Management is science. Leadership is art. Management is transactional. Leadership is personal. ~Dr. Kathryn Scanland
A phenomenon that I periodically run across is people in leadership positions who are trying to lead by managing harder. What does that look like? They create more transactions. If they want employees to change their behavior, they create a policy (or policy-like document) and send it to everyone. Their immediate “fix” if things aren’t working is to evaluate processes, systems, and budgets. They try to push change through the organization.
Leaders, on the other hand, would model the behavior they want their employees to emulate. Leaders would first seek input from employees if things aren’t working. In other words, leaders, get personal. They pullchange through the organization.
This idea of getting personal shares similarities with what Max De Pree described as covenantal relationships. In Leadership is an Art, Max said,
A covenantal relationship rests on shared commitment to ideas, to issues, to values, to goals, and to management processes. Words such as love, warmth, personal chemistry are certainly pertinent. Covenantal relationships are open to influence. They fill deep needs and they enable work to have meaning and to be fulfilling. Covenantal relationships reflect unity and grace and poise. They are an expression of the sacred nature of relationships.
Covenantal relationships enable organizations to be hospitable to the unusual person and unusual ideas. Covenantal relationships tolerate risk and forgive errors.
Rich DeVos, billionaire and founder of Amway, chose to close his recent memoir, Simply Rich, with this statement. “I was blessed with a love for people and know that seeing the best in people, recognizing them as fellow children of God, getting to know them as unique individuals, and believing in them has been a key to success in Amway. And also, I believe, to the success of families, our country, our communities, and to life itself!” For Mr. DeVos, leadership was personal.
Maybe we could look at it this way. When we are being managed, we agree and do what our supervisor has instructed or communicated. When we are being led, we follow because it’s more than agreeing to a certain way of doing things; it is about embodying a certain way of being. And that’s personal. Maybe someone is great at handing out policies and instructions; but when things get dicey is that someone we would follow? Or, would we be more likely to follow someone because they have a certain way of being?
For some who want to pursue leadership positions, this may be a deal breaker. We’ve all heard the phrase “It’s business, it’s not personal.” Well if you want people to follow you, the phrase might be, “It’s leadership, and it’s very personal.”