Management versus Leadership A burning question is how management differs from leadership. For some, there is no difference.

But increasing complexity drives ever greater specialization, so we really need to recognize that leadership and management are two different functions. This is the same as saying they serve two different purposes. A clear way of differentiating the two is to say that leadership promotes new directions while management executes existing directions as efficiently as possible. But the work of the manager is not just the mundane monitoring of daily operations. It includes getting the most complex projects done, like putting the first man on the moon. Unfortunately, management is mistakenly seen as task-oriented, controlling and insensitive to people's needs. By contrast, leaders are portrayed as emotionally engaging, visionary and inspiring. But, separating leadership from management in terms of style is a dead end, simply because leadership can be shown by quiet or forceful arguments based on hard facts. An inspiring leader induces us to change direction while an inspiring manager motivates us to work harder to get a tough job done on time. The best managers are very strategic about themselves. They recognize that time and other resources are scarce, that competitive pressures demand efficient use of everything. Being strategic about themselves is the same thing as being a proactive, studious investor who regularly monitors his or her investments in order to shift them around to get a better return. Managers also have to be strategic about the business. It is not enough to do the work efficiently, it is essential to do the right things. Both of these imperatives can be thought of in terms of wise investment. Management is primarily a decision making role. Managers are charged with the responsibility to make a profit and this requires them to make sound decisions. By contrast, leadership is strictly informal influence. Leaders persuade people to change direction. This way of thinking about leadership means that it is not a position and that there is no such thing as autocratic leadership. It is vitally important to recast leadership in this way. Otherwise, how can we explain the leadership of Martin Luther King who influenced the Supreme Court to outlaw segregation on buses without any formal authority over this body? We confuse ourselves when we call senior executives leaders. The truth is that they are managers by virtue of their positions and they only show leadership when they influence people informally, like Martin Luther King did, to change direction. Leadership is an occasional act; management is an ongoing role.

What is Management? How management differs from leadership Jan 4, 2007Mitch McCrimmon Management is the organizational function that, like investment, gets things done efficiently, to gain the best return on all resources. Management is an organizational function, like sales, marketing or finance. It doesn't necessarily mean managing people. We can manage ourselves or the material assigned to us at work. If you managed a project very well on your own, it would mean that you did the job in a well-organized, efficient manner, making good use of all resources at your disposal.

Management is like investment. Managers have resources to invest - their time, talent and, possibly, human resources. The goal (function) of management is to get the best return on such resources by getting things done efficiently. This doesn't imply being mechanical or narrowly controlling as some writers on management suggest. The manager's style is a personal or situational matter and it has evolved over time. With highly skilled and self-motivated knowledge workers, the manager must be very empowering. Where the workforce is less skilled or not very motivated, the manager may need to monitor output more closely. Skilled managers know how flex their style, coach and motivate diverse employees. Getting things done through people is what they do. By saying that management is a function, not a type of person or role, we can better account for self-managed work teams where no one is in charge. In a self-managed team, management is a group effort with no one being the designated manager.

Leadership vs. Management

Disciplines > Leadership > Leadership vs. Management Managers have subordinates | Leaders have followers | See also

What is the difference between management and leadership? It is a question that has been asked more than once and also 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

By definition, managers have subordinates - unless their title is honorary and given as a mark of seniority, in which case the title is a misnomer and their power over others is other than formal authority. Authoritarian, transactional style Managers have a position of authority vested in them by the company, 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 a blind robot, but because they have been promised a reward (at minimum their salary) for doing so. Work focus Managers are paid to get things done (they are subordinates too), often within tight constraints of time and money. They thus naturally pass on this work focus to their subordinates. Seek comfort An interesting research finding about managers is that they tend to come from stable home backgrounds and led relatively normal and comfortable lives. This leads them 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 have to give up formal authoritarian control, because to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.

Charismatic, transformational style Telling people what to do does not inspire them to follow you. You have to appeal to them, showing how following them will lead to their hearts' desire. They must want to follow you enough to stop what they are doing and perhaps walk into danger and situations that they would not normally consider risking. Leaders with a 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 takes 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. In order 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 - in fact 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 riskseeking, 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 in order to get things done. A surprising number of these leaders had some form of handicap in their lives which they had to overcome. Some had traumatic childhoods, some had problems such as dyslexia, others were shorter than average. This perhaps taught them the independence of mind that is needed to go out on a limb and not worry about what others are thinking about you.

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 ends 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 Essence Focus Have Horizon Seeks Approach Decision Power Appeal to Energy Leader Change Leading people Followers Long-term Vision Sets direction Facilitates Personal charisma Heart Passion Manager Stability Managing work Subordinates Short-term Objectives Plans detail Makes Formal authority Head Control

Culture Dynamic Persuasion Style Exchange Likes Wants Risk Rules Conflict Direction Truth Concern Credit Blame

Shapes Proactive Sell Transformational Excitement for work Striving Achievement Takes Breaks Uses New roads Seeks What is right Gives Takes

Enacts Reactive Tell Transactional Money for work Action Results Minimizes Makes Avoids Existing roads Establishes Being right Takes Blames

Management and Leadership

Management is not leadership just as leadership is not management. In order to differentiate between the two we must ask ourselves which we relate to more, or rather, which we consider ourselves to be by asking the question which am I? Am I a Manager or can I consider myself a Leader? What type of person makes a good manager? What type of personality is best for leaders? Management and leadership are two notions that may be interchangeably, but there is a huge difference between a manager and a leader. They are two different ways of organizing people; the manager uses a formal method and the leader uses passion. "Managers do things right, and leaders do the right things." (Chapman, 2004, p.80) Leadership is having the ability to give guidance to those that will follow. It involves both sides of human experience. It includes actions and influences based on reason and logic as well those based on inspiration and passion. Leadership is a social process shared among all members of a group. Leadership development comes through experience. We all learn from our different experiences. Whether positive or negative, they are our tools for growth and development. Management is a position of authority. Management says what need to get done and supplies the material to get it done. Management tends to be the more educated than the experienced. Managers can be trained to hold a position. Management is a position ... What is the Difference Between Management and Leadership? Adapted from The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management by Alan Murray, published by Harper Business.

Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves. Still, much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The managers job is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leaders job is to inspire and motivate. In his 1989 book On Becoming a Leader, Warren Bennis composed a list of the differences:

The manager administers; the leader innovates. The manager is a copy; the leader is an original. The manager maintains; the leader develops. The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people. The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust. The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective. The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why. The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leaders eye is on the horizon. The manager imitates; the leader originates. The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it. The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person. The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

Perhaps there was a time when the calling of the manager and that of the leader could be separated. A foreman in an industrial-era factory probably didnt have to give much thought to what he was producing or to the people who were producing it. His or her job was to follow orders, organize the work, assign the right people to the necessary tasks, coordinate the results, and ensure the job got done as ordered. The focus was on efficiency. But in the new economy, where value comes increasingly from the knowledge of people, and where workers are no longer undifferentiated cogs in an industrial machine, management and leadership are not easily separated. People look to their managers, not just to assign them a task, but to define for them a purpose. And managers must organize workers, not just to maximize efficiency, but to nurture skills, develop talent and inspire results. The late management guru Peter Drucker was one of the first to recognize this truth, as he was to recognize so many other management truths. He identified the emergence of the knowledge worker, and the profound differences that would cause in the way business was organized.

With the rise of the knowledge worker, one does not manage people, Mr. Drucker wrote. The task is to lead people. And the goal is to make productive the specific strengths and knowledge of every individual.

Compare and Contrast the Roles of Mangers and Leaders

The duty of a manager is planning, organizing, controlling, and leading. Managers also sport a multiplicity of hat as well as the figurehead duty, all executive exploit various time performing sacrament tasks; the principal role, all executives required to affair as a manager, inspiring and optimistic recruits; the relationship role, managers expend lots of time in contact with public external their own sectors, mainly substitute as a relationship among their sector and supplementary community inside and outside the organization; the representative responsibility, the manager is often the spokesperson for his or her organization; in addition to the representative role, managers use up lots of moment consulting (Gozdz, K. 1993). A manager is likely to carry out several roles and desires to reach them well in order to be competent.

Management deals within the pattern. Leadership makes new patterns. Management deals within the method. Leadership deals on the structure. You express 'things' but you lead people (Ackerman, L. S. 1984).

Leaders have enthusiastic followers and managers find effect through other people; leaders utilize authority and managers must have control; leaders receive the clam to guide from supporters as well as with executives, the right to express is approved by privileges; leaders inquire and managers inform; leaders have own authority and managers have situation supremacy; and finally, leaders represent to make changes while managers turn out goods and services. When manager's actions and practices exit tilted, when institutes modify culturally and systemically, when intended ingenuities change in progress, it is leadership that must afford dependability in the face of convoluted times. The feature that empowers the workforce and in the end determines which institutes are successful or stop working is the management of those institutes.

While organization positions definite principle and task, makes attempt novel and adeptly manages general imports, leaders dictate others to enthusiastically achieve the group's vision for achievement. Leaders give a hand others alter the way they see themselves in the image of the organization. Leaders pay attention well and give assurance to others to take leadership roles within the organization. Leaders welcome that creativity is intuitive when people end lengthy enough to pay attention and observe what they have not formerly looked at or discover. When we initiate to look through a leadership instead of management sculpt, we initiate to notice probability in places we never really thought of before (French, W. 1987).

On the whole, leadership is getting people to go after you. Leadership is, and should be a mission of the manager. This leading division of organization includes mangling others in the control of the success of organizational goals. "Best motivate workers, communicate, and handle groups and teams, and direct managerial and cultural revolutionize. It is true that occasionally manager have dimness in managing group, it is due to lack of collection, contact with group member and lack of significant idea. An efficient preparation process will systematically check the company's condition, its assumptions about the future and its present and requisite competencies. It will then bring the association group to contract on a future path and way for the business. The production should be a vision: a reasonable, authentic, noticeable future for the association. An effective planning procedure will as well be to take part in nature. A group member then will offer effort from different helpful and qualities viewpoints and their contribution will produce the buy-in essential for winning achievement.

A manager must be able to communicate among team members proficiently. They need to be expert of enouncing it in unrelated ways to dissimilar communities (Kotter, J.P. 1991). Great communication is the aptitude to obtain something dense and creating it trouble-free. Managers are efficient in carrying out their tasks for training and increasing employees. Managers are enthusiastically involved in assisting staff to convene their training and development desires. Managers should have reasonable aptitude, the capacity to recognize, observe, and explain problems, interpersonal capacity, the capacity to control, manage, and direct, and emotional competence the aptitude to be motivated by affecting and interpersonal emergency. They must also have additional behavior in order to show leadership behavior.

Manager need to be unshaken in their assurance that what they are doing is the right thing to do. This demands a several point of mental stamina. Being hard is many times misapprehend. Being stiff is not about the reality that you be able to combustion people for the period of bad times, formulate financial plan cutbacks or win collaboration.

Being tough is standing true to your manner despite challenges and obstructions or when others misgiving you or your capacity to be successful. This kind of "hardiness" is called security and excellent managers must have it. True "hardiness" is going over the mount empty of knowing what is on the opponent. It is about staying the lessons through suffering. Whatsoever lessons you create a judgment on there is at all times someone to tell you are incorrect. There will forever be obscurities that arise that will convince you to uncertainty yourself and accept as true the competitors are correct. It takes wonderful bravery to outline a lesson and direction and monitor it through.

Consistent with Gozdz, K. (1993), the main preparation of a manager is to create the most of the production of the organization through organizational achievement. To achieve this, managers must acquire on the subsequent affairs: association, planning, staffing, directing, controlling.

A leader is somebody who people sensibly obey through their own preference, while a manager must be followed (Ackerman, L. S. 1984). A manager may simply have got his situation of power through time and accuracy certain to the corporation, not as a result of his management behavior. A leader may have no administrative skills, but his vision take parts people behind him.

These are the subsequent authority which can use: Authority and Informational control are concerned with expertise, particulars and information, of which the holders of such abilities are able to apply, to control others that are, technicians and computer employees. Payment and Coercive authority differ from the up to that time mentioned, as they engage the capacity to either payment or rebuke persons being unfair, that achieve agreement. Legitimate control, is power which has been establish by the very role formation of the set or organization itself, and is accepted by all as accurate and without disagreement, for example in the case of the armed forces or the army force. Referent authority, conversely, involves those being narrow-minded, classifying with the leader.

Leadership And Management

What is leadership, and what is the difference between leadership and management? In a nutshell, the difference is: Leadership is setting a new direction or vision for a group that they follow, ie: a leader is the spearhead for that new direction Management controls or directs people/resources in a group according to principles or values that have already been established. The difference between leadership and management can be illustrated by considering what happens when you have one without the other. Leadership Without Management ...sets a direction or vision that others follow, without considering too much how the new direction is going to be achieved. Other people then have to work hard in the trail that is left behind, picking up the pieces and making it work. Eg: in Lord of the Rings, at the council of Elrond, Frodo Baggins rescues the council from conflict by taking responsibility for the quest of destroying the ring - but most of the management of the group comes from others. Management Without Leadership ...controls resources to maintain the status quo or ensure things happen according to alreadyestablished plans. Eg: a referee manages a sports game, but does not usually provide "leadership" because there is no new change, no new direction - the referee is controlling resources to ensure that the laws of the game are followed and status quo is maintained.

Leadership Combined With Management ...does both - it both sets a new direction and manages the resources to achieve it. Eg: a newly elected president or prime minister. Some Potential Confusions... The absence of leadership should not be confused with the type of leadership that calls for 'no action' to be taken. For example, when Gandhi went on hunger strike and called for protests to stop, during the negotiations for India's independence, he demonstrated great leadership - because taking no action was a new direction for the Indian people at that time. Also, what is often referred to as "participative management" can be a very effective form of leadership. In this approach, a new direction may seem to emerge from the group rather than the leader. However, the leader has facilitated that new direction whilst also engendering ownership within the group - i.e., it is an advanced form of leadership. Sometimes, an individual may act as a figure head for change and be viewed as a leader even though he/she hasn't set any new direction. This can arise when a group sets a new direction of its own accord, and needs to express that new direction in the form of a symbolic leader. An example is Nelson Mandela whilst in prison: During the period when Nelson Mandela was imprisoned (when his ability to provide personal, direct leadership was limited) he continued to grow in power and influence as the symbolic leader for the anti-apartheid movement. Following his release from prison, he demonstrated actual leadership by leading South Africa into a process of reconciliation rather than retribution. Leadership And Management Summary Leadership is about setting a new direction for a group; management is about directing and controlling according to established principles. However, someone can be a symbolic leader if they emerge as the spearhead of a direction the group sets for itself.