Who is a Paladin?

Have you ever wondered why people go after one person and not after another?

Who they follow, who is he? It seems that usually these guys are called leaders.

After the leaders go after all? Where are they coming? Did you see situations when you went after the leader and went nowhere? He drove them, like Susanin of the Poles in the winter forest, and did not bring them anywhere, although they believed him to the last.

And there are those who do not go. Great guy, beautiful expensive suit, elegant snow-white smile, pleasant speech, but ... Do not go. Do not believe.

Although the person is really intelligent, only he is not a leader, but a manager. He knows how to manage people, build processes, achieve goals, maintain results. The manager lacks one thing - they don’t follow him.

And here we have a dilemma, or a dialectic of control.

They follow the leader, but he himself does not know where and how to lead.
The manager knows where and how to lead, but they do not follow him.

Feel what a great problem here? Something akin to the struggle of Idealism and Materialism, is not it? Physicists and Lyrics?

Or is it all nonsense? Nonsense, of course.

The whole dialectic is sucked from the finger. Not by you, not by me, but by the greatest amateurs sucking from your finger - business coaches. Those who share and rule. Create a course on leadership, and teach there some secrets, allowing to lead the crowd. Or they create a management course and learn how to manage people and systems.

You understand that selling two products is better than one. The same people will buy both courses, both books, both seminars or videos.

And there is no third, main course - on how to unite and use, at the same time, both leadership and management. Although the idea is obvious, agree.

This idea was pushed by me by a friend ( GSoftic) which educates IT directors. Does he have a group whose slogan is: is the CIO a techie or a manager?

I looked at this name, looked, and suddenly I realized that it was incomplete! Where is the lead? All right, there are chief accountants, financial directors or head of the quality control department - they will do without leadership, they will manage job descriptions, plans and control. But as a CIO, programmer, may not be the leader?

In life, of course, it goes like this. But no, not so - it is quite difficult to find a competent manager among IT specialists. Leader - all the more. Yes, there is no need, in general, leadership, especially in a non-IT company - somewhere in the factory, who and where should we lead there? One golimy support, everything and everything - programs, computers, servers, networks and equipment. It works, users do not complain - and well! Technical support does not need a leader?

But in factories there are cool teams. Not those who know a lot of frameworks, write drivers on the Assembler and program the instruments for measuring the direction to the star. And those who themselves, without instructions from above, are moving the development of information systems. And not only information - there are CIOs and teams of programmers who move the entire business system forward, get involved in related processes, teach the lives of managers and are considered one of the most valuable business assets.

What are they? What is their secret? What makes them not sit on the ass, doing endless refactoring or supporting accounting, and move and move forward everything that comes to hand, like a bulldozer?

Why are some called “programmers”, others “IT department”, third “IT service”, fourth “information systems division”, fifth “asshole from 309 offices” (this is from personal practice), and one hundred and twenty fifth - “gang” (in good sense of the word)?

The answer is simple - the gang has both leadership and management. Without leadership, the gang is a “programming department.” Without management, the gang is paratroopers on the very day when it is better to bypass them.

Of course, it is not only about factories. It's just that I recently worked in a purely software company, and my main life experience is connected precisely with the work on the internal automation of final customers.

The division of people into managers and leaders, in my opinion, is one of the key problems. It is the division: you are the leader, and you are the manager. You lead and you control.

There are, of course, successful tandems (I do not mean anything using this word), when one leads, and the other controls this enthusiastic team, or crowd. But these are rare exceptions.

Usually the opposite. The manager is in any team, if you do not have a turquoise organization. He pretends that he is trying to stir up this swamp, move forward, do something worthwhile. But they follow not the leader, but the leader. And who is the leader there?

As a rule, some other dude, and - not a management position. There may be an ordinary programmer, or a tester, or a system administrator. He is wise with experience, or very energetic, or has a plant, or an innovator - there are many options for leadership, but such a person is followed, or they want to go.

And the manager wants to follow him. And they follow that guy. A conflict arises - first hidden, then overt, and ends with the leader being driven back. Well, or, as in the fairy tale about Cinderella, the Wise Guide understands who is who, and expels the manager, and not his place puts the leader.

What happens next? The leader does not know how to lead. If you learn quickly - well, then there is a chance for happiness. And if not? A clean, home-grown leader, after all, has been sickened by all these managerial tricks - setting tasks, monitoring execution, negotiating with customers and allied workers, sometimes even a dull struggle, and even firing people.

The first option - the leader leaves, in the literal or figurative sense, but leaves the leadership position. Worst of all, if he stays in the same company, and continues to poison his "low ranks" with his gundez, what kind of bad managers, and how good are we here, sirya.

The second option - the leader leaves his leadership, and becomes a manager. He delves into the corporate world, acquires connections, learns to provide support and some achievement of goals, but he no longer chases a blue bird.

The third option - the leader manages to find the right combination, and it turns out the legendary guy - the leader and manager in one person.

Well, the fourth option - the leader creates his own business, based precisely on leadership qualities, and gradually, already forcedly, he studies management. Well, or delegates the management routine to your partner.

This development gives rise to the opinion that there are few leaders and they are sorely lacking. Even the project won our state launches - "Leaders of Russia". Do not be lazy, google, go to their website and look at the logo. What is written there? For the lazy: “Leaders of Russia. Competition managers.

Well, isn't it a miracle? The competition of managers is called “Leaders of Russia”. It sounds, of course, beautiful, and crowds are crowded, but still, they would understand first who needs something.

So, the leaders are few. Almost any director or owner of the company thinks so. Because he is looking for leaders where there are none - among managers. And the leaders are sitting downstairs and leading people - just not where the company, the owner, the society or the state needs. And where to?

And nowhere. Just lead. Forward, sideways, backwards, downwards, to the northeast is not important. Like the famous picture. They just like to lead someone somewhere, they love followers.



There is nothing left for managers to do but fight leaders. You must have seen such stories. I have happened at almost every job. Including with me.

First, the leader is persuaded to not buzil. Then they begin to shuffle it - transfer it from department to department, even if they need completely different skills and competences. Then, in general, the devil knows where, out of sight, go, lead on the North Pole. In the end, thrown out of the company - direct pressure, or intrigue, or a setup.

There are, of course, exceptions, but usually not in life, but in the movies. For example, if you remember the film “The Man Who Changed Everything”, there was a manager (he was played by Brad Pitt) and a certain team player, a leader who resisted first, made confusion, and then the Wise Leader spoke to him, asked to be the leader and light a fire in a team and everything worked out. A similar situation was in our "Legend number 17", probably somewhere else. The topic is quite battered for the movie, but rarely used in life.

Managers who do not possess leadership qualities have nothing left but to invent new ways to make people move. Tight terms, cascade projects, gingerbread and carrots, the same intrigues and, the main method, motivation systems are used.

The system of motivation, with all due respect to it, is a surrogate for leadership. As they say, by hook or by crook. Promotions and penalties are designed to ignite energy in the system, which will push people forward.

As you know, motivation systems are usually not very effective. Work, of course, otherwise there would be no business around. But the motivation cannot give that effect, that energy, that movement that gives leadership.

Because the motivation is internal. It kindles a fire inside a person, but on one condition - if there is anything to burn. From here there are tons of studies, experiments and smart articles that “programmers don't need money” - they are searching for what is inside a person that can be set on fire to burn like a pioneer fire.

The fire of the leader is external to the team members. A good example is Danko from “Old Woman Izergil” of Maxim Gorky, who pulled out his heart and led the crowd behind him. Remember what his story ended? The managers won.

So that this does not happen in life, you need to do one simple thing: to cross the leadership and management, preferably in one person.

In business, one cannot do without management, in the sense without such competence. No leader will be able to conduct business forward for a long time, successfully and sustainably. But without leadership, somehow, but you can move.

But why should we somehow? Is it better and successful and interesting?

Let's teach leaders to management, and managers to teach leadership.

You, however, may get the impression that I think that there are many good managers around and can be turned into Danko with uncomplicated efforts.

No, alas. There are very few good managers. I do not take in the perimeter of large corporations, government agencies (God forbid) and all their effective managers who manage thousands of people. Let them live as they want, there are other laws - there are no people, there are only resources and people close to them.

Our path is the management of small teams and companies. Strangely enough, but my experience shows that it is easier for a leader to teach management, than a manager, for leadership. Because the managers, I apologize, zasrat head, and it must first be thoroughly cleaned.

Yes, I almost forgot. Who is the Paladin? I think you already know the answer.

Some clever man will surely say that a paladin is just a knight, some kind of round table. I will use a different terminology - from computer games, which has been a fan for many years.

There are warriors, there are magicians. A warrior can chop with an ax, sword and hands. A magician can shandrahnut lightning, send damage or withdraw half of the detachment hand of death.

And there is a paladin, who knows how to swing a sword, and cause a rain of fire.

Both the warrior and the magician are vulnerable when they encounter an unaccustomed opponent, that is, an atypical task. Paladin is not afraid of any evil.

Well, now everything is clear to you. A warrior is a manager. The magician is the leader. Paladin is both a manager and a leader.

We will grow paladins. All that I know about this topic, I will tell. See you at the profile hubs.