Power vs. Influence

Management is a position that is granted; leadership is a status that is earned.

The Office of Personnel Management's 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey sought employees' views on issues ranging from how mission needs are addressed and how performance is managed and recognized to how leaders perform at their agencies. Close to 150,000 people responded, and the results, while encouraging in some areas, were not always pretty, especially employees' telling sentiments about leadership at their agencies.

Less than half of the respondents had a high level of respect for senior leaders at their agencies. Less than 40 percent said they were satisfied with the policies and practices of those senior leaders. Only about one-third agreed that their agency leaders generated high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce.

Interestingly, these survey questions asked about the "leaders" and not the "managers." Perhaps people do not always view senior executives as leaders. The survey might indeed suggest that agencies are viewed as having multitudes of managers but few good leaders.

These results raise some key questions. First, what is the difference between a manager and a leader? Both managers and leaders achieve goals through other people. The crucial difference is in the way managers and leaders sway people to achieve those goals. Managers derive their power from their position in the hierarchy. Leaders attain their influence not only through that official power but also through personal powers, such as charisma, expertise and the respect and admiration of others.

In simple terms: Managers have employees; leaders have followers. Managers have power; leaders have influence. Management is a position that is granted, while leadership is a status that is earned.

Exactly how is leadership earned? Many federal workers would probably say by gaining trust. A trusting relationship occurs when employees have a general sense that their manager is committed to something beyond his or her own self-interest. Strong indications point to five crucial ingredients to building trust:

• Openness: You give the full truth.
• Competence: You really know what you are talking about.
• Consistency: You are reliable and predictable.
• Integrity: You honestly do what you said you will do.
• Loyalty: You act to protect and save face for others when needed and appropriate.

So, if being a leader depends on building trust and building trust is being committed to something other than your own well being, then what should a leader be committed to? Helping people achieve their goals. Good leaders know the people they lead well enough to know their goals. By creating an environment in which employees can achieve their goals, managers will more likely gain the employees' long-term good will.

With this level of trust, managers might find that they have not only employees but followers. With true followers, senior agency leaders are better positioned to generate strong commitment and motivation in the workforce. In that type of environment, everyone wins, including the American taxpayers.