Taking Time Out

by Dr. Elizabeth Alden
Originally printed in Athletic Management, 15.2, February/March 2004

The school year is moving toward conclusion and the question begs an answer—what have you accomplished in your intercollegiate athletics program this year?  The response to this important question ideally comes from two places: you as the leader and you as the manager of the program. This article is designed to present information regarding management and leadership, the differences between the two, and how athletic administrators can best serve their programs from both perspectives.

Management and leadership are the essential functions of any athletic administrator. When hired an athletic administrator is generally expected to oversee all aspects of the program from a management perspective while also providing leadership to the program. How many times does an athletic administrator walk away from a day of work and wonder what he or she accomplished that day from both a management and leadership perspective? I would speculate that most athletic administrators become so entrenched in the management-related tasks of their day that they are left struggling to both understand and idealize a day where a leadership-related function was either initiated or completed.  Thus we arrive at the conundrum for many athletic directors – “How can I lead if I’m so busy managing?”

Management & Leadership: What’s the Difference?

Both management and leadership have been studied for centuries, both philosophically, academically, and socially. The knowledge of and writings on these subjects are entire disciplines of study. The opportunities for academicians to understand the nature and nuances of leadership and management make for heady company in the ivory towers of academe.

Higher education has struggled over the decades with understanding the place of management and leadership from the perspective of the practitioner. College and university presidents and senior administrators have written extensively about what their individual primary purposes are—managing or leading? Some would say that a college or university president/chancellor who leads too much should spend more time managing the institution—while there are others who would state or bemoan the opposite. Any management/administrative position within higher education is going to encounter this phenomenon, including the athletic director.  What is most important is to strike a balance between the two—even though there will be days where that would be difficult.

Management

What is management?  I see it as the systematic handling of a multitude of responsibilities and tasks, done efficiently and expertly.  That is, good management is reflected by efficient and expert handling, whereas less-than-good management is not described in such glowing terms. Ineffective management leads to dysfunction, chaos, and ultimately negatively impacts one’s ability to lead.

Leadership

Leadership is the ability to “lead” others toward a common goal. It sounds simple, however the trappings of what it is to be a leader lend themselves to confusion, and at times, a total disregard for focusing on leading a program. Leadership means understanding people, what makes them tick—and building loyalty and competence among individuals for whom you have high expectations. By serving as a solid role model and encouraging a clear and honest vision of the program, and in this case, the student-athletes being served. It is also important, I think, for the leader to be seen as an effective manager, as it helps to build credibility with subordinates, and give the impression that the director is competent to do individual tasks, and not just create vision.  People respect a superior who is capable of handling more regular tasks, and feel a better sense of personal identification with that of boss, rather than someone who shows a lack of interest in management, and focuses almost single-mindedly on only “the big picture”.

Management: Getting the House In Order

We have been thinking about these questions and issues recently and believe that much of our work as consultants is critical in enhancing the management function in our respective client institutions.  The athletic administrator’s work is assisted through management-related project work. As an example, the four cornerstones of an intercollegiate athletics program include both management and leadership-related works.  First, let us quickly review the idea of the cornerstone--a cornerstone is defined as "somebody or something that is fundamentally important to something." Another perspective comes from a building definition, which is "the first stone laid at a corner where two walls begin and form the first part of a new building." If we take these two definitions and consider their meaning it is logical that we can define a cornerstone as a significant part of the foundation of, in this case, an intercollegiate athletics program.

The following serve as the four cornerstones of a well-managed intercollegiate athletics program:

Policies & Procedures Manual

Program Review

Personnel  Review

Strategic Plan

Let us examine each of the four cornerstones:

Policies & Procedures Manuals

A policies and procedures manual is a living document that outlines in detail all policies and procedures for every area or component of the intercollegiate athletics program. It is important to note the distinction here--policies are an understanding of the general nature of the program area, whereas the procedures encompass how things are done in the department, such as distribution of keys to a new employee.

The best way to define what to include in a policies & procedures manual is this scenario--you have a new head coach in your program. If you could, in one document, share everything regarding the philosophy and general operations of your program with that coach, it would be found in the policies and procedures manual. It should serve both as an orientation guide for new employees, as well as the policies and procedures information for your entire staff. 

Program Review

Performing a Program Review of your intercollegiate athletics program can be perceived in two ways—invigorating and nerve wracking. In looking at the positive side, you are basically performing a formal review of your work as an athletics administrator. The Program Review encompasses reviewing all aspects of the program. What should happen is that the Review will focus on two primary aspects of the program: the current strengths or “good things” happening in the intercollegiate athletics program, and the areas needing improvement in the program. The Review should encourage positive change in the program while also involving planning for these future improvements in the program.

Personnel Review

The Personnel Review is the third cornerstone of a well managed intercollegiate athletics program. The Personnel Review includes analysis of organizational structure, creation of job descriptions, application regarding an evaluation system for all staff, and can also include an analysis of all facets of human resources-related issues facing you and your staff. Some of these might be a workload review to salary/pay equity issues to physical office space issues of the staff in your program

An organizational structure is an instrument whose underlying theme is power. Who has the power and authority in your program? Associated with this are issues of trust, morale, understanding of place, and many other human resources-oriented issues that tie directly into the organizational structure. By reviewing the organizational structure of an intercollegiate athletics program, an administrator can make improvements regarding job function and responsibility, and ultimately, the influence the morale of the administrative and support staff. An organizational structure review can greatly influence the internal workings of a department in a positive way.

Also, a review of all the job descriptions should be conducted every few years to ensure that there is equity in job assignments, as well as use of the job descriptions during the evaluation process. It is important if you work in an institution where a classification system is utilized that all employees in your department who are classified receive information regarding any changes in their job descriptions. These classification systems generally are located at institutions where employee union representation is found.

Strategic Plans

Once the above three cornerstones are addressed it is time to begin planning for the future of the program. This cornerstone moves you away from the management-related functions into the leadership function. A good strategic plan will highlight the positive aspects of the program, as well as provide specific direction for all areas of the program, such as personnel, facilities, and support staff functions to name a few. Much like a policies and procedures manual, a strategic plan is a living document. It must be constantly referred to and at least on a monthly basis reviewed regarding status of completion of goals and objectives. We like to refer to the process of creating a strategic plan as the "art and science" of planning. It takes a fine understanding of both the institution and the intercollegiate athletics program to prepare a reality-based plan.

Also, a good strategic plan will create a sense of teamwork amongst the staff in the department, particularly if they have had input in the creation of it; it makes no sense for one individual to create a plan--as the saying goes, it will be "dead in the water" before it even has a chance to work..

Finally, strategic plans usually are viewed very positively by senior administration. They attest to strong leadership on the part of the director of athletics and his or her senior staff because the president, chancellor or vice president can see the direction of the program is trying to move in and what resources, particularly financial, will need to be attained in order to get there.

The management end of directing an athletic program could be likened to observing one’s responsibilities through a microscope, while the leadership end is more like looking through a telescope.  Management is micro, short-term, and smaller-scale. Leadership, on the other hand, involves more macro, long-term and bigger-scale thinking.

Leadership: It’s a Good Thing

Let us look at the concept of leadership, particularly as defined from the perspective of higher education. Oftentimes it is much easier to focus on managing rather than leading because managing seems to encompass “real” practical projects, daily interactions, and general administrative job tasks. The notion of establishing an intercollegiate athletics program that operates from an ethical perspective, with integrity and passion, seems a little “out there” from a practical perspective. Yet, that is exactly what is expected of a leader. And without those leadership traits and expectations the best managed program can philosophically, and ultimately practically, fall apart or meet with disfavor of some form. Great leaders affect all management tasks so that those tasks reflect the ethics, integrity and passion of the vision for the department.  With the most effective leaders, dissonance with those guiding principles is immediately obvious, since the vision is so clearly present.

In our careers as athletic directors, we found it to be an effective staff and relationship-building method to show a willingness to pitch in and help with managerial tasks, such as handing out equipment, working in concessions, helping to unload a bus, or serving as a public address announcer for a contest, as a way of reminding the rest of the staff that those duties, while not our primary focus, were not beneath us, and we were able to handle them.  It showed respect for the duties of our managers, and a willingness to share the load.  We were repaid by increased appreciation on the part of most of the staff, and we believe, greater respect and loyalty.  The time spent with our managers in those pursuits provided opportunities to get to know them better, and vice versa, as well as sending a message that “I’m here for you.”

Leadership is about understanding the past, operating effectively in the present, and providing vision for the future. The importance of understanding our past is critical—having a master’s degree in sport history has served me well over the years. I was forced to learn the history of physical education and intercollegiate athletics. Years later I have an appreciation for the history of where intercollegiate athletics came from which serves me well in the present and allows me to better understand where we might be in the future. Living only in the present is more a function of the manager—and there is nothing wrong with that. But it is only a piece of the pie—it isn’t the full pie. 

Planning for the future is leadership material—to not only manage and lead a current program, but to provide direction for the future of the program is the true sign of a leader. Imagine the satisfaction one might have upon learning years later that a plan created during his or her tenure has now become reality. Again, heady stuff!

Leadership is being comfortable with risk. Being willing to take steps, create new programs, hire new people, plan new buildings, start new sports, all of which shows signs of leadership. It is a willingness to make mistakes and to learn from them—an ability to be vulnerable in a professional setting. It is about having a level of self-confidence in oneself and others that is earned and respected.  It involves the ability to analyze both the obvious, such as budgetary issues, and nuances, such as political issues, of each situation, and select staff, strategies, and tones that best suit the needs of each specific situation. 

The best leaders are those who select, train and develop good managers to be a part of their team.  An effective leader motivates the team to share a vision, and then cultivates the managers to get in line with, and support the vision through their management decisions and practices.

Conclusion

Neither management nor leadership is easy.  Both take skills, training and practice. Since most people perform even elementary management tasks in their daily lives, they have much more experience in management than in leadership.  Hence, the challenge of leadership is decidedly more daunting. Some of the most proficient managers cannot be effective leaders because they may be myopic by nature, and cannot get outside the bounds of their task-orientation. Others simply do not have it in their character to take the risks associated with leading, and become paralyzed by fear of leading in the wrong direction, and/or being criticized for choosing the wrong course. Leaders must, in a certain sense, be fearless.

Conversely, other individuals are poorly-suited for management type positions, as they lack the intense focus needed to be effective.  As we have grown over the years, we have found our interest in management to be waning, and a natural inclination toward leadership increasing. Early on in our careers, we found it reaffirming to master tasks and details, as a sort of personal “checklist of capabilities”.  Those management tasks gave us confidence, but experience and maturity allowed for the acumen to size up situations and then make judgments regarding which strategy, or array of management tasks, would best resolve each situation.  Only after we had gained the experience and confidence of managing did we actually begin to “lead” our departments.  We believe that solid management creates systematic competence, but solid leadership creates systematic excellence.  Effective managers help keep their organizations in place, while effective leaders create the “traction” that moves organizations forward.

In the final analysis, athletic administrator, you need to take stock of your capabilities, interests, and character, and be honest with yourself.  Are you leading by management, or are you actually managing to lead your department?

< Back | ^ Top