“One can’t lead unless he can leverage more than his own capabilities.” Scully
There is a significant difference between an achiever and a leader.
-
-
- An achiever gets the job done.
- A leader gets the job done through other people.
-
This is huge; don’t miss it.
Many people have honed their “get it done” skills; they live disciplined lives and accomplish immense amounts of work. They are achievers. Give them a job and they’ll get it done. I admire these people, but I don’t consider them leaders, because leaders accomplish work through others.
Peter Drucker illustrates this difference by challenging us to think of which pronouns we use when given work to do: “The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say ‘I.’ And that’s not because they have trained themselves not to say ‘I.’ They don’t think ‘I.’ They think ‘we’; they think ‘team.’ They understand their job to be to make the team function.”
When you are given an assignment or when you have a vision to fulfill, what is your first thought? “I can do that.” Or, “I need to put a team together.” As Drucker says, leaders think first of accomplishing work through their team. Leaders use plural pronouns when planning work.
No doubt, a good leader must also be an achiever—you must possess the skills necessary to accomplish tasks. When a leader doesn’t know how to get work done, he loses credibility with his team and progress suffers because he doesn’t understand how work is accomplished. So for a leader it’s not “I’m either an achiever or a leader” but “I am both an achiever and a leader.”
There’s even a difference between a leader and an achiever with helpers. Some high achievers will surround themselves with a group of assistants and helpers whose job is to help the achiever be more efficient, but this is still not the exercise of leadership. For instance, a dentist may have a staff that assists him in his work—a dental assistant, dental hygienist, receptionist, x-ray technician—but all the work centers around the dentist. A leader will empower others to conceptualize and perform work on their own.
The ability to get work done through other people is fundamental to leadership. In fact, if you’re not doing that, you’re not leading.
As you reflect on your past, have you functioned more as an achiever or a leader?
A well-thought thru discussion of Leadership vs. Achievement. I struggle a bit with the tone which seems to suggest, “We should all aspire to be good Leaders, and here’s how to become one.” At some point in my business career, I stopped and looked at the people and teams I had lead over the years. I always aspired to the “Goal-Path” Theory of Leadership: Recruit a great team, set the goal, clear the pathway of obstacles in front of the Team’s success. It also seemed that I really would rather be the one who made the Leader successful than being the Leader myself. The “Support Achiever” position, if done correctly, protects the Leader from pitfalls, enemies, and distractions, allowing the Leader to lead. Jonathan preached an entire series on Barnabas, who he said usually get short shrift versus Paul, the Leader. But guess what… without Barnabas, teaching, supporting, directing, we might never have had a Paul. It is not only OK, but essential that there be a Barnabas on the team who does not aspire to Leadership, but only to support. IMHO
Ron. I totally agree with you. Every leader needs competent lieutenants (who may be leaders or more inclined to manage). All engaged team members are important. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Don
For advice like this—I wish I had had that built into my head and heart! Really, it makes
sense. I look forward to critiquing it at a better time., and putting my thoughts down, about this.
Gaul
Thanks, Gail. This thought didn’t enter my head until I as about 40 years old; I wish I had thought it earlier. Take care, Don.