Manager? Leader? or "ManageLeader"? Being able to lead with confidence in complex environments

This article is about the new figure of managers in complex environments as "ManageLeaders" or Manager-Leaders

Ali ARMAND ©

Author of: "Trust and Leadership, in a Complex Environment," ESF Editions

Leader versus Manager:

We have just seen what the term "leader" means. What about "manager"?

Hellerieg, Slocum, and Woodman present a "classical" understanding of a manager. They consider the latter a manager (the verb to manage means to manage in English). A manager is a person who does things as they are planned according to prescribed and predetermined standards and procedures. He does not take any risks and works with a logic of task planning using control systems that are sometimes very sophisticated. The example given is that of H. GENEEN, the CEO of ITT. It is a handy function in a stable environment, but a manager is not always the man for the job in situations of instability and crisis. Generally, managers, as they describe it, discourage innovation, creativity, and the functional autonomy of employees, which are necessary qualities to act in an unstable and changing environment.

No organization can do without its managers because they are the essential links in achieving the objectives and maintaining the functional balance of the organization. Young[1] defines the main functions of a manager:

·      Bringing order to disorder caused by the environment's complexity and the situations the company is going through. It is not a question of "order" in the militaristic sense of the term but of providing a coherent framework for developing resource efficiency and action effectiveness. To do this, the manager must set up rational systemic processes and define functions consistent with the organization's orientations.

·      Supervise performance: This involves maintaining a global view of employees' activities in a logic of collective performance, supporting them in analyzing their strengths and weaknesses, organizing activities, and setting each person's objectives [2].

·      Plan: corresponds to the definition and short-term objectives and the implementation of the steps for their achievement, the allocation of the resources necessary for their achievement, the definition of deadlines, etc.

·      Organize: corresponds to the assignment of roles and responsibilities, the definition of tasks, the communication around related plans and objectives, the implementation and development of procedures and specific measures, and the monitoring of the implementation of what is planned.

·      Control corresponds to all the actions to verify deadline achievements by ensuring the quality of the services. It also involves evaluating the effectiveness of the system implemented.

·      Coordinate: corresponds to the efforts to develop better community involvement mechanisms.

·      Solve problems: Finally, the manager must deploy specific actions to solve all the issues, difficulties, tensions, and conflicts within the teams.

The "ManageLeader" / "The Manager-Leader"? The new figure of the "Management" in organizations

The distinction between a "leader" capable of transforming things and defining strategic orientations while mobilizing the organization's members with inspiring communication and a "manager" suitable for stable situations and in charge of the permanence of performance production seems to have lived.

In addition, we are used to talking about leadership for senior positions within organizations and "position" management for intermediate functions or positions of proximity to the field. However, given the specificities of our environment, its complexity, and the speed at which change affects organizations, any manager must also have specific characteristics of leaders. Therefore, he must behave at his level, like a leader.

To describe the MangeLeader neologism, I suggest  a model with the following features:    

1.    The ManageLeader must have a vision/ambition: we fear the "vision" in French companies. This is not the result of a study but an assertion from my years of practice in managerial training, consulting, and coaching within different organizations. When you mention it, the general reaction is to turn to the organization's top and say that this vision is produced from "above.” At the bottom, people "unfold" and "multiply" things. I don't know the fundamental reasons for this type of positioning (organizational culture? national culture? education system?), but the consequences are there: a very great difficulty in mobilizing employees and a magical expectation about training such as "how to motivate?", "How do we mobilize and get people to join?" etc.

On the other hand, when "vision" is replaced by "ambition," the reactions are calmer, and managers feel more at ease. For us, it's precisely the same thing. Managers must have a vision for their entity (team, unit, department, department, division, etc.).

This corresponds to a desirable representation of the future of its entity in terms of its structure, processes, services, products, etc. It answers the question: "What do we want to be and become in 3 to 5 years given our situation?" and a subsidiary question: "What do we want to introduce? Change? Modify? Maintain? Develop? Stop? Given our environment, organization, tools and technologies, and relationships with customers and partners? In our behaviors and actions? In our bearings? To develop organizational and human performance? ». A vision has the following characteristics:[3]:

·      Appropriate: To the history, culture, and values of the organization and realistic given the foreseeable future of the organization.

·      Idealistic: It must convey something optimistic and represent an ideal, even sometimes revolutionary.

·      Credible and mission-oriented: It should be oriented towards achieving a specific, clearly defined goal, which provides employees and other stakeholders with clear direction. Are the vision and the ways to achieve it well-founded and relevant? Does it lead to a better future?

·      Inspiring: It should motivate people by allowing them to take part in building a better future.

·      Understandable: It must be unambiguous. Clear, accessible, and understandable for everyone, it becomes easily appropriated by all interested parties.

·      Unique: It should be unique and reflect the organization's uniqueness.

·      Ambitious: It must be challenging, bold, vibrant, and radical and involve a certain level of courage, determination, resolve, and tenacity.

This vision must, of course, be co-constructed with the actors concerned, making it possible to guarantee against the risks of resistance to the changes it could induce.

2.             The ManageLeader must contribute to the production of meaning: the complexity of the environment often places employees in a situation of perplexity with inconsistencies and uncertainties. Because of the recurrent changes and the speed of their emergence, their bearings are weakened, and they are even destroyed, and they find it difficult to see the meaning of their actions. And this lack of meaning significantly weakens their commitment. Delong[4] defines three determining factors in the generation of commitment: Importance (everyone must be aware of the importance of their contributions in achieving common goals), Meaning (everyone knows what they do and the meaning of the goals to which they contribute), and Inclusion (everyone must have a place within the community and be integrated into decision-making processes). More precisely, the production of meaning covers three aspects:

o   This means direction and orientation: the manager can explain the choice of the organization's strategic orientations based on the elements provided by the management. It's about where the organization is going and why it's doing it. This explanation is not to be confused with the justification and persuasion of the employees of the superiority of these guidelines, especially since, except for senior executives and members of the executive committee, the manager would not have participated in their development. This production of meaning is more of a top-down piece of information.

o   Meaning as the meaning of things: this level of the production of meaning concerns the impacts of strategic orientations on the organization, its relations with the environment, its professions and skills, its products and services, its tools and technologies, etc., in short, in a word, what these orientation decisions are taken for. If we change things, what will we replace them with? And what is the alternative project? This production of meaning implies exchanges and discussions with stakeholders, and everyone can shed light on the possible impacts of these orientations using the logic of collective intelligence.

o   This means localization of things: This third level responds to employees' concrete and practical concerns regarding the translations and modifications of stuff at the local level. The answer to be produced is: "Given these changes, how will we be affected? How can we act? How can we deploy things about our local specificities? ». They need to say and define what will change, what will remain permanent, and how resources and means can be redeployed considering the new configuration. Here, too, they intervene very directly in the co-elaboration of meaning. 

3.             The ManageLeader must create the conditions for approval: to follow what has been said, the manager-leader does not get people to adhere but generates approval. Getting people to buy in is another axiom commonly mentioned by managers. They are supposed to get their employees to adhere to the company's strategic orientations to optimize collective performance. Better yet, they are supposed to "embody" them so that everyone can see how well they are aligned with these orientations. The problem is that, once again, except for the managers, they have played practically no role in developing these strategic orientations and "receive" them in email and/or PowerPoint. 

The manager-leader, therefore, does not generate support but approval [5]from employees. But That will be the subject of another article :-)

·      The ManageLeader must steer. He must steer the activities since he is accountable for his entity's collective performance. This means that he must drive things, distribute roles and responsibilities, distribute resources and means, organize activities, define objectives, monitor activities, evaluate things, give feedback, and sanction positively (the various forms of symbolic and financial gratification) or negatively (disciplinary sanction).

·      The ManagerLeader must Support people, which means that they must regulate relationships, listen to and be attentive to their requests, contribute to their professional development (skills development, career development), demonstrate proximity, improve working conditions, develop individual and collective well-being, support those who find themselves in difficulty, manage tensions and interpersonal conflicts, building and developing internal team cohesion, etc.

4.             The ManageLeader must encourage and develop innovation: as things change rapidly, he has an innovative reflex in his body. He does not consider innovation and creativity as intrinsic "qualities" of certain beings but as organizational processes that can be set up and consolidated incrementally. This is not a strategic innovation with the main orientations given by the general management, but a modest innovation, daily, by seeking to improve the conditions of use of resources, by granting oneself (and others) the right to get out of routines, off the beaten track, by encouraging divergent thoughts, by promoting positive and constructive confrontations,  by developing the freedom of enterprise for each employee, by working on alternative scenarios for the use of resources and means, by challenging the ways of doing, being and acting, by questioning the sacred cows (the products, services, skills, etc., which are the best and which we succeed in every time) to go even further and find new perspectives,  etc. 

5.             The ManageLeader must generate and consolidate trust and develop trust relationships on the organizational and interpersonal levels. Organizational trust concerns the latter's ability to create an organizational framework that allows trust to emerge.

o   The definition of the framework in organizational relations is a crucial element for this form of trust. We need to know the mechanisms that regulate our relationships and how we can be protected.

o   The second dimension of organizational trust is transparency and the ability to tell the truth. People find it challenging to trust when they feel things are not being said.

Trust is about the relationships between people and humanity that one must demonstrate.

o   It covers, first, the integrity and authenticity that the actors can demonstrate in their relationships,

o   Secondly, it concerns the ability to focus on others. The more self-centered you are, the more you think about your goals and interests, and the less you can generate trusting relationships.

I will publish a specific article on this topic soon!

Conclusion:

In today's dynamic and unpredictable environment, the rigid separation between manager and leader no longer serves the needs of modern organizations. As complexity and rapid change become the norm, the  “ManageLeader” or "manager-leader" model emerges as a necessary evolution, combining the stability of management with the foresight and adaptability of leadership. By integrating structured processes with a compelling vision, this model empowers organizations to achieve operational efficiency while remaining agile and innovative. Ultimately, the manager-leader is more than a role; it’s a strategic mindset that balances order and inspiration, fostering environments where trust, engagement, and collective ambition can thrive.

[1] Young, R. D. (2004): Leadership: Toward a Visionary Approach, University of South Carolina.

[2] Yukl, G, (1994): Leadership in Organizations. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 28, a quoted by Young, R. D. (2004): Leadership, Toward a Visionary Approach, University of South Carolina.

[3] Nuns, B. (1992): Visionary Leadership: Creating a Compelling Sense of Direction for Your Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp 28-30.

[4] Delong, T. J, (2011): Flying without a net, Turn Fear to Change into Fuel for Success, Harvard Business Review Press.

[5] I am inspired here by Adam Smith and what he writes about "assent" in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Paris, PUF, republished in 2014.