In medical device companies, strong management keeps projects on schedule, but real leadership inspires innovation and accountability. Both are critical — yet they often get confused.
Do you think the best team outcomes come from structured management or from leaders who focus more on motivation and culture?
As with most things, I find it is often a balance of both and it not as clear cut as it may seem. Management provides structure to a project and is often the backbone of the quality and compliance aspects of a project. Good management practices ensure that quality is being maintained, project deadlines are being met, and that GDP and SOPs are being followed. Leadership on the other hand encompasses the more human elements of the project and focuses on boosting morale and inspiring a team to create the best device possible. In doing so, good leadership inspires innovation, and allows teams to cultivate a culture in which they care about the projects progress and feel safe to take accountability for project progress and product quality. I believe it is not controversial to say that a good leader cannot deliver a compliant product and meet deadlines without management skills, and a manager without leadership skills may be able to meet deadlines and product compliance, but will inhibit innovation and burn out their team leading to a less motivated and inspired team. The best outcome for a team is a leader who can integrate both of these skill sets to empower and motivate their team while also ensuring project scope and deadlines are met. With that said, what phases of a project do you believe require a more robust management structure, and which phases benefit the most from motivational leadership, and why?
