|
Whether or not you have been reading the previous articles in this series, you probably have an inkling as to whether you prefer management work or leadership work. For most of us, one or the other will seem more natural, more comfortable or more suited to our style.
You may also be asking a very common question: How did I get to be this way? Is there anything that caused me to be a more effective manager than leader or vice versa? To help answer those questions, we could turn to developmental psychologists, and ask, "Was I born this way or did I develop this way?" Their answer undoubtedly will be: "Yes," --and not merely to hide behind ambivalence. Exactly how much weight psychologists put on nature or on nurture swings back and forth by the decades, but certainly, there is something of both in our adult characteristics. Since neither I as the author, nor probably most of you as the readers, are competent enough or willing to examine the human genome, in this article we will focus on developmental issues-on nurture.
The one set of developmental experiences that seems to differentiate those who prefer leadership from those who prefer management has to do with our sense of who we are; our sense of self. Drawing upon the work of the noted psychologist, William James, there are two very different types of personalities, which he called "once-born" and "twice-born." Obviously, we all get our first shot at birth, and for the "once-borns," life continues along smoothly after that. Sure, they may experience a few potholes and speed bumps, but all in all, life is pretty comfortable for the "once-borns." As a result, these people tend to see themselves in harmony with their setting and the conditions in which they find themselves. Their sense of self is one of fitting-in and accommodating.
"Twice-borns," according to James, never quite find that natural match for themselves in the world. They often look back and see their lives as continual struggles to attain some sense of order. They have difficulty fitting-in in many instances and as a result, their sense of self is not one of harmonious belonging but rather of profound separateness. This does not imply that they are pathological or incorrigible; they just have to find their own way.
Those with a sense of belonging are well adapted to blend into organizations. They are good at discovering the rules and norms, and they socialize easily. In so doing, they preserve the existing conditions and extend them. They and the organization help define each other's existences. These people are well suited to the task of management.
Those whose development has been more difficult may well find themselves taking on the mantle of leadership. Because they feel separate from their environment, and often many of the people in it, they may find themselves working in organizations, but not actually belonging to the organizations. Therefore, they are not nearly so motivated to maintain the status quo as they are to change things.
This process, whether in the family, the schools, or in organizations, is described as "socialization." To illustrate the point, we often joked in college that the way to get an "A" was to figure out the 25 favorite words the professor used and include them in your essays. Socialization is fitting-in and is an important step in development. On the other hand, those who have made significant changes as adults did not always fit in. Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Carl Friedrich Gauss, the famous mathematician, were people who significantly changed our world as leaders in their fields, yet none of them seemed to fit in very well in school.
The same characteristic of the separateness of leaders continues in industry. Organizations that are giants in their industry and are well managed often do not provide the next leap forward for the industry. A successful organization, which "manages" to maintain the status quo, is not inclined to change. Thus, as my CCL colleague, Dr. David Campbell has noted, "The automobile was not invented by the transportation experts of that era, the railroaders. The airplane was not invented by automobile experts. Polaroid film was not invented by Kodak; handheld calculators were not invented by IBM; digital watches were not invented by watchmakers."
Despite the varied developmental patterns of managers and leaders, if we are to be ultimately effective in the business world, we will continue to need both efficient maintenance of the status quo for stability and groundbreaking ideas for effective change. That's why we need both management and leadership. No matter what your developed inclination, you can learn to be better at both kinds of behaviors and some of those techniques will be the subject of future articles.
|
