Cogent Distinctions

We now live in a digital age where data is always at our fingertips. Distinctions are important and I’m afraid, in the digital age, not looked into enough. I’d like to discuss two that are of particular importance and worthy of pondering and reflection. The first is management and leadership. The second is OD and training.

When I recently served on a panel discussing Trends In Leadership at New York City SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) I heard comments from my co-presenters and the audience, which helped me to sharpen and put into greater focus some distinctions. Then, a recent phone call with a colleague new to a current corporate role helped clarify distinctions even further.

I use the phrase managerial leadership when referring to a role that is accountable for the production of work in a unit. It involves assigning tasks, oversight, coaching, and allocating resources. The managerial leader is accountable for the outputs of his or her team.

Dr Elliott Jaques’ Requisite Organization provides distinctions that are essential to overall organization wellbeing and clarifies accountable managerial leadership. He also lists the authorities that travel with the roles of managerial leaders. I have never seen or heard of a comparable definition and/or understanding of leadership. Leadership can be considered an attribute of a role but does not define the role. People say leadership is about leading. Leading what? To where? By when? Within what resources?

Often when I hear people referring to person X as a good leader they are referring to that individual’s personality or ability to influence others in a certain direction. What if the ‘leaders’ in your organization were absolutely clear on what they were accountable for, and what authorities their roles had to exercise for the work of the organization to be done within agreed upon standards of excellence? What transformation would you see?

OD and training activities may sound similar and may even overlap, but they are different and they warrant clear differentiation.

Through many conversations with peers and friends I’ve come to appreciate that individuals and departments responsible for changes in culture, organizational improvement and training in all kinds of companies are continually asked to change their own direction and focus. This can be both demanding and challenging.

Clear guidelines providing distinctions about roles and an overarching business strategy can offer a useful roadmap to different aspects of those roles. Without this clarity, roles may be easily mixed together. For example, training programs can often focus on teaching people new skills and how to operate more successfully in their roles, whereas Organization Development by definition seeks to help the entire organization in a different way.

When an organization-wide perspective is agreed upon—Organizational Development initiatives, training and or team building for example—the work is about the business doing better. While many companies earnestly provide employees with growth opportunities, billions can also be wasted on training programs that don’t seem to move companies forward.

You may wonder why. One reason is that that such training programs may not be part of a larger business/OD strategy developed as a contextual framework agreed to by senior management. Seldom are these processes as clear and objectively measurable as anyone would like. There is enormous subjectivity to them, especially as they often seem to shift with leadership changes every few years.

In the absence of roles with clearly articulated managerial accountabilities, leadership and other skill set trainings will likely emphasize the development of individuals, and not necessarily the organization. This limitation may be difficult to recognize in the face of best efforts and complex daily challenges.