Managing and Leading, What's the Difference?

Everyone is fascinated by "leadership". It's viewed as the secret ingredient that's needed to transform a good organization into a great one. But great managers are the backbone of successful organizations, and the truth is you need to have both kinds of people. The roles of leader and manager are completely distinct, with different responsibilities, starting points, and talents required to excel. Anyone can be a leader or manager, but to be great at either requires certain core talents.

Great managers turn each employee's talent into performance. They do this by making each employee believe that their success is the manager's primary goal. Employees will respond to this by giving their best effort. Great managers are tough on their employees; they hold them to high standards, and then show them how to achieve these benchmarks. They paint a picture of excellence in a role, and then coach their employees to embrace this vision.

Great managers commitment to each employee's success is driven by a form of spontaneous intuition commonly known as the coaching instinct. They are drawn to and thrill at the small successes of others, and this is a talent that is innate and cannot be learned.

Great leaders rally people to a better future that they see as a vivid image in their heads. Leaders are fascinated with the future, they are restless for change, impatient for progress, and deeply dissatisfied with the status quo. This friction between "what is" and "what could be" propels leaders towards that better future.

The core talents of great leaders are ego and optimism. The former is important because ego allows a leader to channel his self assurance, self confidence, and press them into the service of an enterprise bigger than himself. The latter is important because leaders must believe deeply and instinctively that things can get better. Not just hope they can be improved, or to put on a brave face. The possibilities of the future must seem so intense that they have no choice but to do everything in their power to make them real.

The necessity for great leaders to possess both optimism and ego means that they are born, not made. The skill of bringing the best performance from employees also cannot be learned. You either have this ability, or you do not. It is possible to be both a great manager and a great leader. but it helps to know when to change gears. Management starts with the person, while leadership starts with the picture of where you are headed.

Adapted from: Buckingham, Marcus, The One Thing You Need to Know ...About Great Managing, Great Leading, and Sustained Individual Success. New York: Free Press, 2005, pp 29-71.

Top-Down versus Bottom-up Change Management

Top-down change management is the traditional management strategy in which all decision-making, guidance, and authority flows from top management down to everyone else. It is typically the only methodology used to manage change in organizations. This approach often fails due to low employee buy-in and lack of flexibility and empowerment of line management and front line employees. An even bigger problem with this methodology occurs when top-management doesn't understand the work processes of their own company, and so they are unable to make good decisions about how things will get done in the new system. This dissonance will lower productivity and ultimately damage employee morale.

Experienced project managers understand that employee buy-in is the most important variable in the success of any change management process. The most successful outcomes are achieved when supervisors actively engage employees in the change management process using bottom-up management techniques. This is the most effective method for managing employee expectations and securing end-user commitment.

Supervisors have the most direct line of communication with employees, and they have the greatest influence on employees' perception of change and of new systems. Each employee's attitude to the project needs to be assessed, and individual concerns addressed one-on-one. This should be treated as an educational process, with a goal of dispelling negative attitudes through increased understanding of the process, and the sharing of a clearly articulated common goal.

Change can be challenging, but handled correctly, it need not pose an insurmountable obstacle to achieving an organization's goals.

The Successful Manager: Create Strategic Alliances

To develop a better understanding of your organization's goals, consider using this approach to learn about your organization's corporate strategy:
Talk with people who were involved with setting goals to learn about the options that were discussed and the reasoning behind why they were chosen.

• Talk with leaders in the organization to develop an understanding of the organization's approach to its strategy, and the reasons for that choice.
• Meet with an experienced manager and learn the organization's history, the evolution of the company's mission, and the origin of the company's strengths and weaknesses.
• Read articles about your company as well as recent executive briefings to security analysts.
• Develop contacts in other departments to learn about their strategic issues and new developments.

Organizational strategy is not static. It's essential to constantly scan the environment to understand changes that may change your organization's strategy. Research the latest developments in your industry - talk with people, read industry reports.

Some common forces of change:

• Industry Changes
• Globalization
• Technology Changes
• Shifts in Competitive Advantage
• Human Capital Changes
• Government Regulations; either new or ending

The purpose of having a strategy is to help keep an eye on the ball. Use it to decide where to spend your time and energy and to stay focused on what's important. Evaluate decisions to ensure that they adhere to your strategy. Unless you are at the top of the organization, the corporate direction is set by others, then your role is to bring the corporate vision down to the next level.

Your group's strategy needs to be an evolving guide to what you and your team do.

Adapted from The Successful Manager's Handbook, by Lisa A. Stevens, Carol J. Skibe, and David G. Lee,  Personnel Decisions, Inc.; 6th edition (May 2000)

The Top Ten Procurement Changes in the Last Decade

10. ERPs Proliferated. Today, eProcurement and eSourcing are two of the most useful tools in purchasing. Ten years ago, these terms were unknown.

9. "Procurement" replaced "Purchasing". Ten years ago, even top purchasing departments processed purchase orders. Today, procurement departments centralize the supplier selection process, not the transactions, which are delegated to end users or outsourced.

8. Procurement Controls More Spend. When procurement deliver results, management seeks more spend that they can positively impact. Once sourced by other departments, categories like fleet management, benefits, and travel services are now sourced by procurement.

7. Social Responsibility Became A Top Priority. Whether for philanthropy or to avoid media scandals, management counts on procurement more than ever to buy from diverse suppliers, make environmentally-conscious decisions, and do business ethically.

6. Measurement Was Mandated. With the potential of smart purchasing widely known, senior management more strictly holds their procurement professionals accountable for results. The use of procurement KPIs and dashboards is now the norm.

5. Strategic Sourcing became an Internal Process. In the past, strategic sourcing was done mostly by consulting firms hired to help companies reduce spend. Today, many companies have their own refined and documented in-house strategic sourcing processes.

4. Vendor Roles Expanded. In 1998, there was talk about "partnering" with vendors. Today, there's action. Top procurement departments actively develop their vendors and look to their supply base for ideas, performance, and innovation.

3. Global Sourcing Went Mainstream. Ten years ago, only the progressive companies were searching abroad for suppliers. Now, in some countries, it is difficult to find products manufactured domestically.

2. The CPO Position Was Adopted. There is a growing number of professionals with the title "Chief Procurement Officer."

1. The Supply Chain Was Recognized. In the last decade, companies more closely analyzed the way material flows into, through, and out of the organization. This "supply chain" focus has those who once just placed orders now responsible for inventory, warehousing, outbound logistics, and distribution.

Adapted from: Top 10 Purchasing Changes In 10 Years. http://bit.ly/cfPJKj