The difference between leadership and management has become a more and more prominent topic in recent years.  Leadership seems to be elevated while management is presented as the “poor second cousin” in business practice.  Should middle managers be leading or is their job exclusively management?

Leadership is defined at RainTree as “having the vision to see the goal and the ability to motivate, inspire and lead others through the challenges to achieve the goal”.  Traditionally, it is the executive team’s responsibility to have a vision and set the goals.  Their role is one of understanding the external environment in which the organization is operating and then deciding on the organizational strategic priorities and direction.  Executives unpack and delegate the goals that will allow for success. 

Management, on the other hand, is defined by RainTree as the ability to implement structures and standards. To define clear tasks and responsibilities and track delivery in a way that allows those being managed to feel safe, clear and able to deliver.    There is no argument that this is the core function of middle managers.  The question remains, should they be leading as well.

At RainTree, we believe that leadership without good management (and management without leadership) have a negative impact on the effectiveness with which business achieves its vision and goals.  They are two sides of the same coin.  Having a vision and goal is worthless if you don’t manage the actions to achieve it.

A middle manager who doesn’t understand (and ideally, buy-into) the vision and goals and how the team contributes to organizational success, manages the team without the understanding that allows them to be decisive. 

• It blinds them to danger signs and risks that could take the business off track. 
• They lose their ability to explain and defend decisions that they are responsible for implementing. 
• They blame executive management and abdicate the difficult elements of motivating and implementing changes by making statements like “the executive said so”. 
• They abdicate making decisions and acting without checking and referring to their leadership.

Although middle managers don’t have to define the organizational goals and vision, being part of the process allows them to motivate, inspire and lead their teams, especially when the team faces challenges and changes.

Management of teams also becomes easier when middle managers lead.  They develop relevant standards; they optimize and improve processes and they work with other middle managers to achieve the common outcome and goals.  They feel their value as important members of the leadership team.  They are also able to support their teams by communicating honestly, transparently and from a position of understanding the bigger business picture.  This improves team safety.  And, a psychologically safe team performs better.

We all understand that there is some information that cannot be shared with middle management until it is appropriate.  An executive understands that this is where they need to manage and not lead.  Having practical, delivery focused conversations that are transparent and honest with middle managers provides them with the tools to manage the situation with their teams.  Providing the managers with timeliness and clear expectations helps them to feel safe, be clear with their teams about what to expect and maintain the motivation to deliver.    It is when executives forget to fulfil their management responsibilities that teams lose their way.

So how is leadership for middle managers different from executive leadership?

While leadership for middle managers is different from leadership conducted by executives, leadership is necessary.  Managers must have the required knowledge and understanding that empowers them to navigate the challenges their teams face.  They must also have a good understanding of the reasons behind leadership decisions that are being made so they can maintain the safety for their teams and maintain performance.