“Manage things…lead people” Admiral Grace Murray Hopper

When one becomes a Manager, do they automatically become a Leader? What does it take for one to become a Manager or a Leader? Can both Management and Leadership be successfully embraced in one person?

In any organization, “Management” and “Leadership” are two terms that are used almost on a daily basis. Our experience suggests that more often than not, the two concepts are used interchangeably and distinction can become somewhat blurred. There is a general misconception amongst many that one can be the other and there seems to be a lack of clarity of the distinction between the two. Although these two concepts are not mutually exclusive, it is important to note that they are distinct. Sustainable organizational success requires a healthy balance between the two concepts.

Management has been defined by many scholars including Henri Fayol, Newman and Summer as well as Peter Drucker as ultimately the formal act of achieving an organization’s objectives through planning, organizing, coordinating and controlling of various resources of the organization including material, financial, time and human resources. A Manager controls systems, resources and standards in an organization in order for the organization to achieve its primary objectives. The focus of management is getting the work done. It also involves adapting the organization to its environment in order to exploit opportunities in the environment. On the other hand John Maxwell defines leadership as the ability to influence others to achieve a common objective. Whereas management is about controlling and directing resources according to established policies and procedures, leadership is about inspiration and influencing people where they voluntarily subscribe to a vision and are intrinsically motivated to achieving it. Although it is desirous that every manager has the ability to influence subordinates, this ability to influence may not necessarily reside in every Manager.

In organizations, being in a position of authority is mistakenly construed as leadership. In any organization a “Manager” is a structural authority role – authority is derived from the structure. Managers are such because they occupy positions of authority. This structural authority emphasizes subordinates, command, control, instruction and compliance to policies and procedures. The focus is on ensuring that the organization’s work and tasks are completed as necessary. However, these tasks are undertaken by employees – people who think and act in their own way.

It is important for any Manager to realize that the way the human resources are managed is totally different from all other resources. Employees require leadership – a competence that Managers should have over and above their primary technical competencies. Leadership is not about commanding, instructions, controlling – it is about followers voluntarily believing and committing to the vision of the leader. It is about the Leader’s ability to sell a concept and getting others to be excited and motivated about it – this creates the relevant team energy that spurs everyone to superior performance. A good Leader has the ability to break down such psychological barriers as “fear” that are brought about by structural authority. This enables employees to relate to the Leader at a level of comfort, ensuring that the necessary trust and confidence is built into the relationship.

We have observed that many Managers, by virtue of occupying positions of authority in an organization, want to think that they are “Leaders”. However a closer analysis shows that there is a lot more to be done in order to transform Managers into Leaders. Being in a position of authority is a good starting point – however that does not automatically define one as a Leader. In many organizations, succession systems primarily focus on technical competence without equipping these Managers with leadership skills which are critical for success in the managerial roles. This has resulted in Managers who “manage things” but fail to lead people. Organizations should do more in terms of developing robust systems for capacitating Managers with leadership skills. For effectiveness, leadership skills should be nurtured way before the person is appointed into the managerial. The ability to influence and inspire cannot entirely be achieved through attending leadership seminars but more importantly through practice in the workplace.

Because management is about authority, control and coordination, it is relatively easy to perform as it is derived from the organization structure. Leadership is however more complex as it requires the Manager to be able to sell a vision to staff, build energy through motivation and be able to continually inspire people to explore their full potential. It inspires people to do more than just the narrow focus of their jobs. Effective leadership enables the integration of individual employees’ aspirations into organizational goals and ensuring achievement of both.

Management is important in terms of achieving the basic objectives of the organization in a disciplined manner but effective leadership drives sustainable superior performance. A balance of the two dimensions is critical for organizational sustainability. What truly distinguishes leadership from management is the ability influence and inspire and not structural power and control.

Emmanuel Jinda is the Managing Consultant of PROSERVE Consulting Group, a leading supplier of Professional Human Resources and Management services locally, regionally and internationally. He can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. tel: 263 773004143 or 263 4 772778

“Job design is not intuitive, it is a strategic process requiring the leadership to make strategic choices”

How are jobs created in your organization? Does every job in the organization speak to any real business need? Does every job on the organization structure add any real value to the business?

Job design is a process of structuring work and designating specific tasks to individual jobs in a manner that ensures the achievement of organizational objectives. It is a process that seeks to integrate the job responsibilities (actual work to be done), job requirements (competencies required) and rewards (compensation).Job design is a meticulous process that ensures that every job in the organization is ultimately serving to achieve the same vision and mission in a way that meets the needs of the organization and the job holder. This shows that job design cannot be done intuitively where functional heads just decide to create positions without thorough justifications.

There are some fundamental dimensions that underpin the job design process, viz:

1. Organizational need:

• What is the business need informing the creation of a job?
• Can this need not be met in the current work distribution?
• Can current roles not be re-organized to meet the need?

2. Productivity:

• What are the expected outputs from this job?
• Is it a “full job” that guarantees full employment of competencies?
• Does the job context allow the job to be done optimally?

3. Job satisfaction:

• Is the compensation adequate for the expected outputs?
• Is the work itself motivating – is there no boredom?
• Is the work meaningful to the job holder?

Addressing these three dimensions is critical before creating any new positions in the organization

Unfortunately in many organizations job design is not meeting these objectives mainly because the creation of jobs is done intuitively. There is rarely any due process that is followed – there is no thorough interrogation and justification of the business need, productivity and job satisfaction dimensions of the job. When Heads of Functions feel work pressure, or there are new functions to be done in the department, the general feeling is that the department is understaffed and the temptation is to create new positions for most. There is rarely a conscious discussion and drive towards work reorganization to account for the changes. Coupled with good lobbying skills, these new positions that are created can quickly be approved by the Managing Director without much interrogation, and recruitment subsequently follows. Our experience shows that in many of these organizations there are a number of jobs that are not “full jobs” – jobs where people are not fully employed in terms of application of their competencies (knowledge, skills and attributes). In these jobs, motivation is usually low because there is no challenge for the employee in terms of capacity and capability – job holders do not have a full day’s work. The employee does not grow in the job because the job is not challenging. The organization is also not optimizing on the capacity and capabilities of its people. Many managers and executives complain about carrying “dead wood” in their departments – it is a result of such practices where jobs are not put to the full design test in order to justify their existence.

When designing jobs in an organization, it should be done in a holistic manner – it should consider the context within which the job will be done as well as the relationships between the new jobs and other jobs existing in the department – how is the creation of a new role going to impact current jobs? These factors are important as they directly impact on performance in the job. The arrangement of tasks in a job has to be done in such a way that optimum performance can be achieved, not only in the job but also in all jobs closely related to the new job. Related tasks have to be combined in order to achieve operational efficiency in the role and in the work process.

It is also important to note that jobs are not static – they need continual review and redesign. As the business operating environment changes and as organizational strategy adapts to these changes, this should also be reflected in jobs within the organization. It is imperative that jobs reflect organizational strategy otherwise the organization will not be able to achieve its objectives.

Such a process ensures that all jobs, at all times, are relevant to the business, they add real value and are motivating and challenging to the individual job holders.

Emmanuel Jinda is the Managing Consultant of PROSERVE Consulting Group, a leading supplier of Professional Human Resources and Management services locally, regionally and internationally. He can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. tel: 263 773004143 or 263 4 772778

Most leaders know that the ability to effectively match an employee’s skills and personality to a specific job function is a very critical function. More often than not, we have seen that organisations hammer square pegs into round holes which has proved to be very costly to them. Yet, effective deployment of employees is the first step toward realisation of a return on investment especially in this knowledge economy where labour is becoming the fastest growing expense. Employees’ talent is being likened to inventory and having too much or too little of this talent is costly for organisations.

The success of today’s corporates comes from their intellectual and systems capabilities than in their physical assets. The capacity to manage the human intellect and converting it into useful products and service is fast becoming the critical Executive skill of the age. In response to the growing importance of having to link an employee’s skills to the job, some corporate leaders have consistently found themselves failing to answer questions like “What skills do we want for a particular job and relatedly, how do we develop and leverage on it?”

Skills that reside in a person are at four levels, the know what, know how, know why and care why levels. The know what are those skills attained through training, they are essential yes, but on their own are far from being sufficient. The know how move a step further where an employee has to demonstrate ability to translate book learning into effective execution. The know why goes further by wanting to analyse the causal relationships and solve more complex problems and finally the care-why bundle looks at ones will, motivation and adaptability for success. It is important for leaders in corporates to note that it is this jigsaw that determines your organisation’s profitability levels.

The question often posed by many leaders is, “how we do that?” The obvious answer for most corporates seems to lie in recruiting the best. Not really! It is time for corporates to move away from the notion that employees in the workplace will have all the job skills required over the course of their career. This is unrealistic. Employers need to have a stronger involvement in and ownership of skills, and ensure workers are helped to develop and grow their skills by fully utilising them. There are strategic interventions like training needs analysis, which corporates can undertake to identify what skills employees have and also what skills they need. It is also crucial to note that most people do not stay in the same job until they retire. The normal situation is to expose the employee to several jobs in their working life. By so doing, an employee will be able to find a career that is right for them.

However, not only should skills be the determining factor to match one to the job at hand. There are other considerations like cultural fit, job fit, job content and personality which have to be considered together with one’s education, experience and training. In most cases as leaders we are only paying attention to the skills and experience one brings to the interview table. We need to also assess how the employee will fit into these other elements of the organisation. Considerations like job content will also help to determine whether the job at hand will utilise the candidate’s strengths. Without job fit, an employee will never experience much happiness and success as they deserve at work and will never achieve their true potential. Employees who experience job fit are productive, happy and contributing.

We recommend that organizations should always consider the following traits when interviewing to help determine whether candidates have got what it takes to be productive members of your teams. Communication skills: these include a combination of other abilities like listening, writing and speaking. An employee needs to be able to understand where peers, colleagues and strategic partners are coming from and going. Multi skilling: that ability to juggle in all projects of the employer is a highly valued skill. Tomorrow’s workers must be well equipped to juggle in multiple tasks. Employees need to demonstrate enthusiasm and decision-making capabilities. Problem solving is a skill at the centre of creativity and workers with this skill are not just strategic thinkers but stay on tasks. Probe on Integrity: that ability to be true and honest to oneself and others. If one knows their strengths and weaknesses, they are not afraid of making mistakes and accepting responsibility. When recruiting, identify employees who are likely to stand by the old adage ‘honest is the best policy’. Likability is also a critical attribute. Is one warm, friendly and easy going. Assess employees on their ability to bolster any winning line up and as well as their readiness and willingness to become a meaningful part of your organisation.

With this increasing need to match employee’s skills to the job, the role of recruiters in organisations is getting harder and short listing potential candidates for a job does not just end there. There are indeed those other aspects to consider before the final decision is made.

Emmanuel Jinda is the Managing Consultant of PROSERVE Consulting Group, a leading supplier of Professional Human Resources and Management services locally, regionally and internationally. He can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. tel: 263 773004143 or 263 4 772778

Is it just a fad or reality that employees leave Managers not organisations?

In any employment set up, the relationship between a Manager and employee plays a critical role to even surpass the contribution of other factors of the Employee Value Proposition (EVP). The EVP is basically a unique set of benefits which an employee receives in return for a set of skills, capabilities and experience. But when one looks at the relationship between a Manager and an employee, EVP factors come second.

The person an employee calls the “Manager” has a lot to do with the employee working in an organization. This Manager determines the employee’s level of engagement and serve as the employees’ strongest connection to company leadership day in day out.

In most cases the real reasons why, employees leave organizations’ usually points to their Managers. Managers generally have a significant control over their teams and its performance. They are like the micro Chief Executive Officers who run the unit and are responsible for their team performance and productivity. It is the same Managers who can damage the morale, motivation and productivity of their teams based on their actions or inactions.

It   is therefore very important for organizational Chief Executives to understand and know the nature of people they call their Managers as well as understanding themselves as the apex in the organization. There is usually what is called the Cascade Effect in organizations’, when you as a leader you are disengaged, you do not communicate, you do not respect employees, all Managers in the hierarchy tend to follow suit. Communication is one very vital tool yet mostly neglected in organizations. Managerial communication used keeps the employee feeling connected to the purpose of their work. When this communication breaks down somewhere in the leadership hierarchy, everyone suffers. Employees usually feel out of the loop, they get frustrated by putting their efforts into work that does not matter.

We recommend that Chief Executive Officers need  to design and implement appropriate communications architecture for their companies. Its absence usually leads to information and ideas stagnating generating organizations into a bad place to work. Research has shown that two things people want more than money and sexual relationships is praise and recognition both of which hinge on effective communication.

Our experience suggests that bad Managers usually take good employees and destroy them, causing the best employees to flee and the remainder to lose all motivation.

What type of Managers are there in organizations’ that employees meet on the ground who may not be the Managers known by the CEOs? Research has come up with four categories of managers mostly found in any organization.

The Taskmasters: These are Managers who solely focus on the bottom-line always drilling employees and micromanaging and suffocating them. They are always killing creativity in employees and even if they have open lines of communication, these are for the wrong things to constantly remind you that they have done your job before and often insult you in front of others. These tend to exude bullying and harassment tendencies and bad mouthing. Such Managers are usually found in situations where someone has been in a job for   a long time and have worked up their way. When the young people come they feel threatened and always want to defend their turf.

The King Kongos: These are Managers who have reached the top and forget where they came from. They have a superiority complex and want to draw a distinction between staff and themselves. Their main concern is pushing their weight and not build relationships. They only respect those they want to impress and not everyone else.

The Superman: These Managers see the organization revolving around them. They are more like the owners of the company forgetting their own signed contract of employment. Their decisions are solo, ignore feedback and always want to take credit. Their departure from the organization is always a cause for great celebration.

The Marionettes: These Managers want to play it safe to preserve their positions and privileges and never standing up for their teams and are mere puppets.

This article has sought to demonstrate that Managers in organizations play a critical role in determining whether or not employees stay in the company. In view of the critical role played by people in determining the success or failure of an organization it goes without saying that the leadership in organizations must invest heavily in growing the appropriate knowledge and skills in Managerial staff so that they develop the capacity to manage and motivate their subordinates in a positive way. The payback for this investment is realized through reduced staff turnover rates and a high level of staff engagement which leads to high levels of productivity.

Emmanuel Jinda is the Managing Consultant of PROSERVE Consulting Group, a leading supplier of Professional Human Resources and Management services locally, regionally and internationally. He can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.tel: 263 773004143 or 263 4 772778