Whose Job Is It to Care? One Key Difference Between Leadership and Management

In this article:

• A story about a management focus group

• One key difference between leadership and management

• Managing the work vs. managing the person

• Four ways a leader can learn how to lead

• The necessity of good leadership

• The leader's duty to care

• Two bonus applications

• Questions for reflection

---

Lessons From a Management Focus Group

I was recently in a management focus group where our topic was how to give feedback in a way that resonates with our team members. Most of the conversations were around performance—people not performing effectively, projects not being executed successfully, metrics not being hit. These are, of course, deal-breakers, and serious situations that need to be discussed and remedied. Processes must be put in place to organize around our work to either prevent performance issues or to deal with them when they arise (ideally both).

But I believe that the second half of our jobs as leaders goes beyond WHAT we do. It's HOW we do it. This doesn't mean telling someone how to do their job or micromanaging them or taking their unique value out of the equation. Quite the contrary: As leaders we need to foster dialogue with our team members about how they do their best work so we can provide support in a way that is meaningful to them.

These are the things that often get deemed "soft" skills or are grouped in with "culture." Some of the issues that arise here get cast aside as "personal styles" that we all just have to "deal" with, especially if someone is performing well. Or issues are pushed down in order of importance because people don't see how they contribute to revenue (that's the most frustrating one of all). But I find these "soft" skills to be of the utmost importance. They are, more often than not, either deal-breakers or career boosters, just as much as performance--or even more so. They absolutely can make or break your career. They impact everyone and everything within you and around you. Your tactical performance can only get you so far; if you can't communicate or connect or be organized or behave properly or be self-aware or coach others toward growth, your ceiling is limited.

Back to the focus group story. In this management session, I brought up the concept of providing feedback on these “soft” skills, like communication, organization, professionalism, leadership, etc. One person on the call said that it’s our jobs as managers to focus only on results and to be goal-driven—to be concerned about whether something gets done and to not worry about how it gets done. In other words, it's not up to us to say anything if the person is breaking rules or acting like a jerk or leaving work early or refusing to use the right systems. I wanted to disagree--to explain that you can both drive tangible results AND focus on soft skills, and the best leaders do both--but other people in the meeting shocked me by agreeing with that person's feelings. I think they were missing the point that we can be project-based or outcome-oriented (and not micromanagers) while still talking with our team about communication approaches, collaboration styles, organization skills, and yes, behavior issues. In fact, the less you talk about tactics, the more you can and should be talking about these complementary and equally important skills. The tactics can be up to each person to execute in a way that works best for them, but conversations about communication, behavior, and process are both strategic and tactical and impact everyone in myriad ways. They are not to be glossed over. They are of the utmost importance.

Another manager on the call said she didn’t realize that correcting behavior or communication issues was part of her job. She said she had experienced many opportunities when she could have addressed employees' issues around soft skills or behavior in the past, but she didn’t, because she didn’t think it was "up to her" to do. (I do not fault her at all, and I appreciated her vulnerability and honesty. I knew her ability to share openly was the only way we'd ever have this conversation, and her transparency was the only way I'd ever have realized other people don't lead the way I do or the way I believe people should lead. I viewed this as an opportunity. And often, opportunities start with eye-opening experiences or vulnerability like this.)

I was baffled, so I got curious. Why wouldn’t your direct report’s ability to communicate be your responsibility? I wondered. Whose responsibility would it be? Why don’t you feel a duty to help people use the right systems, optimize performance, and improve output over time? I couldn't fathom feeling disconnected from that part of my work. This perspective--that a whole group of my colleagues shared--was so different from my experience and opinion. I've never waited for someone to tell me to correct someone's behavior or help someone communicate better or empower someone to lead. And I certainly have never shied away from my duty to help those around me. Those have always been practices I've naturally felt called to do, so I did them, because I cared.

What was limiting these mangers' abilities to see beyond the work?

After I mulled it over, I arrived at a theory: I wondered if I was seeing, first-hand, one of the major differences between management and leadership.

One Key Difference Between Leadership and Management

The people on the call were, in terms of their job titles, managers. Their job, as far as they knew, was to make sure work gets done by their team. They didn't care about HOW the work got done. They thought their only responsibility was WHAT got done.

On one hand, not worrying about the "how" can appear empowering, because you are allowing team members to find the approaches that work best for them. And in some cases, that might work. But on the other hand, what if those methods aren't working? Or what if their methods are hurting others, or even impacting the overall inner working of the company? They still didn't feel it was in their authority or responsibility to help them figure it out. I see the benefit of letting people try to solve problems on their own, but letting them flounder without throwing them a line, not talking with them about how you can support them, and turning a blind eye to issues with behavior or work ethic or process alignment wasn't just a missed opportunity. It was bad leadership.

And while I still believe that good managers also care about helping their team members grow and discussing behaviors and communication and other skills, I could see a clear line between "the job" (doing the task at hand; executing in a way that drives revenue) and this other, seemingly abstract area of more holistic personal and professional development.

The people in this meeting didn't see the distinction between management and leadership. Maybe they had never been taught about it, or maybe they were being held to stringent revenue metrics and didn't think they had room to focus on developing their team members' soft skills (and I'm sure they didn't see the positive connection between soft skills and productivity, engagement, and revenue impact). They thought caring about their team or nurturing soft skills or managing behavior issues all fell under someone else's domain—maybe someone at a higher level than them, or maybe HR. I'm not sure who they thought would be responsible for that kind of work, but it was clear they felt it was not them.

The meeting was eye-opening for everyone. I was shocked that other people were deferring this responsibility, either because they didn't think they should do it, or because they didn't know they could do it. And they were shocked that it COULD be part of their job responsibilities. I hope that they viewed this as an opportunity to add it to their roles, if they were interested in becoming effective leaders.

Managing the Work vs. Managing the Person

They were so focused on managing the work getting done that the idea of managing the people on their teams, beyond the work or the role, was a revelation for them. It had never occurred to them--or been taught to them--that there were work elements that they could (or should) manage beyond tactical output or performance.

Some people are trained to be so focused on managing the work getting done that the idea of managing the people on their teams, beyond the work or the role, is a revelation.

They didn't know that being a manager can also involve managing the person so that they can be productive, engaged, and successful. They didn't know that being a leader would involve supporting each person on their team beyond the tasks at hand today or even the roles they were filling right now. They didn't know that we do our best work when our leaders tap into our potential and inspire us and find ways to support the way we work.

In other words, they didn't know it was their job to care.

Whose Job is it to Care?

Caring is never going to be in a job description. Caring is never going to be an assignment. It transcends job titles. It's hard to measure, too. It comes naturally to most responsible leaders, but the good news is that it can absolutely be developed in those who want to become better leaders. And that's important to note, because we need to get better at it. We have to improve the way we show (by modeling it ourselves) and reinforce (by celebrating this behavior in others) the importance of caring--in all parts of our work.

We need to train our managers better so they can both manage better and lead better. In neglecting the person beyond the role, or the skills beyond the task, managers are doing their team members a disservice. We need to train our managers on how developing these skills can better serve their teams and produce better outcomes in both the short and long run.

Managers can't be considered leaders if they don't care about helping people develop their skills, live out their values, grow professionally, communicate well, act as role models, uphold company policies, think more strategically, collaborate empathetically, develop a vision for their career, and become leaders themselves. If people want to be viewed as leaders, they need to care. They need to want to care. They need to feel the need to care. They can't wait for other people to tell them it's their job. They have to assume that responsibility themselves.

There are a few ways leaders might have been exposed to this ideology:

• They might have a natural urge or feel an innate duty to lead this way.

• They might have had fantastic role models who showed them what good leadership looks like (which they wanted to emulate).

• They might have been a part of a culture or environment where everyone shares the vision of leadership development being a key part of their success, wherein all efforts contribute to building better leaders.

• They might simply work hard on their own at learning about successful leadership (and feel an interest in implementing new practices).

Without these four avenues--an innate drive, a role model to emulate, a leadership-driven culture, or a will to learn--they may never realize how wide a leader's spectrum can be and how deeply leaders can impact their teams in ways beyond just getting today's work done well. That means it's up to us--to the managers of managers, the coaches of leaders, the leaders of organizations--to develop tomorrow's leaders more effectively, in an intentional, caring-centric way.

It's up to us--to the managers of managers, the coaches of leaders, the leaders of organizations--to develop tomorrow's leaders more effectively.

The Necessity of Good Leadership

We see time and time again that effective leadership on both hard and soft skills--on performance as well as communication, behavior, and organization--produces better results AND is more sustainable over time. Unfortunately, I have to say this explicitly, because this is the assumption many people hold, and it needs to be smashed into a million pieces and reconstructed into a more accurate conclusion: Good leadership isn't fluffy. It isn't unnecessary. It isn't soft or a waste of time or a distraction from performance. It doesn't take too much time or hurt revenue or misalign project goals. Good leadership is necessary. It's the key to success. It drives concrete results. Revenue, functional statistics, performance, collaboration, employee satisfaction and retention--all metrics get buoyed by capable leadership and by the development of soft skills in the workplace.

Good leadership is necessary. It's the key to success. It drives concrete results. Revenue, functional statistics, performance, collaboration, employee satisfaction and retention--all metrics get buoyed by capable leadership and by the development of soft skills in the workplace.

Leaders have a duty to do more than just get results right now. They recognize that in order to keep getting results, to help people develop holistically, and to improve the baseline consistently across the board, they have to focus on communication and organization and process and empowerment and vision and upskilling and career pathing and behavior correcting and all the intangibles that make work work. Leaders feel this responsibility and they take on the onus willingly. Work results are important—yes. Without a doubt. But they will be boosted by the soft skills. We cannot neglect soft skills and wonder why performance is waning or turnover is high. Soft skills are the hard skills, after all.

Why Caring Matters

When it comes down to it, leaders can't lead teams without paying attention to the things their team members deem important. You can't force anyone to do anything; people have to be [authentically] inspired and [sufficiently] equipped to do what they want to do. But the more you respect your team members for who they are, and tailor your approach based on what matters to them, the more you will be able to authentically connect with them and help them see, for themselves, the value in certain behaviors or thoughts--the better equipped you both will be as you guide them toward a favorable action and outcome.

Caring is at the heart of good leadership. It's closely related to empathy and is a cornerstone of emotionally intelligent leadership. When we care about what other people think and feel, their motivations and context, and their situations and perspectives, we take ourselves out of the equation and put the spotlight on them, empathizing with them in an effort to simply understand them as they are right now. No agendas, no judgments. Just increasing OUR awareness of the view that someone else has, as well as the reasons behind that view and everything that contributes to it. Caring looks different for different people, teams, and applications, but consistently, authentically showing your team you care will boost morale, productivity, trust, and support in the long-term.

Caring isn't about manipulating, or about short-term goals, or about forcing your agenda on anyone else. Caring is about empathizing with the other person, for the goal of connecting with them on a deeper and authentic level. The more leaders care about what their teams care about, the more effectively they can connect on a deeper, more authentic level, which will allow them to resonate more deeply over time. And this level of connection, built from caring, is more stable, more sustainable, and stronger than the superficial, transactional alternative.

The Bottom Line

Work encompasses more than just results. Good leaders know this. Leaders also feel a deep responsibility for their teams’ wellbeing. We don’t just care about the role we're managing—we care about the person in that role. We don’t just make sure the task at hand is getting done—we make sure that person is developing skills that will help them progress through their career. We don’t just look at right now—we look ahead, to transferable skills, along their career trajectory, at their vision for the future. And we help them get there, even if it’s higher-level or longer-term than just what their job entails right now.

Task managers don’t always think that way. They don’t have to. They’re not being evaluated based on how well they develop their team members’ communication skills or how well their team performs in six months or how well everyone is doing as a whole. They care about results right now, and they’re being evaluated against the results their team produces right now. They're part of a system that has trained them to only care about the next piece of output, regardless of what it took to produce it or what that effort means for the future.

That’s fine, if that’s all you want to be.

But that’s not what good leadership is.

(Yes, there is overlap, but there are many more elements and activities and traits listed in the Leadership outer bubble of the Venn Diagram that are not included in the section that applies to both Management and Leadership, or in the section for Management alone.)

Don’t confuse the two. Don't stunt your managers' growth by neglecting to train them how to be leaders, and don't stunt your employees' growth by neglecting to nurture their soft skills. Don't limit the tremendous upside to all leadership can - and should - be. Find a balance that works for you, and create a learning-first environment that develops good leaders, communicators, contributors, listeners, and producers, at every level.

THAT'S what successful leadership looks like when done right.

Bonus: Two Additional Applications

Looking for some context outside of leadership? Consider these two additional examples of how important it is to authentically care--in L&D and Marketing:

1) An L&D professional needs to know what learners care about to create learning experiences that resonate. If learners don't care, they're not going to put in the time and effort, and even if they go through the motions, nothing will stick. But tapping into what your learners care about will help you guide them toward their next stage of the learning journey. Showing you care will help them see you sincerely want to help THEM reach THEIR goals. And I promise you, this empathetic approach will build a much more stable foundation of trust that'll outlast any short-term strategy.

2) Marketers should spend time completing audience empathy practices - like creating buyer personas, customer journey maps, customer surveys, etc. - to uncover what their audience segments want and need. Of course it's important to know your brand and your marketing strategy and to stay true to them, but if you don't know what your audience cares about, you won't know how to translate those foundational strategic elements into messaging and design and experiences that matter to your prospects and customers. And if you don't matter to them, they won't engage, and they certainly won't buy.

What other applications can you think of caring being so important? Truly, across all situations, caring is a prerequisite to mattering, and mattering is how we resonate, human to human.

---

Questions for reflection:

• In what ways do you show your teams/learners/audiences you care? How do they respond?

• How can you more authentically care for your teams/learners/audiences? Name one way you can get better at showing how you sincerely care over the next month.