will experience a shift in your mindset, approach and expectations.

Let’s take “performance management as an example. Change that phrase which often induces stress and dread, to Performance Leadership in your language, your documentation, in every training, every PowerPoint and subtly correct those around you when they revert to Performance Management. You can clearly articulate the difference which starts with the onus moving to the leader to model the desired behaviors and values every single day.  The difference means holding the leader accountable for that duty with a fierce tenacity.  Doing this will yield a transformation in performance discussions.

When you are being led, rather than managed, trust increases, morale improves, engagement soars because success is intertwined. There is no us versus them because everyone is in the boat together, rowing in the same direction to achieve the same goals.

Another example is time management.  This is too often code for “getting more things done” rather than getting the right thigs done.  Not enough time is often cited as the major stressor in any organization. But trying to manage time is futile. We cannot control time and trying to do so accelerates burnout.  Changing our relationship, and our approach to time could ease this common stressor turning it into an ally.

How?

Time Leadership could be the embodiment of rigorous prioritization and setting healthy boundaries. Employees could feel empowered to not share the details of their need for time off as if their leader had the right to determine if that reason was “worthy” of your PTO hours. Leaders modeling this approach and encouraging it within their teams could make it feel like we all had more time rather than less.  We could increase our feeling of fulfillment rather than stress knowing that we were prioritizing the most meaningful aspects of our work and personal lives.

Speaking of our personal lives, if we changed our mindset at work, could we replicate that at home? Could work then better integrate into our lives rather than ruling them?

What if we all led our lives rather than managed them?

Having more leaders rather than managers in our professional space could yield more joy, fulfillment, and satisfaction in our professional lives that would have a ripple effect through our personal lives as well.  This yield could transform our experience to relieve the tension we often bring home to loved ones.  This tension relief could create space for more joy to take root in our lives.

By leading, by giving up the illusion of control created by management language, we set a healthy happier example for everyone around us. Change your language to one of leadership and let it change your approach to work and home. Let it transform how you engage with the world

When tempted to manage, choose instead to lead.