Business Forum | Manager or leader?

Leader here, leadership there, you’re not tired of it, are you?

This idea is propagated too often in the media: being a manager is not enough, you have to be a leader! This leader endowed with almost supernatural skills, visionary, empathetic, who inspires his employees at all costs and in all circumstances so that they become better versions of themselves. Let’s take a moment to reflect on the question and try to deconstruct this myth that will never correspond to the reality of a manager.

Already, I have rarely seen, in a company, a function or a title called “leader”. Rather: team leader, supervisor, director, vice-president… Could they all be hidden leaders like Superman under his journalist’s uniform?

Let’s first take some pressure off the manager’s shoulders and use realism and empathy to understand the context in which he works. Regardless of their hierarchical level, a manager mainly fulfills three roles. He is :

1. Team leader;

2. Responsible for an operation, deliverables and results;

3. Responsible for improving its operation and managing change.

His daily life is made up of many activities: establishing a vision, an action plan, managing a budget, meeting tight deadlines, delivering results, making often difficult decisions, managing the team (performance, conflicts and collaboration, etc.). ), be accountable, see to the constant improvement of operations… while being in meetings for a good part of the day! In other words, the list of tasks to be accomplished for the manager is long, and it is on all of these tasks that the latter will be evaluated. However, in the current discourse, we tend to neglect, or even ignore, the operational or technical part of the manager’s tasks, to concern ourselves only with the team development aspect. But who the hell is going to manage the operation and the day-to-day?

Not all leaders demonstrate leadership

Historically, the notion of leadership has been associated with the chief executive of an organization, referring to people like Steve Jobs, Lee Iacocca, Bill Gates and others of the same caliber. So many leaders who have left their mark thanks to the success of their products and their companies. We also associate the notion of leadership with great personalities, such as Gandhi, René Lévesque, Churchill, Jean Béliveau… In this context, the function of leader has nothing to do with the set of skills of the individual. Rather, it is associated with public figures who were the figurehead of a team or organization that achieved success or recognition. The leader clearly plays a role: he is recognized by all, he is followed, he has a certain influence over others, etc. He (sometimes) turns out to be a visionary… He is a leader in the eyes of others!

As for leadership, a term borrowed from English, it defines an individual’s ability to lead other individuals (or organizations) towards the achievement of an objective. We will then say of a person that he shows leadership, that he is able to guide, influence and inspire. But this is not reserved for the manager; every member of the team can demonstrate leadership at one time or another. Leadership belongs to everyone! Let’s go back to Steve Jobs, for example. He is said to be a leader, however, testimonies of his poor leadership performance are many. We must therefore avoid putting all these terms in the same basket.

Let’s stop making “manager” and “disappointment” rhyme

In fact, why don’t we praise the manager? Why do we only have it for the leader and the leadership, to the point of putting them in opposition to the manager? As mentioned at the outset, the manager is, de facto, a team leader. So is it because, historically, managers have neglected their teams that we look to leaders for saviors? To attract and retain talent, do we feel compelled to add layers of caring, humanism, mindfulness, personal development, and I forget some, omitting to talk about more operational work of the manager?

The professional world is constantly changing and the quest for results and success never stops. Corporate culture, management styles, collaboration practices must constantly adapt to the new reality of organizations, but also to the expectations of teams and individuals. Expectations of immediate superiors are certainly legitimate, but also perhaps too high, given the resources and time they have to meet them. The manager has a job to do, a mission to achieve and goals to achieve. He too is under pressure and must best embody the company’s vision…often dictated by his superiors. Overvaluing the “leader” necessarily generates unrealistic expectations (and serious disappointments!) among employees.

Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Obviously, this new trend, based on benevolence and all these beautiful attitudes, although based on good intentions, means that managers themselves can no longer recognize themselves. It is therefore time to refocus, but also to give new impetus to our efforts to develop our executives.

The manager and the leader are one! There are good managers and less good ones, as in every profession. Leadership skills are developed, and it is to the advantage of every manager to invest energy in it. However, this leadership will only have meaning with regard to the business objectives and the purpose that the organization wishes to achieve.

Let us look for realistic solutions, which belong both to the organizations and to the managers themselves, but also to the employees, to ensure that our companies become ecosystems in which success takes into account a balance between financial success, overcoming self, pleasure at work, and in which leadership is everyone’s business. Each employee has a role to play and everyone can add their stone to the building. The results of a team are the concern of all its members.