When I hear folks complain about work I'd say the focus is usually on two things: the people they're tasked with serving, and managers. Dealing with people is challenging and draining so the first one makes sense but since I became a manager that second complaint has hit close to home. Why do people hate their managers so much, and why is so much effort placed on leadership training for managers? It's almost as if the idea is that if we train managers to be better leaders maybe they won't suck so much at managing?
I've come to the entirely unoriginal conclusion that managers are not leaders. Sure, some managers happen to be leaders but the purpose and mission of a manager is not to be a leader - it's to take people, objectives, and resources, put all three ingredients together in the right order to accomplish a strategic directive set by the business, upper management, etc. I'd argue that most businesses would prefer managers not be leaders. An effective manager uses the tools given to them to produce a result.
A leader, now that's a different animal. Leading is a much more visionary or inspirational role that relies on influence far more than it does authority. So many great leaders have no authority and very often are near the bottom of an org chart. It doesn't produce a result other than aligning the minds it touches with an idea or vision. Leadership is one of those intangible things that's easier to describe by saying what isn't than what it is. Despite its wibbly wobbly nature, leadership is needed at all levels of a business and a community. We need children who are leaders as much as we need young, middle aged, or senior adults who can lead. We need janitors who are leaders as much as we need at least a few managers who can lead.
I'm sure my ideas of leadership are going to be challenged. That's a good reason to be involved in this program I think.
