Leadership vs. Management
Welcome to guest blogger Holly Caracappa
Management oversees task and projects, whereas leadership influences people. So in a sense, management deals with the tangible aspects of life while leadership is more ephemeral. In the workplace, managers rely on incentives – like pay – to motivate subordinates, while leaders offer both inspiration and compensation. This creates a transactional dynamic between managers and employees, where managers leverage compensation and other rewards or punishments at their disposal to receive desired performance. Leaders forge relationships to gain desired results, realizing that they cannot succeed alone.
To avoid going solo, leaders amass followers. Whether through eloquent speeches, a charismatic personality or earthy humor, leaders compel others to follow them – after all, following is a voluntary action. Good managers will create structures and organizations that allow their employees to perform at their best, while micro-managers will stifle creativity, never gain loyalty from their workers and hinder productivity.
While managers minimize risk to ensure stability, leaders embrace risk as a chance to evolve. Leaders consider the long-term while managers focus on the day-to-day. This ability to channel attention onto the important project at hand is necessary. Leaders who rely solely on fervor or bombast will eventually disappoint their followers because their words lack practical backing.
At the university level, one can see the leadership versus management dynamic by looking at the juxtaposition of seminars and lectures. In lectures, professors expound on an area of expertise. Conversely, in seminars professors guide discussions, sometimes offering insights, but mostly allowing students to discover through collaboration and discourse. Both formats have a role in education because each class format has strengths specific to different types of subject material. Likewise, management and leadership both have a place in the workforce.
Holly Caracappa is a writer for eCollegeFinder.org, an online education portal dedicated to matching students with the top online schools. eCollegeFinder helps students find the best undergraduate, masters and accredited online PhD programs at accredited online colleges.
Holly, you are spot-on. The essence of leadership is getting people to do things that they know isn’t in their self interest. Leaders intuitively know how to galvanize or nudge those individuals and groups whose opinions matter most.
Why ‘management versus leadership’? Why separate the two?
I disagree with your statement: “Leaders consider the long-term while managers focus on the day-to-day.”
For example, managers know that if they make a hastily hiring decision to satisfy short-term demand, they may end up with long term problems. On the other hand, leaders also focus on the day-to-day to broaden their sphere of influence – every interaction with a ‘new potential follower’ counts (“they are all moments of truth”)…
On scenario: A store manager has an employee with great leadership abilities. The smart manager will make that employee a ‘sensei’ to onboard new employees, help lead the team, etc. Since the manager still has influence over the ‘influencer’, the manager remains leader. I guess I just don’t like the fact that management has to be different from leadership…
Very interesting post. There is a distinct role for every leader to perform in setting a growth path with long-term vision. As rightly mentioned. a leader primarily influences the mass for collective action while a manager takes the responsibility of adequate execution with proper process systems and procedures.
Professionally speaking, all managers can be good leaders but all leaders can’t be good managers.
When managers use a leadership approach, the whole organization wins — the employees, the customers, and of course the profits. All employees need and benefit from the leadership approach and yet if they mostly interact with the manager rather than a leader — they lose out.
Not all managers choose to develop their leadership yet those that do foster greater contributions from the teams.
Kate
Well done, Holly.
A bit about management, leadership and risk:
http://tracyelpoured.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/the-use-of-risk/
Hiya
I agree with WDYWFT.
The management vs leadership debate annoys me. Sure there are differences but many managers are leaders. Where i think many people get stifled are the titles we like to put on things. Are managers people with the word ‘manager’ in their job title?
WHat about a leader? Does that mean CEO? Can a sales manager be a leader? Heck, I work with people who have no authority in a job sense, but are some of the greatest leaders I’ve ever worked with.
We like to think of managers as people who are running around barking orders. And we like to think of leaders as people who wander the corridors inspiring people.
Many managers are leaders. And a leader is a manager. It believe it’s difficult to be a leader without being a manager.
When was the last great book on MANAGING written? Henry Mintzberg suggests that ‘Peter Drucker put management on the map in the 70s and 80s and leadership and pushed it off’. There’s been no decent managing texts for 20 odd years. Everything is leader this and leadership that.
What about good ol’ managing? Middle management has more of an influence on workplace culture than anyone else. FACT!
I like to think of it like this:
What makes a good leader/manager? To come up with new ideas? Or complete mastery of the basics!
Dear Dan,
Really good post. It is a much discussed and debated topic. The difference between managers and leaders is- managers manage assets and leaders manage risk and opportunity. Leaders see the opportunity arises out of change in the external and internal environment. Managers manage process and technology but leaders manage people dimension. We can also say that managers follow rules and regulation whereas leaders challenge and question the rules that are not relevant and feasible. so, other difference is also in terms of dare and courage to take risk, that leaders have and managers don’t.
Managers believe and work under compartment but leaders don’t believe that. It also means that managers work in a orbit whereas leaders work beyond orbit. In this sense, managers have limitations but leaders have limitless boundaries. To run organization effectively, we need both, managers as well as leaders. Both are complement to each other and neither is sufficient alone.
This is always an interesting topic to discuss.
In my opinion, enough has been said about what management is, what leadership is, and the difference between the two. To me, a more pragmatic discussion would be to consider how the two can coexist (or integrate) into a single role.
It’s often said “managers do this, leaders do that.” Many who are managers are well served to act as leaders – but they still have maintain their management responsibilities.
To take a quote from this post, “While managers minimize risk to ensure stability, leaders embrace risk as a chance to evolve” – how does a single person in a single role maintain stability and push for evolution (I believe that this is the very thing than many managers are challenged to do today)?
I’d love to see more conversation about how to integrate great management with great leadership!
It seems that many people are interested in the topic of how leadership and management can coexist in one single role. In reference to Mark’s point of what makes a good leader/manager – coming up with new ideas or mastering the basics – I say it is both of these functions. In order to be a successful manager, you must know all of the basics like the back of your hand, and more importantly, be able to apply them in the right situations. To be a good leader, you must inspire your workers with new ideas that bring excitement into the workplace.
But the essential aspect of this topic is that workers want their managers to be leaders. People want to be inspired at work! Therefore, a good manager must not only master the basics, but also be willing to take those risks that will develop new ideas and initiatives that motivate workers. If you want to be a successful manager, you must also master the basics of good leadership. The unification of management principles and leadership principles into one role is how you solve the problem of having a single person maintaining stability in the workplace while still facilitating evolution. Obviously it is a hard task to master, but if leader/managers are willing to use the basics in conjunction with risk-taking, they will maintain the stability that the workplace needs while still providing inspiration. Laying down a workplace framework based on traditional management basics will provide the leeway necessary to take risks. This setup can energize a workforce, showing a willingness to take necessary risks and allowing workers to follow the lead by giving them the opportunity to do the same.