Warren Bennis: Still valid after all these years?
Over at Leadership Turn, Miki Saxon is nearly completed with a great series going on about whether Warren Bennis’ 13 differences between leaders and managers still hold in light of today’s modern workforce. Bennis is thought of as a pioneer in the field of leadership studies, much as Peter Drucker is considered the father of modern management theory.
Some of the 13 differences discussed include:
- The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his or her eye on the horizon.
- The manager imitates; the leader originates.
- The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.
- The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.
In this manager’s opinion, these may differ out of necessity and day-to-day responsibility, though in the longer view, it’s imperative that BOTH halves are stressed and kept in mind, and Miki makes a great point about the combination role of the leadager or leader/manager.
A few examples to prove my point:
- If a manager imitates that which is originated with her leader, what happens when there’s something not explicitly discussed? Does the manager wait for the leader to dictate before acting?
- Or if the manager has a very short range view of staffing, and only hires for immediate need, does he need to wait for his manager to say “Hey, you should really hire a senior person so your team can make it to the next level?”
What do you think? Do Bennis’ 13 differences still make sense? Leave your comments below, or head over to Leadership Turn and discuss this with the folks over there.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: leadership, management
9 opinions for Warren Bennis: Still valid after all these years?
Miki
May 7, 2008 at 7:38 am
Hi Phil and thanks for adding to the conversation. I truly believe that today’s workforce won’t tolerate or perform for a manager who displays only the management traits in Bennis’ list and none of the leadership ones. Sure, they might hang around until something better comes along, but with lower productivity and little initiative or innovation—not a recipe for success.
And I do hope that some of your readers will come over and share their ideas, experiences and stories of their own managers.
David Zinger
May 7, 2008 at 10:59 am
Phil,
A good review of the differences and that the differences are different now! I agree that a good manager has good leadership abilities and that some of this is not so much the person but the situation. This May the Harvard Business Review had an article that stated: perhaps the right environment is what really matters and if you want better leadership why not change the game instead of trying to change the leaders?
Miki
May 7, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Perhaps what we’re really talking about is a leadership culture along the lines of an innovation culture. Of course, that would mean that the top dog (whatever the title) would have to enable such a culture either actively or by allowing it to bubble up from below. And *that* would mean the top dog was a practicing leader, which, too often, is a felonious assumption.
Bob Embry
May 7, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The manager being compared above is not Peter Drucker’s manager. It is a person with the title of manager who doesn’t manage. Read Peter Drucker. Every one of the positive points above is covered in Drucker’s work.
Phil Gerbyshak
May 7, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Bob - you are absolutely right, and I don’t think I insinuated that Drucker said any of the things Bennis did, I only compared Bennis to Drucker as experts in their respective fields. Sorry if I gave any other impression.
Nick McCormick
May 7, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Too much is made of the difference between managers and leaders. I think we do it to make ourselves seem more important. “I’m a leader, not a lowly manager!”
As mentioned by a few already, a good manager/leader possesses a healthy dose of both management and leadership traits.
Wes Ball
May 8, 2008 at 6:41 am
I had a nice conversation with Miki yesterday about this subject. I think the problem is that corporations force their leaders, managers, or whatever they wish to call themselves into no-creative, non-strategic roles. It is truly tragic, yet I it has become almost unavoidable.
I focus a lot on the role of stock analysts in creating an environment where corprate CEOs must create short-term profit results even whenthe tactics used harm the company’s ability to drive long-term growth. But there is another critical factor: Lack of understanding about how to manage the revenue side.
Through both my own experience in two Fortune 500 corporations and a bit over 15 years of research into how to manage the revenue side for sustainable growth (as revealed in my new book, “The Alpha Factor” — Westlyn Publishing, 2008), I discovered that very few CEOs believe they can manage or have much control over revenue generation (meaning income generation). They only know that you put pressure on “sales” and something happens or you create a new product and put pressure on “sales” and something bigger happens.
The real key to long-term success is in neither of the two alternatives described by Bennis, but rather through understanding how customer decisions can be influenced and managing, vision-casting, and leading to those factors.
Leader vs. manager 7/7
May 8, 2008 at 11:16 pm
[…] in a sister post over at Slacker Manager Nick McCormick says, “Too much is made of the difference between managers and leaders. I […]
Leaders vs. Managers
Jul 21, 2008 at 2:40 pm
[…] been meaning to write about this topic for some time and recently came across this post on Slacker Manager, one of the more interesting blogs around. This post, like the preceding ones at LeadershipTurn […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: