The Center for Ethics, Governance, & Accountability

It has been said that the status quo cannot sustain itself.

Let’s accept that to be true for the purposes of this article.

It’s a timely topic for all non-profit organizations (NPOs). Can leadership influence status quo? How about management? If we were to refer to the Board of Directors and its Executive Director (ED) as ‘The Management Team’ (TMT) who would lead and who would follow?

Let’s take a look at a reasonable way to distinguish ‘leadership’ from ‘management’ but let’s also start with the premise that both are needed for any organization (even if, at this point, we don’t even know what ‘both’ means) to be successful.

Most people begin their professional lives as ‘doers’ of some activity. (i.e. doctor, lawyer, engineer, accountant, teacher, writer, artist, etc.) After demonstrating competency in a given set of tasks, a person typically begins to move up the ‘management ladder’ as a supervisor, manager, director, administrator, mentor, etc. Usually, a manager is expected to oversee a group of people who execute various specific tasks. He/she is expected to help the individuals render results that exceed what each could produce unguided and without a capable team.

A common description of a supervisor or manager includes overseeing the work that has to be done today and planning for the work that has to be done tomorrow. It might even be said that you can only manage what you know, especially if we maintain a narrow definition that expects that a manager will direct the specific output of team members toward a specific goal that requires knowledge of the tasks to make course-corrections along the way.

We’ve grown accustomed to accepting that ‘managers’ (as in the case of the highest organizational manager, usually known as the CEO – or, in the non-profit world, the Executive Director) can move about from one organization to another, taking with him/her the set of ‘management skills’ that can be universally applied to any given organization. Let’s take, for example, the ED of any particular non-profit organization: haven’t we witnessed the movement by EDs from one NPO to another in our very own communities? Sure we have. For this ‘movement’ to be successful, it assumes that an ED need not necessarily know about the issues of the new organization but, more importantly, must bring the management success from the old organization (and have good people at the new organization who know the details).

Has the assumed ability to shift organizations served us well? Anecdotally, some would cite positive examples and others would be able to point to negative examples. But, what does the data say? I don’t know – I am not knowledgeable of any comprehensive research that would provide meaningful data, particularly for NPOs. Accordingly, everyone who reads this article is going to have to apply his/her own specific community experiences to the notion of ‘management portability’ as we further outline these concepts.

So, how (exactly) does a ‘leader’ differ from a ‘manager’ and how do we agree to distinguish one from the other? Is one ‘better’ than the other? Is one born and another acquired? Is one inspired and another taught? Can a manager become a leader or can a leader never become a manager? Are the two mutually exclusive (which is what the ultimate ‘academic’ question is really about)? It seems we need some agreed-upon understanding of the difference between the two (assuming, of course, that you believe there really is a discernable difference between the two…).

I believe we have already done a fair job of describing a manager in the paragraphs above. (Managers make things happen – on time, on budget, on schedule – within areas of specificity that are well known to them and their team members.) Now we need to focus on understanding what constitutes a ‘leader’ before we can move the discussion forward.

A useful approach to defining leadership (vs. those who ‘follow’ or those who ‘manage’ as directed from higher above) may lie in an exercise that I participated in during a month-long ‘management development course’ (isn’t it curious that the course was not termed ‘leadership’ development but ‘management’ development?).

Our group was divided into teams of about five or so. We were to be ‘survivalists’ and we were given a list of about a dozen items of which we could choose maybe three or four to sustain and guide us out of the wilderness. In our assignment, we were to discuss the issue, select the items, and report back to the larger group. I distinctly remember two things from the exercise: (1) this was a real survivalist experience and there were, indeed, a correct number of items that experienced survivors recommended; and (2) the ultimate distinction was not so much what the team picked (right or wrong) but how it came to agree on the items picked.

Perhaps this was the ‘leadership’ lesson…

As it turns out, we were in fact conducting a ‘leadership’ exercise – not a ‘management’ exercise. The point to be learned (at least for me – and I literally think about this point a couple of times most every week) was how the team came to agree upon the items picked. On the one hand, the very best scenario was the emergence of a ‘leader’ that guided the team toward the selection of the exactly right items; the very worst scenario was a ‘leader’ that successfully guided the team toward the wrong selection of items. In the proverbial end, the successful team was alive and the unsuccessful team was dead. Both had ‘leaders’ – but only one prevailed.

To this day, I recall coming away from that exercise with the understanding that the most frightening outcome to any situation that I would experience in the future was to be the ‘leader’ who guided the team toward the ‘wrong’ outcome. Please ponder this situation and apply it in your own life. It was carefully pointed out that the appropriate combination (whatever that means) of ‘persuasion’ and ‘knowledge’ was resulted in the winning edge. Hence, the critical importance of maintained both at the same time.

How does a group go about ‘choosing’ a leader? Actually, in my opinion, there are very few opportunities for us to do so during our lifetimes. Let’s think of a number of real-life examples where we (the common ‘we’) have no particularly meaningful input into our ‘leader’ selection. These include: (a) your place of worship – did YOU select the leader? (b) the large corporation where you are employed – did YOU select the leader(s)? (c) your government – actually run by professional, life-long bureaucrats – while YOU may have voted AND your candidate may have won – did YOU really select the actual day-by-day leaders?

One of the true ‘leadership selection’ scenarios that fascinates me is the grouping of twelve individuals to serve as a jury – by default, the twelve are almost assuredly unknown to each other – and the manner in which the head juror is selected is fascinating. (Now, here would be an exciting piece of data collection that could yield interesting results...) But the point we are trying to make here is that there are relatively few opportunities for any of us to choose our leaders. But, I would suggest, we choose managers every day.

For example, as I write this article, an ocean pier is under construction. Somebody designed it and somebody is now in charge of getting it built. Typically, we call that person a ‘project manager’ – there is a specific scope of work, timeline, and budget – and that ‘manager’ must make it happen. Decisions – by the score – are made daily and there is accountability.

So, again, how do we distinguish between ‘managers’ and ‘leaders’ – that is to be the outcome of this article – so, how does this happen?

In the survivalist exercise, the members of the group did not know each other any better than the members of a jury, so I think the analogy is reasonably pure. What emerged – inasmuch as I recall – was the exhibition of sheer passion, determination, commitment, persuasion, and the unrelentless drive toward action. Above all – absolutely above all – was the ability to inspire individuals to follow. I would suggest that this is the appropriate (short) definition of ‘leadership” – the ability to inspire others to follow. So, a ‘leader’ was chosen.

Follow who to where? For what? And why?

Given the above pier construction example, somebody chose a ‘project manager’ – who, in this type of exercise – is responsible, accountable, and very much in charge. Respect? Doesn’t matter. Agreement in the project and the approach? Doesn’t matter. A likeable leader (‘project manager’)? Doesn’t matter. You sign on for the job and the leadership/management structure is already set. You have no opportunity (and certainly no invitation) to question it.

Question it? Are leaders allowed to be questioned?

Ah, there-in may lay the applicability of non-profit boards to exercise proactive judgment between management and leadership as they strive to achieve superior outcomes.

Back to our article title – what are the ‘status quo’ issues that your non-profit must overcome? Is it leadership-based or management-based. Is it an ‘either/or’ or a ‘both/and’ opportunity? These are issues worthy of your focus but not answerable by any one article. However, again, please make sure you offer TMT of your non-profit the opportunity to work through the options.

Few dispute that any organization can/should ‘stand still’ (i.e. status quo). However, in this economy, most organizations – especially non-profits – would likely consider it a major success to maintain status quo, at least in the short term. But, leaders (and managers) know this is not acceptable. All organizations, including non-profits, must take the opportunity to move beyond the status quo and outpace all competition. It can be done.

Arguably, this is what differentiates ‘leadership’ from ‘management’ – and is an appropriate closure to this article. Leaders must look beyond the status quo – and the admittedly important management skills of TMT – and chart a course that holds the likelihood for much success. Disagreements can – and, particularly on non-profit boards – should occur and be encouraged. Broad participation should be sought by the board chair. I know an ED that firmly believes that everyone is a leader – everyone has influence (good and bad) toward outcomes in every organization – so it is critical to point that leadership energy in a positive direction.

From my point of view, I believe the messages that we are currently being sent by various experts indicate ‘leadership’ over ‘management’ (although I also believe you must have both to be successful) because it is recognized that all NPOs must find the ‘next’ way of achieving greatness – not just follow the current or former way. In that regard, in those terms, the argument for ‘leadership’ makes good sense to me. In order to jump-start such an important initiative (I am definitely NOT talking about strategic planning here), perhaps the Board Chair and the ED – or the Executive Committee and TMT – should spend a couple of hours discussing options for conducting a session devoted to future thinking and new ways of doing things. Yes, this is leadership – and – yes, it is needed right now.