Managers vs Leaders
"When I recently spoke to a Manager, I got the impression they were important, when I recently spoke to a Leader, I got the impression I was important!"
Do modern-thinking business organisations need Leaders not just Managers?
Some Managers may indeed be natural Leaders however, contrary to what some believe, just because someone wears the label Manager’ does not by default make them a Leader! Good Managers can be terrible Leaders, and equally, good Leaders can be terrible Managers - do some organisations confuse the two?
Simply put, Managers typically act like police officers or inspectors and not to mention, think only of themselves and their team. In fact, Managers are often the cause of adopting a siloed mentality, and creating a culture based on hierarchy, command and competing objectives. Some Managers see themselves as managing people, when in fact it is not people that need managing, it is the respective function in terms of the custodianship of the functional capabilities, productivity, and efficiencies respectively that need managing. When it comes to improvement and innovation you don’t need to manage people to do this, you Lead people to do this!
Good Leaders trust and are trusted, good Leaders can operate within diverse cultures, good Leaders walk-the-talk not just talk-the-walk, good Leaders enthuse, influence, educate and facilitate other people's successes not their own. People want to work with Leaders voluntarily not through command. Leaders think of the organisation as a whole not just its parts, Leaders understand and work towards the organisation's vision and strategy. Let’s be clear, unlike giving someone a label ‘Manager,’ simply giving someone a label ‘Leader’ does not make them a Leader, and also unlike Managers, Leaders attract a natural following. When working with Leader’s people have a sense of worth, and people learn how to make things happen themselves.
Whilst it is clear that we need both Managers and Leaders, some company organisations however, only recognise Managers and fail to recognise Leaders. Others believe if they were to acknowledge Leaders within their existing organisational structure this would introduce conflict between Managers and Leaders. These concerns surround nothing more than power, hierarchical positioning, and in some cases ego. The sad thing is these concerns add no value to operational efficiency/excellence. Its People who can make things happen, and its People who can stop things from happening!
How would Managers and Leaders fit into an ITSM organisational structure?
Some organisations become disillusioned when trying to implement ITSM best practice principles. With the upmost of respect, these organisations get it completely wrong because they rely purely on their Managers’ to implement such principles, methodologies and practices etc., Such a challenge requires adjusting, or completely changing the existing culture, meaning forming a collective knowledge and a set of beliefs shared by people. Some Managers struggle to achieve this simply because they struggle to influence, lack passion, commitment, and the enthusiasm needed and not to mention, struggle to think and work holistically (e.g., thinking of other teams not just their team). Furthermore, implementing such principles, methodologies, and practices, etc., should not be looked upon as a project- this is not a one hit wonder!
It makes sense to introduce a service management office (SMO) which can be a physical or virtual office, led by someone with both Manager and Leader attributes. The role that would become a representative of the SMO would be a Servant Leader (hierarchical power is of no value for this role and neither necessary as a dedicated full-time role). The role of Servant Leader would have dual lines of reporting:
Continuing with the day-to-day responsibilities accordingly, along with reporting directly to the respective functional team Manager.
Directly reporting to the SMO. In the role of Servant Leader people would think holistically in the interests of the organisation as a whole, and when required, operate cross-functionally (e.g., outside of the team which they may belong).
Such a role serves and leads, such a role does not do things for other people, but focusses on educating, motivating, and engendering confidence in other people to do things themselves, and do these things better.
The introduction of a SMO would present another channel other than just directly to line management. For example, when students return from a training course with ideas and suggestions based on what they have learnt, they should channel this into the SMO accordingly, who will think and act on these ideas’ organisation wide. Rather than just reporting this into their line Manager who may present a dead end, or if such an idea is indeed adopted this will only benefit the Manager’s respective team, not the organisation as a whole.
So, identifying several or multiple Servant Leaders organisation-wide would introduce a culture of learning, improving, adopting, and adapting, and such a culture would become widespread and in turn defuse resistance, particularly those silent resisters.