Too often good managers are squeezed between leadership initiatives from above and employee demands bubbling below. They deserve more trust and respect

Towards the end of his life, Peter Drucker observed that although he had spent half a century discussing the elusive qualities of leadership, he wasn't sure there was much to be said about it after all. He concluded: "The only thing you can say about a leader is that they are somebody who has followers."

John Kay, the economist, is similarly sceptical in his new book, Obliquity, where he suggests that the hallmark of successful leadership is little more than serendipity. Successful leaders just happen to be sitting at the top while economic, cultural and technological forces carry the organisation along. When the wave comes crashing down, they are left flailing on the beach of failure and ignominy. The phenomenon was abundantly evident after the banking crisis, and has been worth reflecting on as we have gauged the success of our political leadership in the run-up to the general election.

But if leadership skill is so evanescent and unquantifiable, why do management gurus spend so much time trying to nail it down, why are so many books devoted to the subject and why do companies pour such enormous investment into trying to imbue it in their people?

And why is leadership's unsexy antithesis-management-treated as a sort of necessary evil? I heard someone recently refer to it as "the damp-proof course", and the government seems to think that cutting a swathe through management will be a quick and easy way to help achieve swingeing efficiency savings in the NHS.

Leadership is seen as more important than management for several reasons. One, it seems more glamorous. Two, in our short-term-focused culture, we seek heroes who can bring quick fixes, and are far less interested in those who work hard, long and patiently to build sustainable businesses, economies, football teams and so on. And three, however difficult it might be to distil the essence of good leadership, it's easier, quicker and more fun than trying to extract the essence of good management.

But we must redress the balance. Few businesses need to spend more than 10 per cent of their time on strategy; execution is all—and never more so than in today's post-recessionary world, where the ability to do more with less depends on engaged and enabled employees.

Middle management are critical to getting things done on the front line, by translating the strategic vision from on high into practical action, and motivating and empowering their teams to implement it. Equally, they are an important conduit of intelligence through the organisation and well placed to suggest changes to strategy.

But in many firms leaders have ignored this crucial conductor of organisational electricity, handing down strategy in tablets of stone and expecting it to be executed without demur. The penalties of that approach are now well understood and more conscientious boards will no longer allow chief executives to act like omnipotent czars.

Indeed, where managers are the concrete in the middle of organisations, the fault lies not with them, but with the leadership. After all, the middle can be a mighty uncomfortable place to be, with endless initiatives raining down on managers' heads, employee demands simmering below, and the requirement to reconcile conflicting remits without the necessary authority.

And the reason managers so often lack the power to effect change is the popular characterisation of their role as "drone", in contrast to that of the "visionary" leader. This artificial distinction does nothing to foster more effective management: up to 90 per cent of the job of a leader is management, while managers will never succeed without excellent people skills. The stereotypes need challenging. Effective managers are full of good ideas and enthusiasm, but when they are prevented from deploying them they become disaffected.

Organisations should trust managers, accord them the respect they deserve and empower them to be the engine of change. And, if we extrapolate John Kay's hypothesis that you are more likely to achieve your objective through an oblique approach, if companies concentrated on unleashing middle management talent they would see more effective leaders emerging, too.