by Michael Schrage
From Our: Ten Most Enduring Ideas The bitterest business rivalry over the past decade
hasn’t been the struggle between free trade and protectionism, between
capital and labor, or between Microsoft and everyone else; the bitterest
rivalry has been leadership versus management. Leadership won — but it’s
been a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Harvard Business School’s Abraham Zaleznik
articulated the difference in his classic 1977 essay “Managers and
Leaders: Are They Different?” Proclaimed Professor Zaleznik, “Managers
and leaders are two very different types of people. Managers’ goals
arise out of necessities rather than desires; they excel at defusing
conflicts between individuals or departments, placating all sides while
ensuring that an organization’s day-to-day business gets done. Leaders,
on the other hand, adopt personal, active attitudes toward goals. They
look for the opportunities and rewards that lie around the corner,
inspiring subordinates and firing up the creative process with their own
energy. Their relationships with employees and coworkers are intense,
and their working environment is often chaotic.”
With artfully hedged neutrality, Professor Zaleznik
declared both management and leadership essential for organizational
success. And thus he raised the critical business question: Which
offered the superior return on investment?
Global markets provided an unambiguously clear
opinion: They craved leadership. The Lord John Brownes, Jack Welches,
Percy Barneviks, Carlos Ghosns, Andy Groves, and Bill Gateses are
celebrated far more as innovative global leaders than as operational
management exemplars. The leadership “brand” has become so powerful and
compelling that successful managers are inherently considered “great
leaders.” Ironically, however, people tagged as great leaders don’t have
to be great business managers. Leadership is the value added; management
is what gets automated, rightsized, or outsourced to Bangalore or
Guangzhou.
Yet the bursting of the dot-com/telecom bubbles and
the disgraceful collapses of Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, Tyco,
Parmalat, etc., have cruelly constrained the brand trajectory of the
leadership label. Where governance was once the longest and most elastic
of leashes that let leadership stray with minimal attention, it is now a
beautifully upholstered cage with 24-hour surveillance and legal
advisors on call worldwide.
In other words, the global rise of governance as a
business concern reflects the pathological failure of leaders to manage.
Accountability, transparency, and oversight will mean
something very different to CEOs and the boardroom over the next 10
years than they did in the past. A new ecology of interdependent
management, leadership, and governance is arising. Striking a balance
among these three imperatives will be a greater challenge in years to
come. Will those who meet that challenge emerge with better leadership,
better management, and better governance? Today’s “leaders” have lost
the right to be the only ones with the authority and legitimacy to
answer those questions. |