That is the question.

Many ‘managers’ have wondered if there is a real difference between the two, that is, aren’t the terms synonymous these days, and isn’t it just a case of semantics?

Well, let’s take a look back and identify where the words actually came from…

The word ‘Manage’ is derived from an old French/Saxon verb ‘Man’ij’, which meant the senior person whose job it was to control or train horses, but this job would also have included the supervision and training of more junior people who helped the Man’ij to undertake their duties.

At some early point during the Industrial Revolution the plural ‘Man’ijur’ became a popular phrase within an Industrial context, which is not surprising given that it would have been a word that lots of people from the Agrarian economy would have known. However, the emphasis of its meaning had slightly changed in order to describe someone who was responsible for ‘controlling people, processes and paper’ (or any combination of the three) in a transactional sense, as opposed to controlling horses. 200 years on, and within a contemporary context, the word ‘Manager’ still retains its original connection to  ‘Control’ (of people, processes and paper).

The word ‘Leader’ comes from a word that meant ‘to show the way by going first’, or ‘to act as a guide’. It was adopted by sailors in antiquity to describe the boat that had the most experienced navigator on board, someone familiar with local currents, and where other ships could follow the ‘Leader-ship’, although they
in turn had adopted the word from land based ‘guides’ (leaders) who showed people the ancient routes and trails in order to conduct trade. During the 18th and 19th centuries, land-based armies adopted the word to indicate how people were expected to behave (e.g. lead from the front). Given the several hundreds of years that have passed since it was first used, ‘Leadership’ still means ‘showing the way through personal example’.

Managers therefore undertake a series of Transactional activities ensuring people, process and paper are all controlled within a set of clearly defined rules to achieve an organisational goal. Whereas Leaders undertake a series of Transformational activities, more connected with inspiring people to achieve their own (or more usually the leader’s) vision or goal, but relying upon their own charisma to galvanise people into achieving the goal.

There. That’s all cleared up then!

Many thanks

Mark Williams

Head of Training

MTD Management Training Course

(Image by J S Creationzs)

Click below for a:
Free email course “Improve your Management Skills”

The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model is based on the premise that excellent results with respect to performance, customers, people and society are achieved through partnerships, resources and processes.

The model explains performance gaps and identifies improvement directions. I’ve used it a number of times to determine the future direction of my company, and it consists of a few fundamental elements:

• Leadership and consistency of purpose
• Management by processes and facts
• Employee development and involvement
• Continuous learning and improvement
• Partnership development
• Public Responsibility

Results not only reflect how well an organisation is performing, but also measure a company’s performance from perspectives like customer focus and social results.

What does it require from a management and leadership point of view? Well, here’s a list of management requirements:

• Develop mission, vision and values
• Be role models of excellence
• Be involved in developing, implementing and improving systems
• Be involved with customers and partners
• Recognise, support, coach and motivate people within the business
• Identify, develop and sustain people’s competencies
• Involve and empower teams
• Reward, recognise and care for individuals

There are many other ways that the model recognises the professionalism of a company, and I would suggest you take a look at how your position could benefit from looking at this recognised tool for development. The EFQM Excellence Model provides core elements for the effective analysis, assessment, structure, improvement and management of a business, and I would recommend you find out more about it to determine how your strategies could be improved in the future.

Thanks again

Sean

Sean McPheat
Managing Director
MTD Management Training Course

Click below for a:
Free email course “Improve your Management Skills”

I’ve found recently many of the enquiries I’ve received revolve around strategic thinking and the way strategy should be driven within the organisation. Whether it’s the economic situation we’re all facing, or the changes we are experiencing in business, it is obvious that management thought patterns are changing along with it, and many managers recognise the need to think strategically is a natural addition to their leadership portfolio. Here’s some thoughts from management expert, Henry Mintzberg.

Mintzberg argued that it’s really hard to get strategy right. To help us think about it in more depth, he developed his 5 Ps of Strategy – five different definitions of (or approaches to) developing strategy.

Each of the 5 Ps is a different approach to strategy. They are:

1. Plan.
2. Ploy.
3. Pattern.
4. Position.
5. Perspective.

1. Strategy as a Plan

Planning is something that many managers are happy with, and it’s something that comes naturally to us. As such, this is the default, automatic approach that we adopt – brainstorming options and planning how to deliver them.

This is fine, and planning is an essential part of the strategy formulation process. The problem with planning, however, is that it’s not enough on its own. This is where the other four Ps come into play.

2. Strategy as a Ploy

Mintzberg says that getting the better of competitors, by plotting to disrupt, dissuade, discourage, or otherwise influence them, can be part of a strategy. This is where strategy can be a ploy, as well as a plan.

For example, a grocery chain might threaten to expand a store, so that a competitor doesn’t move into the same area; or a telecommunications company might buy up patents that a competitor could potentially use to launch a rival product.

3. Strategy as a Pattern

Strategic plans and ploys are both deliberate exercises, and a consistent and successful way of doing business can develop into a strategy.

For instance, imagine a manager who makes decisions that further enhance an already highly responsive customer support process. Despite not deliberately choosing to build a strategic advantage, his pattern of actions nevertheless creates one.

4. Strategy as Position

“Position” is another way to define strategy – that is, how you decide to position yourself in the marketplace. In this way, strategy helps you explore the fit between your organisation and your environment, and it helps you develop an advantage over the competition

For example, your strategy might include developing a niche product to avoid competition, or choosing to position yourself amongst a variety of competitors, while looking for ways to differentiate your services.

5. Strategy as Perspective

The choices an organization makes about its strategy rely heavily on its culture – just as patterns of behavior can emerge as strategy, patterns of thinking will shape an organisation’s perspective, and the things that it is able to do well.

For instance, an organisation that encourages risk-taking and innovation from employees might focus on coming up with innovative products as the main thrust behind its strategy. By contrast, an organization that emphasizes the reliable processing of data may follow a strategy of offering these services to other organisations under outsourcing arrangements.

Using the 5 Ps

Instead of trying to use the 5 Ps as a process to follow while developing strategy, think of them as a variety of viewpoints that you should consider while developing a robust and successful strategy.

As such, there are three points in the strategic planning process where it’s particularly helpful to use the 5 Ps:

1. When you’re gathering information and conducting the analysis needed for strategy development, as a way of ensuring that you’ve considered everything relevant.
2. When you’ve come up with initial ideas, as a way of testing that that they’re realistic, practical and robust.
3. As a final check on the strategy that you’ve developed, to flush out inconsistencies and things that may not have been fully considered.

Using Mintzberg’s 5 Ps at these points will highlight problems that would otherwise undermine the implementation of your strategy.

After all, it’s much better to identify these problems at the planning stage than it is to find out about them after you’ve spent time and money implementing a plan that was flawed from the start.

Thanks again

Sean

Sean McPheat
Managing Director
MTD Management Course

Click below for a:
FREE email course “Improve Your Management Skills”

Follow us here on Twitter

You may have heard of the Peter Principle. Back in the 1970’s, Dr Lawrence Peter suggested that, in a hierarchy, individuals tend to rise to the level of their own incompetence.

Most systems actually encourage this because people are told that if they work hard, do their job efficiently and get results, they will be promoted. But, as Peter himself says, “The problem is that when you find something you can’t do very well, that is where you stay, bungling your job, frustrating your colleagues and eroding the effectiveness of the organisation.”

This reflects a fundamental problem when assessing people’s potential. If someone is good at their current job, does this naturally predict success in the next one? Maybe, maybe not. Technical competence does not necessarily equate to managerial competence, for example.

How can you beat the Peter Principle?

With difficulty, but with perseverance. You need to match the person’s capabilities with the demands of the job. Your starting point should be an analysis of the skills required to achieve success in the new role.

Remember the acronym ‘MATCH’ and you give yourself a chance to win:

Managerial: The ability to make things happen, lead people, inspire them, motivate, build a team, maintain morale, co-ordinate, direct effort, use resources and control events. Does the person have the capacity to do all these?

Analytical: Directing problems and coming up with the right conclusions. Can they achieve this?

Technical/professional: The ability to use other people’s knowledge professionally as well as having the competence to do the job themselves. Are they able to do this?

Communications: The ability to put a message across in a way that is clear, understandable, brief, accurate and motivational. Do they have this capability?

Human Resource Management: The ability to get the best out of others and tap into their potential. Do they have the ability to get these results?

These five criteria should act as a sounding board when you are assessing the capability of someone to be promoted. Ask yourself what indications of capability do they show in their current role that will be utilised in the future role. If not, what weaknesses could be addressed so they have the capacity to carry out the future role?

After the promotion, monitor the progress of the individual so you keep tabs on how they are progressing and assist in their development.

So, although the Peter Principle is alive and well in many organisations, you have the ability to create the foundations to overcome it, if you use the ‘match’ acronym and identify the assistance you can give someone before they reach their level of incompetence.

Thanks again

Sean

Sean McPheat
Managing Director
MTD Management Course

Click below for a:
FREE email course “Improve Your Management Skills”

Follow us here on Twitter

Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham designed a model that focuses on the notion that certain ways in which a leader designs jobs and projects can be internally motivating to people.

Among other things, they mentioned the following:

* If the manager allows people to tap into a range of skills and capabilities that they have, they are going to be much more motivated than if they only used a narrow range of  skills.

* If the manager gives people the opportunity to work on a whole taks from start to finish, they tend to be more motivated than if they only work on a small piece of it.

* If people understand the benefit of a task and the benefit to the organisation as a whole, they are motivated to see the impact their actions will have.

* If people are given some sense of autonomy, if they are given broad objectives and allowed to choose their own path to get there, they tend to have higher intrinsic motivation.

* If the manager gives clear and immediate feedback, people know they’ve actually met the manager’s expectations and feel motivated in continuing to do so.

This isn’t rocket science, but gives a good insight into the kind of things managers can do to enhance the abilities of their people and identifies why sometimes people don’t bring their motivations to the party. People always thrive in challenging, interesting and meaningful environments, so seek out those opportunities to help your people grow.

Thanks again

Sean

Sean McPheat
Managing Director
MTD Management Course

Click below for a:
FREE email course “Improve Your Management Skills”

Follow us here on Twitter