I use to hold the belief that management and leadership were essentially the same thing, but over the course of my research study my belief system began to shift. As a reminder, my research examined the ways in which managers learn in the workplace. One of the managers in my study compared the concept of leadership and management to static and dynamic procedures…
“Management is the static side of the business. It is about ticking your boxes, the budget, and allocating resources. The dynamic part is the leadership part. You can’t just be one or the other. You have to be out there and visible and working with your team. That is how you gain buy-in. I can sit here in this office all day long and not see anybody and I would never know their names, and they would never approach me to provide me with feedback. How can I make informed decisions if all I do is sit in my office?”
It was through my participants’ interviews that I began to develop a deeper and more educated understanding of the difference between management and leadership. But I still had the question of how does someone learn to become a manager, as well as a leader? Many of the people I have spoken with throughout my career believe that leadership is an innate ability that you either have or don’t. Whereas, being a manager is a skill that can be learned. In fact, some of the managers I interviewed in my research study held the same belief. When I asked them why they decided to become a manager, many of them said they had a mentor who saw something in them. A leadership quality that others in the organization did not possess. As a result, the mentor selected them to further develop into a formal leadership (i.e. managerial) position.
What was surprising to me was when I asked the question, “how did you acquire the competencies required to do your [manager] job”, many of them conflated managerial learning processes with developing their leadership capabilities. The process of learning to become a manager and a leader were very similar. Participants said they learned through moments of self-reflection, trial and error, and most importantly, each and every one of my participants had a mentor who gave them honest and critical feedback on their performance. Then why do some people still hold the belief that leadership is an inherent ability? What are the potential consequences of holding onto such a belief?
Traditional versus Modern Mentoring
One of my colleagues shared a story with me about hand selecting someone to develop due to what he perceived as innate leadership abilities. Unfortunately, the person he hand-picked had no desire to move into a formal leadership role. Yet that did not stop my colleague from trying. He was convinced that by taking this mentee under his wing and investing a lot of time mentoring him, his mentee would see the light and agree to move into a managerial position. Guess what happened? If you said that my colleague’s efforts paid off, you would be wrong. If my colleague said white, his mentee said black, and on and on it went until my colleague gave up in frustration.
You see, my colleague was following in the footsteps of his mentor who took the same approach with him. His mentor saw something in him that he believed was an innate leadership ability. My colleague was repeating the cycle of what is called traditional mentorship, which is when someone, usually in a leadership position, grooms someone they select to develop. It is also not uncommon that the person they usually select resembles themselves in some way. It could be in character, work ethic, background experience, and yes, gender. Whereas, modern mentoring is more inclusive because it is not based on a belief that leadership is something you are born with.
Modern mentoring gives opportunities to everyone in the organization by removing barriers that make it challenging for some people to participate, such as seeking permission from your supervisor and not allowing someone to meet with their mentor during work hours. These rules commonly exclude anyone who has child care obligations, typically women.
Around the world there are few women in leadership positions in politics and in organizations. According to the Global Gender Gap Index,“the most challenging gender gaps to close are the economic and political empowerment dimensions, which will take 201 and 107 years to close respectively”. Out of 149 countries assessed, there were just 17 that have women as heads of state, while only 18% of ministers are women. Likewise, it was found that only 34% of managerial positions are held by women.
Having access to mentors, which is conducive to developing meaningful relationships with others at work, is a critical element in developing managerial and leadership ability. One manager in my study said, “you pick up [leadership] competencies by working with other people, partnering up with more experienced people. They could be your superiors who have obviously been around longer and have climbed up that rank structure”. Senior leaders were seen as facilitators of workforce development within the organization that promoted collaboration among staff.
What is in it for Me?
You may be asking yourself, “why should I invest my time in others that I have not personally selected? What will the return on that investment be”? Shelly Zalis said it best in an article she wrote for Forbes.
Parity is not a female issue or a male issue; it is a leadership issue. As a woman in middle management, it’s not your responsibility to transform workplace culture. It’s time for companies to be accountable for change, and to not hide behind excuses. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s good for the bottom line: Businesses will see a return on equality when they create measurements and solutions.
It is important to consider the representation of women in formal leadership positions. Limited access to informal networks, influential colleagues, and mentors can create a barrier to upward mobility within an organization. There are various theories as to why women are less likely to occupy leadership roles. One such theory is the “confidence-gap”, which states women have lower self-esteem than men do and as a result they will avoid promoting themselves unless they are 100% sure they can do the job. Whereas men will typically jump right in and believe they will succeed. But there is also research that demonstrates women feel just as confident in their abilities and leadership skills as their male counterparts.
Whether you support the confidence-gap theory or not, it does place pressure on women to change and adapt versus asking organizations to shoulder some of the responsibility to ensure they are creating equitable workplace practices for development and promotion.
For instance, a common practice for organizations is to promote people into temporary managerial positions in order to fill a short-term vacancy (e.g. backfill for someone on holiday or a long-term leave). From my experience (and research supports this too) filling short-term vacancies is usually an ‘ad hoc’ process that involves a senior manager or mentor selecting someone they believe would be a good replacement.
The experiential learning that is gained from short-term acting positions can assist an individual in gaining knowledge and confidence, which is required to seek out other opportunities and take risks. It also acts as an instrument for individual enlightenment and organizational learning.
The on-the-job learning that is gained from temporary positions can increase someone’s knowledge and confidence, which is advantageous especially when a permanent position becomes available. Confidence comes from getting feedback and support from others in the workplace. Therefore, how an organization selects, promotes, and develops their managers can have reverberating implications for the long-term success of an organization. Senior executives need to develop equitable and inclusive strategies that incorporate the ideas and perspectives of women, who make up more than half of humanity.
Below are questions to engage you in a moment of self-reflection regarding your beliefs about leadership and mentorship, and how it may influence the opportunities you create for career advancement in your organization.
Time to Reflect:
Refer to your answers from my first article “Death of the Emotionally Intelligent Leader”. Do your answers reveal a belief that leadership is innate or a skill that can be developed?
How do your beliefs influence how you identify people to develop and promote within your organization?
Who typically gets invited to participate in social activities (e.g. sports tournaments, lunch or dinner outings, etc.) and/or mentoring opportunities in your organization? Explain the rationale for that practice and how it may influence opportunities for advancement.
