Let me tell you ‘bout the birds and the Bees and the Lions and the trees…
Oops! Did I say Lions (I hope I don’t get sued for changing the lyrics of the song)? That was supposed to be Flowers but since I will not be talking about flowers, so I changed it.
Why am I even singing this song? Ah. It reminds me of the topic of the “Sharer”, as we call it in our Organizational Analysis class, where he used a Bee and a Lion for us to better understand his report.
Managers and Leaders: The Difference
Think about having a Bee for a manager and a Lion for a leader. If you take this literally, you’ll go nuts. We are talking about the characteristics here. Now, how does a Manager differ from a leader? Come to think of it, the two terms can be used interchangeably for me. But my thoughts changed when the topic was discussed.
Let me present what I have learned from the report of the sharer. These are from what I have scribbled on my notebook during the class. This is as good as it gets. Here it goes.
The sharer started by asking us which one is the leader and the manager between the Bee and the Lion. In my head I had my answer on impulse: The Bee is the manager and the Lion is the Leader. Bees are timid, organized little creatures doing the same routine and get their work done with like less effort. Lions on the other hand are fierce and I think other Lions respect the pack Leader from the notion that he can protect them simply because he is the strongest.
Let us analyze the following characteristics:
Bee
*Seek order
* Control
*Rapid resolution to problems
Lion
*they are like artists – they tolerate chaos, keep answers in suspense and prevent premature closure
And my answer was right. The Bee is indeed the manager and the Lion is the leader. Managers are always organized; they don’t like to see things out of order; and they are always in control. They control their subordinates to do their assigned tasks, reprimand, and set deadlines to fulfill their mission, vision and goals. They are like the over-all in charge and speak in behalf of the owner or the higher authorities in their absence. When problems arise, they always have either short-term or long term solutions hidden on their sleeves.
Leaders on the other hand, though they can sometimes be chaotic, they gain control of their subordinates by showing them that they themselves can also do what leaders can. Leaders can tolerate chaos much better and they can make everybody listen to what they have to say. They can make their subordinates follow their actions and they can influence them to doing and believing things by setting an example.
In my analogy: Managers wants the job done while leaders gets the job done.
Attitude Towards Goals
Comparing the attitude of managers and leaders towards goals, we have the following:
Manager
*Take impersonal, passive outlook
*Goals arise out of necessities
Leader
*Take personal and active outlook
* Set company direction
Managers don’t take things personally. It’s all business. They seldom have sympathy for their subordinates and their work. They just want the job done. When there are new ideas, they don’t act on it immediately no matter how good it is. Goals are made when there is something that needs a goal, otherwise there is none. For example, if there is an upcoming project, only then will a goal be formulated by the manager for that specific project only. After that, the manager has no more goals to implement. In short, their goals are short-term.
A leader is on the other hand sympathetic. They feel their subordinates feelings and thoughts. They solicit ideas and act on the ones that are really good. Goals are always constant for a leader; they always have it in mind. It never ceases to exist in their vocabulary whether needed or not. This characteristic then can set the direction a company should be heading. Their goals are based on the big picture and not momentary. In short, their goals are long-term.
In my analogy: The goal of the manager is just a pixel of the goal of the leader.
Conceptions of Work
Comparing the conceptions of work between managers and leaders, we have the following:
Manager
*Negotiate and Coerce, Neutral
*Limit choices
*Avoid risk
Leader
* Develop fresh approaches to problems, Innovators
* Increase options
* Seek risk when opportunities appear promising
From what I understand here, managers don’t take sides as long as something gets done. They will negotiate but still, they will do anything to force a subordinate to do what he wants. Their choices are limited because they entertain less since are passive in the first place. They entertain limited choices and they give few choices because they don’t like risks. They think they might lose everything if they take risks and there is so much to lose, not only their job but their reputation.
Leaders are known for taking risks. Sometimes, they don’t care if they fail as long as they have tried everything. It is still worth it for them. They don’t stick to the norms. They try new things and fresh ideas. They innovate. Their options are increased because they entertain as mush choices as possible and gives as much. Yet, they just take the risk if the idea is really worth it and has the highest possibility of success.
In my analogy: For a manager, success is everything. For a leader, it’s how you succeeded that is important.
Take for example, where I work, quantity is important. The number of students that graduate every year is a very big deal for the administration. But for us teachers, the quality of those graduates is much more important. Their goal is to produce more graduates while ours is to produce quality graduates regardless the number. We are developing new ways and think of more options to teaching that produces more and quality graduates while the administration continues to emphasize there should be more graduates.
I quote what our teacher said in this part: “Examination is education of the 19th century”. Teachers are like managers. We coerce students by giving them exams. But we are just leading them to the right direction. If we don’t give them exams, they won’t take the subject seriously sometimes and won’t study. The lesson just goes in the left ear and goes out the right ear.
Relations to Others
Comparing a manager and a leader’s relation to others, we have:
Manager
*prefer working with people with minimal emotional involvement
*Focus on process
*Communicates by sending ambiguous
Signals
Leader
* Attracted to ideas, relate to others directly
* Focus on substance of events and decision
* Subordinates describe them with emotionally rich adjectives
Managers are like stones. As much as possible they don’t like to get attached to people they work with. They are process oriented. They are stiff. They always follow the rules and regulations. They can be like girls sometimes. They don’t tell you directly what they want. They just wait for you to sense and guess what they are trying to say. If you are dense enough, you end up getting fired.
Leaders are like magnets. They attract and are attracted to ideas and people. They work well with people. They don’t shut their emotional senses. They are like sponge that absorbs emotions. They are like bamboo that bends when wind blows. They go with the flow but still manage to stay on track. They can bend the rules if needed, and break it if they can. If they have an issue with a subordinate, they deal with that person personally and talk him/her to it.
In my analogy: Managers will say “Ok so you were sick. But the deadline will not move. The CEO will get mad at me.”. Leaders will say “Oh you were sick? How are you feeling? Can you finish the job on time? We can stretch the deadline a bit. I’ll talk to the manager about it.”
Sense of Self
Between a manager and a leader’s sense of self:
Manager
*Comes from perpetuating and
Strengthening existing institutions
*Feel part of the organization
*Rules and orderliness
Leader
*Comes from struggles to profoundly alter human and economic relationships
* Feel separate from the organization
* Influence
A manager is someone who, gets hired and then strengthens the organization that hired him/her. They feel the organization would cease to exist without them. They feel that everything they do and should do should be for the benefit of the organization. What is an organization without a manager? Like a classroom full of students without a teacher. Managers are bombarded with rules and regulations that they have to impose without hesitation to help them keep orderliness in the workplace.
Leaders can come from anywhere. They are everywhere: in our homes, in school, on the streets, on small and big time business and companies, in the government, in religion etc. They can exist without existing institutions. They strive to reach their goals by influencing other people through example. They don’t have to belong somewhere for them to be called a leader. Their loyalty is not with the company that hired them; it’s with their goals for the company. They can be rebellious when they know that they are doing is for the greater good.
A classmate asked: Is the President a manager or a leader? There was also one question from another classmate: Is our teacher a manager or a leader? And another asked if it was possible to have one person be a manager and a leader at the same time.
For me the President is both a manager and a leader. He is a manager to his subordinates in all branches of government and a leader to the Filipino people. About the second question, the sharer answered our teacher was both too. The third question was answered too. It’s possible but I think it’s uncommon to have one person be a manager and a leader at the same time. How can someone be stiff and sensitive at the same time? That’s stressful. I know I am.
What do companies need: Managers or Leaders?
I can’t really remember who asked this. I think it was a classmate or out teacher. Forgive me. Companies need both. They should have a manager that will impose rules, orderliness and tell subordinates what to do, and a leader to influence everyone to adhere to these rules, inject new ideas and to lead how to do what needs to be done..
Question: Can anyone be a manager? Can anyone be a leader?
I remember clearly who asked this. It was our teacher. He was standing right in front of me. And when I said yes to the first question, he asked it again. I was wrong. Not anyone can be a manager. You have to have a background on how to run a company and you have to be hired to become one. I was thinking anyone can be hired. If you are the owner of a company, you can designate yourself as a manager. But then, I realized, not everyone is rich enough to own a company. So therefore, not anyone can be a manager. But, anyone can be a leader. Leadership needs no designation. You don’t have to get hired to become one. It is a person’s innate ability to influence other people that make them a leader.
The topic ended smoothly; leaving everyone (I hope), especially me, with a clear (I think it’s clear) mind on managers and leaders. Though I was a little confused at first, I managed to comprehend. I was not able to ask questions though.
It is indeed a jungle out there; a jungle full of bees and lions and other animals in every kingdom. And when I say it’s a jungle out there, I meant it as a good thing.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento