LEADERSHIP

VS.
MANAGEMENT
Today, there’s less of a divide between “leader”
and “manager.” So much so, that we
contemplate and argue the differences
between the two functions.
To begin by clarifying the distinction between
managers and leaders, the readers frequently
confuse the two, although they are not
necessarily the same. Managers are appointed.
They have legitimate power that allows them
to reward and punish. Their ability to
influence is founded upon the formal
authority inherent in their positions.
In contrast, leaders as distinguished from a
manager, may either be appointed or emerge
from within a group.
Leaders can influence others to perform
beyond the actions dictated by formal
authority. Should managers be leaders?
Conversely, should all leaders be managers?
Since no one yet has been able to demonstrate
through research or logical argument that
leadership ability is a handicap to a manager,
we can state that all managers should ideally be
leaders.
Not all leaders necessarily have the capabilities in
managerial functions; hence, not all should hold
managerial positions.
The fact that individual leaders can influence
others, and more to tell whether he or she can also
plan, organize, control, direct, and organize.
Given that all managers should be leaders; then
there is a need to pursue the subject from a
managerial perspective. Therefore, leaders mean
those who can influence others, and who possess
managerial authority.
 What is the difference between
management and leadership?
It is a question that has been asked more than
once and answered in different ways. The
biggest difference between managers and
leaders is the way they motivate the people
who work or follow them, and this sets the
tone for most other aspects of what they do.
Many people, by the way, are both. They have
management jobs, but they realize that you
cannot buy hearts, especially to follow them
down a difficult path, and so act as leaders too.
Managers have subordinates.
 Managers have subordinates - unless their
title is honorary and given as a mark of
seniority, in which case the title is a
contradiction and their power over others is
other than formal authority.

Authoritarian, transactional style

 Managers have a position of authority
vested in them by the organization, and
their subordinates work for them and
largely do as they are told.
Management style is transactional, in that the
manager tells the subordinate what to do, and
the subordinate does this not because they
are required to do and as expected from
them.

 Work focus
Managers are asked to get things done (they
are subordinates too), and they naturally pass
on this work focus to their subordinates.
 Seek comfort.
This leads to be relatively risk-averse and they
will seek to avoid conflict where possible. In
terms of people, they generally like to run a
‘happy ship’.

 Leaders have followers.

Leaders do not have subordinates - at least not
when they are leading. Many organizational leaders
do have subordinates, but only because they are
also managers. But when they want to lead, they
must give up formal authoritarian control, because
to lead is to have followers, and the following is
always a voluntary activity.
 Charismatic, transformational style
Telling people what to do does not inspire them to
follow a manager. They must appeal to them,
showing how following them will lead to their
hearts' desire. They just want to follow the leader
enough to stop what they are doing and perhaps
walk into danger and situations that they would
not normally consider risking.
Leaders with stronger charisma find it easier to
attract people to their cause. As a part of their
persuasion, they typically promise
transformational benefits, such that their
followers will not just receive extrinsic rewards but
will somehow become better people.
 People focus.
Although many leaders have a charismatic
style to some extent, this does not require a
loud personality. They are always good with
people, and quiet styles that give credit to
others (and take the blame on themselves) are
very effective at creating the loyalty that great
leaders engender.
Although leaders are good with people, this
does not mean they are friendly with them. To
keep the mystique of leadership, they often
retain a degree of separation and aloofness.
This does not mean that leaders do not pay attention
to tasks they are often very achievement focused.
What they do realize, however, is the importance of
enthusing others to work towards their vision.

 Seek risk.
In the same study that showed managers as risk-
averse, leaders appeared as risk-seeking, although
they are not blind thrill-seekers. When pursuing their
vision, they consider it natural to encounter problems
and hurdles that must be overcome along the way.
They are thus comfortable with risk and will see routes
that others avoid as potential opportunities for
advantage and will happily break rules to get things
done.
In summary…
This table summarizes the above (and more)
and gives a sense of the differences between
being a leader and being a manager. This is, of
course, an illustrative characterization, and
there is a whole spectrum between either end
of these scales along which each role can
range. And many people lead and manage at
the same time, and so may display a
combination of behaviors.
Subject Leader Manager
Essence Change Stability
Focus Leading people Managing work
Have Followers Subordinates
Horizon Long-term Short-term
Seeks Vision Objectives
Approach Sets direction Plans detail
Decision Facilitates Makes
Power Personal charisma Formal authority

Appeal to Heart Head

Energy Passion Control
Culture Shapes Enacts
Dynamic Proactive Reactive
Persuasion Sell Tell
Style Transformational Transactional
Exchange Excitement for Money for work
work
Likes Striving Action
Wants Achievement Results
Risk Takes Minimizes
Rules Breaks Makes
Conflict Uses Avoids
Direction New roads Existing roads
Truth Seeks Establishes
Concern What is right Being right
Credit Gives Takes
Blame Takes Blames
 Leadership Vs. Management
We’ve used the word “leader” and we’ve used
the word “manager.” As stated, you may think
they’re interchangeable, but they aren’t. They
are different.
Abraham Zaleznik, Harvard Business School
Professor Emeritus, was the first to write about
the differences between leaders and managers.
His article, “Managers and Leaders: Are They
Different?” challenged the traditional view of
management, which centered on organizational
structure and processes.
[1] Organizations, at the time, developed
managers with a focus on process and control.
Zaleznik argued that these same organizations
were missing the opportunity to develop leaders
by concentrating on this because they were
really two different types of people. Zaleznik
charged that the approach of the typical
organization was omitting essential leadership
elements of inspiration, vision, and human
passion from their concept and development of
people. He went on to define a manager as
someone who seeks order, control, and rapid
resolution of problems.
 A leader, he went on to say, is more like an
artist, and “tolerates chaos and lack of
structure.” Organizations were too often not
creating an environment where leaders could
flourish.
In Zaleznik’s view, both leaders and managers
contribute to the organization. Leaders
contribute by advocating change and new
approaches and do so by gaining the
commitment of employees. Managers contribute
by advocating stability and the status quo,
exercising authority, carrying out responsibility,
and determining how work will get
accomplished.
John Kotter, current Harvard Business School
Professor Emeritus, had some additional opinions
on the differences between leadership and
management. In 1990, Kotter proposed that
leadership and management were two distinct, yet
complementary systems of action in organizations.
Specifically, leadership is about coping with
change, and management is about coping with
complexity.

Kotter’s view of the leadership process involves:

 Developing a vision for the organization.

 Aligning people with that vision through

 Motivatingpeople to action through empowerment
and basic needs fulfillment

Conversely, Kotter’s view of the management

process involves:
 Planning and budgeting

 Organizing and staffing

 Controlling and problem solving

Hybrid Leader-Manager Role

 Have a Vision

Create momentum around your vision and the

company’s vision—and encourage your department
Your job as a leader is to tie that vision to the goals and
beliefs of your employees. And, because leaders create
other leaders, you encourage your managers to do the
same with their smaller teams.

 ExplainYour Reasoning
Set examples and explain your reasoning to earn
employee respect.

 Employees often follow the examples of leaders who

display integrity and strength in their interactions.
The leader-manager often has to make unpopular
decisions, and when he or she does, an explanation of
the reasoning behind that decision can help the
leader earn the respect of employees.
 Accomplish Goals Accomplishing goals is the
central concern of the work they’re doing. Without
accomplishing tasks, there is no productivity. If
employees are motivated and excited about the
work they’re doing, the leader-manager should be
well on his or her way to guiding the team’s
accomplishments. This is where a hybrid of
managerial skill and leadership traits moves into
action.

 Innovate New Solutions

Obstacles and roadblocks are commonplace in all
organizations. Leaders embrace risks and
understand that they must be taken to grow. Leaders
Managers, on the other hand, like routine and the
status quo. As a leader-manager, you will need to
assess the roadblocks you see and innovate new
solutions to overcome them. Some may work and
some may not.

Modern Challenges for Managers

In an era of globalization accompanied by
complexity, ambiguity, rapid change, and
diversity, managing any organization or agency is
a difficult task. Yet, good management is critical
to the survival of an organization or agency.
Managers are constantly challenged with making
decisions, formulating goals, creating a mission,
enacting policies and procedures, and uniting
individuals in the organization so that completion of
all of these and other related tasks can be
accomplished. Even though management permeates
everything that an organization does, what the
management is, is not always clearly defined or
identified.
At different times every organization must cope
with the external environment that prevails. This
world poses a series of external obstacles that are
hard to control, these factors will impact
significantly how well a manager performs.
Organizations need to respond to
environmental changes with speed and
efficiency to ensure survival. Below are some of
the key challenges which have an impact on the
job of managing:
1. Challenges to Information Technology (IT)
Information technology is undergoing a
transition. Computers, the internet, intranets,
telecommunications, and an endless number of
software applications are available to get things
done better.
Efficient managers ensure workers are aligned
when the technology is chosen and introduced.
Information technology will only be applied
effectively if the workers are equipped to use it
properly.

2. Challenges on Globalization
The digital revolution took the whole world back
together. The use of satellites to communicate
information has rapidly improved things. The main
component of industry, culture and economic
globalization is the opportunity and freedom to
communicate with practically anyone, anywhere,
anywhere. The same must be used productively by
managers in achieving the mission, vision, goals,
and objectives of the organization.