Leadership, Management, and Politics

When engaging with senior teams who often observe the world through a lens of cynicism, it's crucial to be clear-eyed and practical. Their experiences may lead them to believe that idealistic leadership principles don’t work outside the classroom—at least not without the right guidance for proper application. Leadership principles cannot be taught in isolation. In fact, there are three important distinctions that drive organizational success: Leadership, Management, and Politics.

1. Leadership

Leadership is both a quality and capability that can be developed and exercised at any level within an organization.

2. Management

Management is both a role (positional) and a profession. It combines problem-solving, planning, and control to ensure stability and deliver results in complex environments.

3. Politics

The term "politics" alienates those who despise the tactics used by some to influence outcomes in their favor in the hidden arena of backroom deal-making. However, organizational politics is necessary for resource negotiation and coalition-building (Pfeffer, 1992). It can be constructive, particularly when it fosters collaboration for shared goals or aligns to a common purpose. Organizations become "political" when personal interests override those of the group creating unhealthy internal competition. This is why value-driven and ethical leadership is crucial for creating a climate where everyone wins.

Leadership vs. Management

Contrary to popular trends on social media, neither leadership nor management is inherently better than the other. While management might have fallen out of favor since the days of Deming and Drucker, Kotter captures the essence of this symbiosis well in his book

A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management

(1990): “Management is about coping with complexity. Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change.” Kotter argues that in a rapidly changing and complex business environment, organizations need both strong management and strong leadership to succeed:

• Management without leadership leads to bureaucracy and an inability to innovate or adapt.

• Leadership without management results in chaos, as the organization lacks the systems and processes to execute visions effectively.

In the real world, when someone is in a “leadership position,” the role is always required to solve both leadership concerns as well as driving management outcomes for the organization. People typically do not distinguish between these terms and they are used interchangeably. Leaders are expected to manage. Managers are expected to lead. However, implicit is that managers focus more on managing and leader are accountable for everything. Problems arise when leaders and managers are not flexible about or even consciously aware of the ratio of leading vs managing need to be emphasized for their role for the appropriate situation.

Integration of All Three Dimensions

Leadership experts like Adam Grant, John Maxwell, and Simon Sinek tend to emphasize inspiring and servant leadership for organizational success. Perhaps they are counteracting the toxic forms of leadership seen today. However, their writings often overshadow the importance of integrating these dimensions for effectiveness within organizations. Leadership development that lacks nuanced application will be met with skepticism and fail to impact the workplace.

Conclusion

Managers who have learned to lead well must also understand that adeptness in organizational politics is necessary for effectiveness in their roles. This becomes increasingly important for technical managers as they ascend the organizational hierarchy, as their peers are often skilled in navigating the hidden arena. Ignoring it means being outplayed or even ejected.

Beyond personal success, there is a responsibility great leaders have in the intentional choices they make daily —balancing self-interests and enlarging the pie for all —will shape the political culture and determine the team's and organization's long-term success.