"That's the title of this article by Kevin Stoddart," she says "Manager or Leader - which one are you? Do you think they are mutually exclusive?"
"Hmmmm. Not mutually exclusive I guess, but I have to say that I have rarely seen someone who is really great in both aspects," I reply.
When she was finished with her paper, I clipped the article and took some time to read and reflect on it. While stopping short of saying you can only be one or the other, Stoddart does seem to suggest that being a good manager can restrict or substantially limit the degree to which you can be a strong leader. He states "Effective managers may excel in managing administrative requirements, ensuring the team follows process, maintaining system and structure, and working toward stated goals, without ever embodying the characteristics of a true leader." Moreover, he quotes Warren Bennis (from his work on Becoming a Leader) who suggests "The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it."
It got me to thinking about my own path to management and my aspirations of being both a good manager and a good leader. I believe that my promotion to management has been largely because I have demonstrated leadership capabilities in the past (and Stoddart suggests this is often the case), but if charismatic leadership is to be stymied by the nature of a career in management, is this really what I want? Can I be the administrator who leaves behind the rebellious reform advocate to enforce the corporate standard?
My leadership over the past few years has been demonstrated in a desire to serve others within work groups - to effect change and to celebrate collective and collaborative success. While leading the design aspects of our program review and renewal processes, I have also assisted others who have been asked to implement the developing framework, ensuring they have supporting data, process documentation, advice and best practices to follow as they lead their own review teams in the activities of program review. I have chaired a number of committees where I focused on group cohesion and collaboration rather than on the output. I also stepped up to the role of union representative - the first that Central Office has had in several years - to ensure that my colleagues and I had an appropriate voice in the work of our union local.
I have also worked as a supervisory manager in the past - most prominently in my first years in formal employment when I was trained as an operations manager in the banking sector. Managing a range of teams - from a small branch in rural Newfoundland to a very large urban branch in St. John's - I recognize that standards and administrative detail were the most critical aspects of my performance appraisal as a manager. But is there anything in my past where I can find examples of doing both, and doing them well?
Outside of the College environment, I have demonstrated leadership in my community, serving on a number of volunteer municipal boards, and as a volunteer crew lead on several Habitat for Humanity builds. As Chair for my community's Recreation Board, I was the direct contact for Board direction and governance to the Recreation Manager and his team. While this role was not directly considered supervisory in a formal sense, it was as close to the concept of the leader/manager as any I can explore as part of my experience. This interesting concept of the volunteer leader is described by Max De Pree in his book, Leading Without Power. A copy of that book was given to me by a former manager of mine, who may have been trying to tell me something.
Why are these memories important to my reflection now? The differences between the banking environment and the non-profit environments in which I have led others are critical aspects that I can apply to my current context. Banking, by nature, is a very formal affair - with standards being essential to the oversight that is necessary when you are working with other people's money - and with mission statements that speak to building public trust through compliance. Its long, staid history is only eclipsed by the military in terms of the formality of bureaucratic authority. In contrast, both the community boards and the volunteer associations I have served tend to be dynamic, informal, developmental, with a flatter hierarchy and more focus on collective and collaborative effort than on the application of top-down discipline.
So where does the College, my department, and my role fit into that spectrum and will that help me achieve the dual goals of effective management and inspirational leadership? While the college has great public scrutiny (not unlike a bank) the mission and vision are very inspirational and focused on reform, change, development and innovation. Accordingly the focus of middle managers in this institution is less on enforcing compliance to standards as to helping others establish and implement academic standards and processes that support a dynamic institution. The mission (discussed in my last post) and the always evolving Academic Plan direct all employees to consider how to innovate to continuously improve program quality and (through education) the quality of life of our citizens.
Those who report to me, are all professionals and, as such, much closer to par with my own qualifications. In my employment interview, I stated that I didn't see much difference in what I was doing then (leading through service) and what I would be doing as a manager as far as my desire to support those colleagues was considered. Having said that, I also recognize that one of the guiding aspects of the evolution of this position, is a desire to remove the operational/administrative aspects from the Dean's role so that he could focus on academic leadership and setting vision and direction for the unit. Hopefully in assuming those aspects, I have not taken on the very role that would diminish my ability to lead through inspiration and example.
I find inspiration and comfort in this respect from De Pree's work - "Most successful organizations of the Information Age operate not as controlled collections of human resources, but as dynamic communities of free people. And in order to mobilize these communities, leaders must know how to lead without power, because free people follow willingly or not at all." The strategy I will have to apply to be effective in both will have to be about the judicious exercise of power and continuing definition as part of the collegial collective rather than being apart from or above it.
