Manager, Leader and Organization Redux

Manager is the organization’s worker. Leader is the workers’ organization. Organization is the mobilization of bias.

Manager and leader are very different roles.

Manager is “the organization’s worker”—they implement the organization’s agenda.

Leader is “the workers’ organization”—they rally and represent the workforce.

Organization is “the mobilization of bias”—it is not neutral, but a structure designed to achieve a specific purpose.

Manager Enacts the Will of the Organization

A manager’s primary loyalty is to the organization. Their job is to ensure the organization’s goals (the “mobilized bias”) are met.

The manger’s role includes tasks like resource allocation, process optimization, and performance monitoring. They are the enforcers of the system.

The manager’s role is inherently transactional. They serve as the conduit for the organization’s power and directives, maintaining stability and efficiency.
⠀

Leader Directs the Will of the Workers

A leader’s primary loyalty is to the workers. They mobilize the collective will of the people, shaping and directing the human element of the organization. Whereas a manager doesn’t empower their employees. A leader does.

The leader’s role involves inspiring, motivating, and advocating for the team. They are the architects of change and champions of the people.

The leader’s role is fundamentally transformational. They inspire followers to transcend their individual interests for a collective good, potentially challenging the existing organizational bias.

The Tension Between Manager and Leader

The core tension lies in their differing loyalties. A manager might need to implement a difficult policy, while a leader might need to challenge that policy for the good of their team.

During Cost-cutting, a manager must enforce a budget cut, while a leader must rally the team to innovate ways to maintain quality despite fewer resources.

Upon technological change, a manager oversees the implementation of new, efficient software, while a leader helps their team adapt to the change, addressing anxieties and building new skills.

Best-Case Scenario: The Manager-Leader Ideal

A successful manager needs to possess leadership qualities to effectively implement organizational goals, and a successful leader must understand management principles to effectively organize and sustain their followers’ efforts.

The best-case scenario for an organization is not one where the roles of manager and leader are at odds, but where they are successfully integrated into a single, cohesive function. This individual or group of individuals embodies both the implementational rigor of a manager and the inspirational vision of a leader.

The ideal manager-leader understands that their loyalty is not to one side over the other, but to the long-term health and success of the entire organization. They recognize that the “mobilization of bias” (the organization’s agenda) is only effective if it is supported and energized by the “workers’ organization” (the collective will of the people). This synthesis allows them to navigate the inherent tension between the two roles with dexterity and purpose.

• Balancing Act: The manager-leader can simultaneously enforce difficult policies while also providing context and empathy to their team. They don’t just dictate what needs to be done; they explain why it’s necessary and how the team can overcome the challenges together.
• Empowerment: Instead of simply delegating tasks, they empower their team. They provide the resources (a management function) and the motivation (a leadership function) for workers to take ownership of their roles and contribute to the broader organizational bias.
• Adaptability: In an ever-changing environment, the manager-leader is an agent of both stability and change. They can maintain efficient systems while also inspiring the innovation and flexibility needed to adapt to new challenges.

Worst-Case Scenario: Autocracy and Chaos

When the manager and leader roles are in a state of open and irreconcilable conflict, it leads to complete organizational dysfunction. This occurs when the inherent tensions between the two roles are not balanced but instead pull the organization apart.

The Manager Without a Leader

When managers completely dominate the organization, they are so focused on their role as the “organization’s worker” that they lose sight of the people they manage. The organization becomes a rigid, autocratic machine, solely driven by its “mobilized bias”:

• Autocratic Efficiency: The manager enforces rules and procedures without questioning their purpose or impact on the workforce. They prioritize metrics, deadlines, and cost-cutting above all else.
• Stagnation and Alienation: This singular focus leads to stagnation. There is no room for innovation, creativity, or employee input. Workers feel alienated, uninspired, and reduced to cogs in a machine. They are told what to do but never feel connected to the mission. The organization may appear efficient in the short term, but its lack of adaptability makes it brittle and unsustainable.

The Leader Without a Manager

Conversely, when the leaders are in a vacuum, unchecked by any practical managerial structure, the “workers’ organization” is mobilized and inspired, but their efforts are chaotic and directionless. The leader focuses solely on vision and motivation, neglecting the critical tasks of implementation and resource management:

• Passionate Chaos: The leader’s vision and energy are boundless, but they are not translated into concrete, actionable steps. Teams may be motivated to “change the world” but have no clear roles, processes, or resources to do so. This leads to wasted effort and constant pivots.
• Burnout and Disillusionment: The initial passion eventually gives way to burnout and disillusionment. Workers are inspired but quickly become exhausted by the lack of structure and constant shifting goals. The leader’s grand vision remains an unfulfilled dream, and the workers become cynical. The organization is a passionate but ultimately ineffective movement.

The Final Breakdown

When these two extremes exist simultaneously within an organization, a destructive civil war ensues. The “mobilized bias” of the organization clashes directly with the “workers’ organization” mobilized by the leader. Employees are caught in the middle, receiving contradictory directives from a rigid manager and an unmoored leader.

The result is a complete breakdown of trust, a corrosive work environment, high employee turnover, and ultimately, mission failure. The organization, torn between its purpose and its people, ceases to be effective. It is a system fighting itself from the inside out.

Conclusion

Most real-life manager-leaders are somewhere between the best-case and worst-case scenarios and that’s okay as long as they know the duality of their job.

It’s bad enough to not know the difference. It’s even worse to know but do nothing about it.

Where are the manager-leaders in your organization?