My husband called me on his way home the other day and asked
if I knew the origin of the word leader.
I’m a person who enjoys etymology, but I had to admit, I didn’t know the
root of the word “lead” or “leader.” He explained
that its origin was in guiding the way, or showing by example.
Indeed, I looked it up in the etymology dictionary, and found
the definition: “to guide, cause to go
with, show by going in advance of.”
It made me think about the age-old distinction between
leaders and managers.
In contrast, the etymology dictionary defines manage as “to
handle” coming from the Latin root “manus” meaning “hand.”
So, etymologically, leaders guide and show the way, and
managers handle tasks, people, and things.
In my own experience, I’ve witnessed many of those at the
top of the org chart, or at a minimum with others below them in the org chart,
anoint themselves “leader” and then do nothing other than “strategic” activities. The distinction of “leader” seemed to be
license to stop doing and to justify only thinking about and planning for, but
leaving the doing, and the implementation to the staff.
It brought to mind an interesting article by Bob Sutton that
was published in Fast Company magazine called “Why
Big Picture Only Bosses are the Worst.”
He discusses how bosses who think their only job is to
“generate big and vague ideas …and treat implementation…as mere ‘management
work’ best done by ‘the little people’ [use that distinction] to avoid learning
about people they lead, technologies their companies use, [and] customers they
serve.”
When you’re disconnected from your people and your operations,
how can you determine appropriate strategy?
Not only does it set you up for poor strategy decisions, I
think this distinction also encourages a lack of accountability. If you’re the “strategist” and your people
are the “implementers,” then any failure (and accountability) will certainly be
in implementation.
No comments:
Post a Comment