What if the problem isn’t our managers… and isn’t even our senior leaders or CEOs?
Lately I’ve been wanting to write about the difference between leadership and management.
Not from theory.
From what I keep seeing in real organizations.
This isn’t just a conversation about leadership vs management—it’s about how organizational systems shape behaviour.
In coaching conversations with senior leaders & CEOs, the same frustration comes up again and again:
“The managers need to lead more.”
“They stay too operational.”
“They don’t think strategically.”
“They won’t take ownership.”
“They keep bringing problems instead of solving them.”
The expectation is clear.
We want leadership at every level.
But the more I sit in these conversations, the more I find myself asking a different question.
Not whether managers need more development.
Not even whether senior leaders need to model leadership more.
But whether the system itself is designed in a way that makes leadership difficult — or sometimes impossible.
Because in many of the organizations I work with, the organization isn’t actually the top of the system.
Government is.
And that changes everything.
Leadership vs Management: What Organizations Say vs. What They Build
Most organizations say they want leaders.
People who take initiative.
People who influence.
People who think beyond their role.
People who challenge the status quo.
People who drive change.
And yet when you look at how many roles are designed, especially below the executive level, the expectations look very different.
Tight scope.
High accountability.
Limited authority.
Constant operational pressure.
Multiple layers of approval.
Little time to think.
Low tolerance for mistakes.
We call these leadership roles.
But they often function like management roles.
John Kotter wrote years ago that management is about coping with complexity, while leadership is about coping with change.
Management creates order.
Leadership creates direction and movement.
Organizations need both.
But when the system rewards predictability, compliance, no noise, and risk control, we shouldn’t be surprised when people manage instead of lead.
Why Systems Produce Managers Instead of Leaders
Research on managerial work shows that most managers spend their time coordinating, reacting, solving immediate problems, and responding to pressure from all directions.
Gallup’s research continues to show that managers have enormous impact on engagement, yet most feel unprepared for the leadership side of their role.
Not because they lack potential.
The role they are in leaves very little space for leadership.
But there is another layer that often gets missed.
Managers don’t just respond to their job description.
They respond to what the system rewards.
Culture is shaped by what leaders pay attention to, what they reward, and what they tolerate.
Not what they say.
What they DO.
And in many of the systems I work in, even senior leaders are operating inside constraints they didn’t design.
Because the organization itself isn’t the top.
Government is.
The Role of Government and Structural Constraints
In government-funded or highly regulated systems, authority is layered.
Managers answer to directors.
Directors answer to executives.
Executives answer to boards.
Boards answer to government.
Government answers to policy, budgets, legislation, media, and voters.
Every layer adds accountability.
Every layer adds scrutiny.
Every layer adds risk.
So even when senior leaders say they want innovation, ownership, and leadership, the system above them may be reinforcing something else:
Be careful.
Stay compliant.
Don’t make mistakes.
Follow process.
Get approval.
Manage the risk.
Don’t make any noise.
I was reminded of this recently over lunch with a CEO I work with.
In the middle of the conversation, they said something that stuck with me.
“I’m not even sure what my job is anymore.”
Not because they lacked clarity about leadership.
Not because they didn’t want to lead.
Because the level of government direction, oversight, and intervention had increased to the point where many of the decisions they used to make now required approval, alignment, or sign-off from outside the organization.
Their role hadn’t changed on paper.
But the space to lead had.
And when the space at the top narrows, it narrows everywhere.
This isn’t a failure of leadership.
It’s a condition of the system.
The more regulated the environment, the more management behaviour it produces.
Not because people lack courage.
Because the consequences of getting it wrong are higher.
Leadership in these spaces often includes navigating transition, loss, and uncertainty—something I’ve written about in the context of grief and growth in leadership.
Why Leadership Development Alone Isn’t Enough
I coach a lot of senior leaders.
And the frustration about managers not leading is real.
They want more initiative.
More accountability.
More strategic thinking.
More ownership.
But when we slow the conversation down and look at the full system, something often becomes clear.
Many of these managers are responsible for day-to-day operations, staffing, reporting, performance issues, and constant problem-solving.
They have limited authority to change the system.
Limited control over resources.
Limited tolerance for mistakes.
And very little room to make decisions without approval.
At the same time, the senior team is also operating inside funding constraints, policy limits, public scrutiny, and political realities they don’t fully control.
So, the message the organization actually learns is this:
Stay safe.
Stay operational.
Don’t overstep.
Don’t take risks.
Bring problems up.
Follow the rules.
Don’t spend
Keep your head down.
And then we ask people to lead.
This is the paradox.
Not that people don’t want leadership.
That the system keeps teaching management.
This is something I explored more deeply in a recent piece on mentorship and how it quietly shapes leadership and culture. https://foxdenconsulting.com/where-did-mentorship-go/
The Middle Management Paradox
The Center for Creative Leadership describes middle roles as some of the most complex in any organization.
You have to lead down. Lead across. Lead up.
Often without the authority people assume you have.
Harvard Business Review calls this the execution trap — accountable for results, responsible for people, but constrained by structure.
You’re told to think strategically…
while drowning in operations.
You’re told to empower your team…
while being measured on control.
You’re told to lead change…
while needing approval for everything.
And all of it sits inside the culture created not just by the organization — but by the system above the organization.
This is why development alone rarely fixes the problem.
Because leadership behaviour isn’t just a skill.
It’s a condition of the environment.
What Actually Creates Leadership Behaviour
We often believe that if we call someone a leader, they will lead.
But titles don’t create leadership.
Authority does.
Trust does.
Clarity does.
Modeling does.
Permission does.
Safety does. Taking risks does.
McKinsey’s research on organizational effectiveness consistently shows that role clarity and decision authority are among the strongest predictors of performance.
Yet many organizations want leadership at every level without changing who holds the power to decide.
And when government sits at the top of the system, decision-making is often more constrained than anyone inside the organization wants to admit.
So people manage.
Not because they lack capability.
Because the system tells them that’s what keeps everyone safe.
The Real Question Leaders Should Be Asking
The paradox
We say we want leaders.
But we build systems that reward caution.
We design structures that concentrate authority.
We create layers that make decision-making slower and safer.
We increase oversight, reporting, and control.
And then we ask people lower in the organization to be bold.
Managers don’t create that contradiction.
They live inside it.
In many of the sectors I work in, even CEOs live inside it,
because the organization itself isn’t the top of the system.
Government is.
So, the question isn’t only why managers aren’t leading.
The question is whether the conditions for leadership actually exist.
What kind of leadership is possible in a system built to minimize risk and minimize noise.
