Levels of Leadership

Discussions about leadership and managementleader and crew leader are also common. It's at
seem to focus on the mundane chores ofthis level of leadership that the definition of leader
management and the lofty achievements ofand manager clash. Those lofty definitions of
leadership. A good manager is one who canleadership don't seem to apply here. Or do they?
accomplish what a leader envisions, plodding alongLet's look at a couple of examples.
with no real vision of their own, while a goodLeaders are supposed to have vision; to know
leader has wonderful vision and an amazing graspwhere they are going. No one talks about
of all factors affecting success. Right? Maybe not.managers having vision. I've found though that the
I may be exaggerating a little so let me clarifybest managers were those who had a vision for
the issue by taking a look at three layers ofwhat they wanted their own corner of the
leadership.organization to be. That doesn't mean they had a
Leaders are often portrayed as the ones in thecorporate level vision, but rather one for their
organization that have the vision and set the goalsown area of responsibility. Likewise, managers are
for the organization. While true, that's aconsidered the ones who follow orders and do
somewhat narrow view. Leaders lead people, butwhat they are directed by the leaders who have
they do that on different levels. Leadership can bethe ability to determine what that direction should
divided into three broad categories. I excludebe. Such a definition ignores two facts. First,
political leadership as it's completely separate, andleaders at all levels also follow. In fact, a leader
often not really leadership.who can't, or won't, follow is not a good leader.
Those commonly thought of as leaders occupySo, to be in a position that requires followership,
the c-suite; the CEOs, president, vice presidents,does not lessen ones leadership role. Secondly,
etc. Their jobs certainly do describe leadership, butjust because a person is in a lower level position
they are also managers. For example, theydoes not mean they don't know what needs to
manage events, finances, and production. As abe done, or what could be done better. I found
rule though, in medium and large organizations,my best success as a leader when my
they don't have much to do with managing thesubordinate leaders felt empowered to make
human resource. Let me be clear on this point.decisions and improvements based on their
These high level leaders deal with people everyknowledge and expertise. Quite simply, they knew
day, and the decisions they make certainly affectmore than I did about their own specialties.
the organization's human resource. For the mostSo what's the point of all this? The discussion of
part though, they don't manage people on adifferences between leadership and management
regular basis.provides an interesting academic argument, but it
Below that level are the mid-level leaders. I lumpdoes something else too. It clouds a very
everything from directors to plant managersimportant fact. Specifically, leadership at all but the
making this a very large group. Titles are not ashighest levels involves the human resource. The
important as the fact that these leaders have theproblem is, often those lower level managers, the
same sort of responsibilities of their higher levelones who have the most responsibility for leading
bosses, but also often have a little morethe human resource on a day-to-day basis, don't
responsibility for managing the human resource.get much training in that aspect of their job.
Next is what I think of as the entry level ofRemember that people, that human resource,
leadership. This level of leadership is usually called aexpects to be managed, but they respond better
manager, though oddly enough such titles as shiftwhen they are led.