Issue #49: Leadership Is Not the Opposite of Management
​Read this on my website​

Judging by what I see on LinkedIn and hear from real people, there’s a widely held belief that if you’re approachable, emotionally intelligent and not a tyrant, you’ll be a great manager.

But being emotionally intelligent isn’t the same as being a good manager, and mistaking one for the other is where many emerging leaders go wrong.

This week’s post was born of a conversation I had with a leader of one of my advisory clients. The person has a good deal of experience already and is navigating what might be the trickiest inflection point in a career: moving from managing line employees to managing managers. I say it’s the trickiest because it’s the first time when the skills that got you here are not the ones that will get you there. If you can’t do it here, there’s little chance you’ll rise much further.

Nowhere is this skill shift more visible than in how we show up as leaders. As line managers, we’re often the “first among equals.” But when you start managing managers, expectations change. It’s no longer enough to be good at your function. You’re expected to help steer the ship, build the team, and lead. And it’s that last one—leadership—that now dominates LinkedIn and the business literature, especially post-Covid. We’ve entered an era where the defining trait of a leader seems to be pitch-perfect emotional range, either because that’s what people value or because no one wants to be seen as a jerk. As a result, many leaders now believe that if they’re authentic and positive, everything else will take care of itself.

That is horrendous advice.

I know plenty of leaders are well-liked and well-intentioned. They believe in empowerment, trust, and autonomy. They want people to grow, not be micromanaged. They’re admirable in every way. But in trying so hard to be good leaders, they forget to manage.

I think a big reason for this is that we’ve created a misconception that managers are failed leaders—the business equivalent of fallen angels. I see it differently. My view is that leadership and management are related, but address different concepts. Maybe the best way to describe the distinction—and I say this tentatively, because after years of thinking about it, I’m still not sure I’ve nailed it—is this: management is the work of structuring the journey, while leadership is the ability to inspire belief in it. The best leaders I’ve seen do both.

It should be self-evident, therefore—and if not in principle, then certainly in practice—that poor management is what causes underperformance. You can be a wonderful, conscientious person, but that doesn’t mean you can execute. Kind people who lack management skills often lead teams that are happy but adrift—not because anyone’s lazy or cynical, but because the conditions for success haven’t been set. The team’s priorities, goals, clarity about what good looks like, and a shared understanding of how to get there don’t just appear on their own. They require work and coordination. And in my experience, when an emerging leader is struggling, it’s almost always because they fear that being directive means being authoritarian.

So instead, they hold back—and performance suffers.

One of the people I coach was wrestling with exactly this. They were hesitant to articulate a vision across teams, partly because there was an expectation that each team would find its own path, and partly because they were uncomfortable imposing a personal perspective, as if doing so would disempower the others.

My advice was to reframe the problem entirely. Talk about the destination. Where do we ultimately need to go? Don’t ask whether people want to go to that destination if it’s not optional. Instead, explain why you’re going there, especially when the benefits are immediately obvious). Then, ask how best to get there in a way that makes sense for each team’s work. That way, you provide direction while still giving the team ownership of the outcome. You’re not just setting them up to succeed, you’re setting yourself up for success as well. And they have a hand in their own destiny. Everybody wins.

When I coach leaders through this, I usually help them see two things. First, their organizations need them to succeed, and avoiding even mild directiveness almost guarantees failure. And, far from being controlling, they often underestimate how much people actually want clarity. A leader who is incapable of doing this is hardly a leader at all.

Second, it is absolutely possible to be directive without being tyrannical. Being directive doesn’t mean micromanaging. It means giving your team a clear sense of where we’re going, what matters, and what good looks like. If you don’t give people a destination, you can’t be surprised when they don’t arrive.

I’ve written about this extensively already (this article is probably the most complete example of my thinking). A lot of it draws from the work of retired submarine captain L. David Marquet. His book Turn the Ship Around should be required reading for anyone in a leadership role. His model is built on a simple principle: autonomy and visibility. In a competent team, the manager grants autonomy, and the employee provides visibility. There’s still control involved—but it’s structured in a way that helps everyone succeed. You push decisions outward, but only after creating the clarity people need to act with confidence. Autonomy is earned. Visibility is expected. Both sides understand the terms. That’s the balance. That’s the deal.

Put differently, you can’t just smile, have a chat, and assume everyone’s on board. Even with people you’ve worked with for a while, it’s important to articulate what outcomes matter. You have to define how visibility will work. You have to follow up. None of that is about being strict or controlling. It’s about making sure the machine runs and that everyone has what they need.

Every leader should be able to answer a few key questions about their teams:

• What are we trying to achieve? Have I made priorities unmistakably clear?
• What are the non-negotiables? Do people know what good looks like?
• What decisions are mine, and which are theirs? Have I delegated outcomes, not just tasks?
• How will I know if we’re on track? Have I specified how and when I want to be updated?

If the answer to any of these is no, then start there. Leadership isn’t the opposite of management. And you’ll never be a good leader without also being a good manager.