Managing Groups and Teams/A balance between

management and leadership

In the business world of today, there seems to be a halo afixed to the term Leader, while the
term Manager is seen to have something of a stigma. "Leader" brings to mind heroic figures
rallying people together to give their all for a cause, while "Manager" brings to mind less-
charismatic individuals trying to make people into more effecient cogs in the corporate machine.

When one considers this definition of Management (from Wikipedia) one can see that Leadership
is actually a sub-catergory of Management: "Management (from Old French ménagement "the art
of conducting, directing", from Latin manu agere "to lead by the hand") characterises the process
of leading and directing all or part of an organization, often a business, through the deployment
and manipulation of resources (human, financial, material, intellectual or intangible)."

One can manage their time, their budget, their fuel, and yes, their people, but one can only lead
people (or to be more inclusive, we should say one can only lead intelligent living things, since
shepards and dog-trainers would object to a homo sapiens-centric definition).

Then perhaps the perception of a cog-manipulating manager is rooted in this difference between
animate and inanimate objects. It is when we feel used, manipulated, or led against our will by a
person in authority over us, we feel as if we are being treated like an inanimate object. We say
the person in authority is a lousy manager. But when the person in authority increases our own
autonomy, makes us feel at liberty to accept or reject his/her vision, and fills us with a real
personal desire to bring this vision to life, we say he/she is a great leader.

When applying these concepts for "manager" and "leader" in the setting of a team, we find
interesting results: If there is a team leader that is perceived to be unconcerned with the team
members needs, or has a personal agenda more important than the team's goals, then the leader
is perceived to be more of a "manager" and becomes estranged from the team members.
Conversely, the team leaders most admired and loyally followed are those who show concern for
the team members as individuals with real needs, and are those who put "The Cause" of the
team above their own persona agenda.

Realistically, most organizations do need leaders who sometimes look at their teams with cold,
analytical eyes, evaluating inefficiencies and making unpopular choices. But it would be a mistake
to think that one has to be an "estranged, unliked manager" in order to execute these
responsibilities. If a team leader's tasks such as efficiency analysis were done hand in hand with
sincerely seeking to know team members individual needs, then the team leader would be
perceived to have a genuine desire to make the team more successful. Additionally, ineffective
leaders may hide an unwillingness to make tough decisions by faking the "touchy-feely" attitudes
associated with great leaders with high emotional-intelligence.

It is my opinion that effective leadership is a uniquely human institution, and there isn't a team
that couldn't profit through better "leaders" rather than better "managers" –using the titles as
metaphors, of course. One can still balance all the practical demands of a "manager" with the
beneficial traits of an inspiring "leader."