Cranky Middle Manager podcaster and all around good guy Wayne Turmel has an excellent post over at Management-Issues.com on the difference between “L”eaders (upper case) and “l”eaders (lower case).  For those who enjoy exploring whether leaders are born or made, or enter into the discussion of ‘what the heck is a leader, anyway?’, this is an entirely new facet to add to your debate.

Essentially, Wayne says people in “Leadership” (upper-case “L”) are those who hold a position of leadership; whereas those in “leadership” (lower-case “L”) are those who practice the traits of leadership.

In my opinion, this piece is spot on and worth your time to read.

I added a comment at the bottom of his post to point out how some companies are creating “Leadership” positions for people who have senior levels of experience (and therefore authority in their area of expertise) but either don’t want to or don’t have what it takes to supervise people.

Hopefully this idea catches on. I don’t think it’s good for morale when long-term, dedicated, highly-skilled employees don’t receive promotions because they don’t like managing people.

For example, one individual I know of had been with his company almost twenty years. He was probably the best person in the region—if not the state—at what he did. But his attitude was in the toilet because his company wouldn’t give him a position (read: title) that was in keeping with his level of expertise.

He told me his employer wouldn’t promote him because he didn’t want to manage people.

So what do you think? Must people with leadership titles (such as director, vice president, etc.) also supervise people?  Or is this view limiting? Couldn’t titles such as “Technical Director” or “Technical Vice President” be used to acknowledge someone’s technical expertise—which in turn keeps them engaged—without forcing them to manage others?

Share This

Filed in Technology, Work, Business, Opinion, Motivation, Management, Leadership, Team Building, Workplace, Corporate Culture