Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for leadershipversusmanagement.blogspot.com

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at gedangijo1@gmail.com.

At leadershipversusmanagement.blogspot.com, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by leadershipversusmanagement.blogspot.com and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, leadershipversusmanagement.blogspot.com makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
leadershipversusmanagement.blogspot.com does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on leadershipversusmanagement.blogspot.com.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to leadershipversusmanagement.blogspot.com and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense


These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on leadershipversusmanagement.blogspot.com send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

leadershipversusmanagement.blogspot.com has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. leadershipversusmanagement.blogspot.com's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.

Management vs. Leadership

Management is the science of getting the job done efficiently through people. It involves coordinated processes, controls and the execution of tasks and projects to accomplish the organization's mission. Leadership is the art of inspiring and empowering people to see the vision and do their jobs effectively. Not all managers are leaders and not all leaders are managers.

 

 

 

 

The best managers are also great leaders, effectively applying the science of management along with the art of leadership. People naturally follow leaders out of trust, respect and personal motivation. Leaders set the right example and bring out the best in the people who follow them. 

 

 

Effective leaders are connected, engaged and have a passion for their mission. They build teams and instill a vision, motivation and passion in the teams they lead. Leaders are coaches, helping the members of their teams to excel and grow. They freely give positive & negative feedback to team members, building skills and confidence. Effective leaders build winning teams that take pride in their performance.

Our role is to help each of your managers and supervisors to develop effective leadership skills. We provide the training and tools to equip your management team to lead your organization to new levels of performance, motivation and productivity. Contact us to schedule a leadership development workshop to make every manager and supervisor in your organization an effective leader.

Hugh Nibley on Leadership vs. Management

“Leaders are movers and shakers, original, inventive, unpredicatable, imaginative, full of surprises that discomfit the enemy in war and the main office in peace. For the managers are safe, conservative, predictable, conforming organization men and team players, dedicated to the establishment” (Hugh Nibley, “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift”).

Now the distinction is of course overstated, but the thrust, attitude, tone, and mentality between leadership and management are indeed very different. Leadership must embrace this duality of building up and tearing down, preserving and disturbing. but Captain Grace Hopper was right, you don’t manage people into battle.

“Leadership vs. Management”

Without a doubt, every business or professional practice is the brainchild of one or more entrepreneurs. Equally undeniable is the fact that every successful enterprise must have solid, efficient, functional management.  And the fact that the owner/entrepreneur is all too often a poor manager is even more of a truism than the first two statements.

You can hire good managers—but will you?

In fact, in today’s unstable economy, there are more than enough good managers to go around.  But way too many entrepreneur/owners fail to see how a truly great manager can be one of the best investments in their firm’s future, so they put the money they “save” on their bottom line and hire a “yes man” caretaker to handle the jobs they detest. In the final analysis, the business owner smugly puts another $25,000 per year in her pocket without ever taking into account that the same $25,000—invested in a bigger salary to employ a truly excellent manager—may well have increased her firm’s profits by $100,000 per year or more.

Stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.

In addition to perhaps losing $75,000 in annual profits by “saving” salary on a “marking time, doing what I’m told” puppet, our business owner has also cost herself countless hours of stress and “do over” time wasted on cleaning up messes and unfinished human resources issues. Why? Because a manager who always agrees with you, no matter what, is not good for you or your company. Invariably, if the too-compliant manager is weak-kneed and wishy-washy with you, he’ll replicate that behavior with your employees, vendors, and clients.

So what does leadership have to do with all this?

An entrepreneur/owner may rarely have the sill sets in place to be a great manager, but she almost always has the abilities and personal character traits to become an excellent leader. How so?  Leadership requires intestinal fortitude and a healthy dose of creative imagination, mixed in with a dollop of humility and am extra helping of genuine love for your business and, most of all, your people.

• Leaders CAN hire good managers.

• Managers CANNOT hire great leaders.

Effective Leadership in the Workplace

History is replete with examples of great African-American leaders. Civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. and the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass are excellent examples of the true competencies and characteristics of leaders of the past. Today, the need for strong leadership is again becoming a front-and-center topic, especially in the workplace.

Leadership versus management
It’s important to understand the difference between leaders and managers. Managers are task oriented. They supervise and direct workflow for maximum efficiency, therefore they tend to be more concerned about the process and the results, rather than about the employees and their individual needs. Leaders, on the other hand, are concerned not only about goals, but also about the people who are involved in the process. They must have a clear vision, must be able to effectively communicate that vision to others, and must have a strategy in mind for making that vision a reality.

Because communicating and implementing a vision involve working with other people, true leaders are relationship-focused. They must inspire and motivate their followers, often playing the roles of coach and facilitator.

What are the traits of a dynamic leader?
A dynamic leader not only possesses high moral standards, but operates with a high sense of ethics and integrity, preferably for the good of the employees and the organization. Leaders take risks and understand the importance of change. They must have an appreciation of, and love for, learning.

Does this mean that effective leaders never make mistakes? Absolutely not. While leaders do make mistakes, they use their mistakes as a learning tool so that their chances of making the same mistake are nonexistent.

Why is leadership important in today’s workplace?
The landscape of the workplace changes from generation to generation. Today, employees are no longer content to go to work in complete anonymity. Rather, they want to feel significant, stimulated and challenged, all while having fun. Effective leaders   build a sense of community within the workplace. They not only increase employee retention figures, but they also improve productivity because employees are more willing to follow effective leaders than non-effective individuals.

Management vs leadership, Pt 1: sitting on the fence

Fiddling with high–quality business models and rocket science mathematics on splendidly built spreadsheets may prove useless if you don’t understand what it is that you do best: manage or lead.

If you do both you might end up becoming one of the 40% or more of new businesses that will fail in 2006.

Management is a bottom-line focus: How can I best accomplish certain things? Leadership deals with the top line: What are the things I want to accomplish?

Stephen Covey, business expert and author

What makes how you approach the topic of management and leadership so compelling is that you have to be honest with 'what it is that you do best'.

Simple as it may sound, it is the easiest way to avoid losing your dream, waking up and having to go and work for someone else.

At first it may be difficult contemplating which side of the fence you may be on or would like to be on, particularly if you’ve had years of working for someone else, living and creating their destiny whilst you were being paid for it.

If this has been the case, or for whatever other reason, take heed of the wise and simple words of Stephen R. Covey:

“Management is a bottom-line focus: How can I best accomplish certain things? Leadership deals with the top line: What are the things I want to accomplish?”

Therefore an important question you may ask as a leader or someone that thinks they may be taking the leadership route is:

“How do I accomplish the things I want, in an ever-increasingly complex and changing world?”

Ronald Heifetz, the director of the Leadership Education Project at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in the States says:

“Leaders of the future need to have the stomach for conflict and uncertainty, among their people and within themselves. That’s why leaders of the future need to have an experimental mindset.

"Some decisions will work, some won’t. Some projects will pay off, some won’t. But every decision and every project will teach you and your organisation something about how the world is changing, and about how your company compares with its competition.”

This doesn’t mean that one should test every idea that comes to mind, but to pick what is fundamental and what isn’t and the impact that it will have on the overall organisation, today, tomorrow and in the future.

The leaders that don’t will find it difficult to steer their dream or goal in the right direction.

What is certain is that leaders of the future will need to have a clear mind in order to remain objective.

How? Ask yourself, how do presidents and prime ministers of different countries make their decisions? They have advisers, mentors, consultants, think-tanks and so on.

Now, I’m not saying to go out and hire the resources a government would, because you would really be closing your business sooner than you thought; however, align yourself with people that can guide you.

These people must be trustworthy and have a different perspective on trends, events and possible scenarios.

Aside from leadership is management. If you think you are great at managing, though find it tricky to distinguish from leadership, take time to think about Stephen Covey’s question: “How can I best accomplish certain things?”

“Most of the time discussions about management end up with debates around specific attributes the manager should have to be successful.

"In so doing comes confusion between management and leadership,” says Pierre Jules Zing-Tsala, the Managing Director of PJ & Associates, the London-based management consulting firm, with offices in Paris, Cameroon and Romania.

“It takes more than a set of skills and management works as a system made of four building blocks. These include: the position, the tools, personal attribute skills along with methodologies,” Zing-Tsala goes on to add.

The Four Building Blocks

The management position has complex and ever-changing responsibilities, the focus of which shifts to reflect the issues, trends and preoccupations of time.

This individual identifies and achieves organisational objectives through the deployment of appropriate resources and will have responsibilities in one or more of five key areas.

These include: managing activities, managing resources, managing information, managing people, and managing oneself.

Few jobs are entirely managerial, yet very few exist without any management responsibilities. Therefore the simplest way to distinguish a manager from a non-manager is to judge one’s capability to 'harness resources'. This is what separates the boys from the men and the girls from the women!

Personal attribute skills include strong people management, change management capabilities, customer awareness, strong capabilities in managing information and the organisations knowledge, ability to manage activities and resources and most importantly the ability to manage oneself.

“Knowing what your key strengths and attributes is an order qualifier in regards to managing oneself,” say’s Zing Tsala.

The three well-known methodologies – management by objectives, management by projects and management by exception – are important in the make up of the management system.

The same applies for tools such as strategic planning, balance score card, and dashboards. All these form an essential balance for managers as both methodologies and tools are the enablers in 'managing the bottom-line focus'.

The true value builders are companies that grow the top line and bottom line in line with one another. They select the people who know what they are best at doing and place them on the side of the fence in which they produce the best results.

Leadership Development

Leadership versus Management
Leadership is about direction, finding out where you are now in your business and being clear on where you are going. Management is about the day-to-day logistical running of the business.

Leading by Example
It’s important to be able to distinguish and incorporate both Leadership and Management styles when required.

Advance Coaching offers customized Leadership Development Programmes for Start-up Business Owners/Entrepreneurs, and SME Executives.

Benefits of Leadership development

• Learn how to effectively lead your team
• Eliminate ambiguity in your feedback
• Enhance your communications
• Strike a balance between your work and life
• Refine your time management
• Learn to work smarter, not harder
• Build instant rapport
• Delegate more effectively

…while finding out what it takes to become a leader through 1-1 coaching and training as this is the most powerful combination. One without the other is incomplete.

Are you a Manager or a Leader?

There has been a lot written about leadership versus management. Most of these treat management as an evil, and attributes the success of organizations to having strong leaders. I believe that successful organizations need to have people who are equally skilled as both managers and leaders.

An effective organization needs to have managers who also possess strong leadership skills. While it is important for the manager to control costs, measure sales, and make the organization as efficient as possible (all management traits), it is also crucial for the manager to communicate a vision, develop a culture based on trust and respect, and mentor its staff (all leadership traits).

The following are the various management and leadership traits.

Direction
A manager keeps an eye on the bottom line and works on planning and budgeting. The manager develops project plans, timelines, and budgets, and they are always focused on ROI.

A leader keeps an eye on the horizon and works on creating a vision and strategy. They are working on the future of the organization, and making sure that they have a sense of purpose that goes beyond satisfying the shareholders.

Alignment
A manager organizes staffing, directs and controls people, and creates boundaries. They are concerned with developing policies, guidelines, and responsibility matrixes all in the effort to improve efficiency and quality. They want to produce more goods and sell more services.

Leaders work to break down the boundaries focusing on collaboration and teamwork. They create a shared culture and shared values, and help others grow.

Relationships
A manager acts on position power. They are the boss and this is known to everyone. They use their power to correct behavior and to achieve desired results.

A leader acts are based on personal power. A leader focuses on people. They want to inspire and motivate others and they are a coach, a facilitator, a mentor, or a servant. The leader strives to empower people to make work more simulating and challenging.

Personal Qualities
A manager is emotional distant. They act from the mind. They talk about conformity, expert minds, and they possess insight into the organization.

A leader forms emotional connections. They act from the heart. They talk about listening, non-conformity and they possess insight into people.

Results
A manager works to maintain stability and predictability, and creates a culture of efficiency. They focus on the short-term results that allow an organization and its stakeholders to prosper.

A leader works to create change and a culture of integrity through transparency and openness. They are focused on the long-term aspirations to fulfill the vision and strategy.

Source

As inspiration and source for this article, I referenced the book The Leadership Experience authored by Richard Daft and published by Thomson South-Weston in 2005. I used this amazing book as part of my recent MBA studies and highly recommend it to anyone looking to learn more about leadership.

Leadership Vs Management - Discover Where You Fit

Contrasting personalities: Managers emphasize wisdom and power; they are problem-solvers focusing on organizational goals, resources, people etc. They have foresight and are capable of resolving issues. They are hard working, analytical, tolerant, persistent and kind towards others. Leaders are supposed to be brilliant, but are often lonely animals. They believe in achieving self-control before they try controlling others. Leaders can envision a purpose and inspire others to work towards it. They are passionate and imaginative and are natural risk takers. Somewhat like the king of the jungle.

 

Differing attitudes: A key difference between managers and leaders is in their attitude towards organizational goals. Managers adopt a passive attitude toward goals, since they are usually not the ones that set them. A manager views goals more as a necessity to be dealt with, rather than a desire to be fulfilled. Managers occupy themselves with existing and current issues. Hence, they are usually found reacting to new situations as they happen, rather than anticipating them. Leaders, on the other hand, are proactive since they are far more focused on the future. They generate new ideas and have a personal commitment towards realizing them. Leaders are change agents, and can transform existing attitudes and beliefs.

 

Varying work orientation: Managers view work as a process to get things done. They are clever at plotting strategies and making efficient decisions. Managers will rarely upset the applecart, and will therefore play a balancing role as far as possible. That means that they can reconcile opposing views, and empathize with most people. Leaders tend to view work as a bit of a bore. Their dislike for the mundane drives them to develop new approaches to long-standing problems. Quite often, they’ll set the cat among the pigeons by throwing open debate on issues that people feel strongly about. Leaders can bind others towards common ideals and raise expectations all round. The biggest difference between managers and leaders lies in their risk taking ability. No prizes for guessing who can take how much.

 

Divergent interpersonal skills: The difference between managers and leaders is once again underscored in the way they deal with others. Managers are a collaborative breed, preferring to work with others. However, they maintain a low level of emotional involvement in their work relationships. Again, the manager’s affinity for stability is reflected in the fact that he will attempt to resolve differences, make compromises, and establish a power equation. Leaders, if they work at all, are more likely to do it alone. At the same time they are sensitive, intuitive people concerned about the impact their decisions could have on employees. Despite that, a leader will usually elicit strong feelings from followers – both favorable and otherwise. This is fine by them, since they do like to maintain a healthy dose of turbulence in their relationships.

 

Opposing sense of self: Managers are at peace with the world. They identify closely with their environment and believe that their role is to ensure a continuation of the way things are. Their sense of self is derived strongly from the values they cherish – fulfillment of duties and responsibilities and promoting harmony in their surroundings are central to it. Managers are comfortable acting as conservators of the existing order of affairs. In marked contrast, leaders view themselves as quite separate from their environment. Their lives are all about trying to find a sense of order, in what they perceive to be a chaotic world. Despite being part of social groups, they never really have a sense of belonging. Their need for change is again reflected in their perception of their role in society – which is to act as a change-agent or reformer.

It is terribly obvious that there is a difference between leadership vs management in many every aspects of their personality. what is not obvious, is the fact that both are equally necessary for the overall development of an organization. Any team composition must have a healthy mix of leaders and managers, which will ensure that their complementary strengths work in the greater interest of the organization. It’s also a fact that both managers and leaders can be built, or at least improved.

So, where do you fit in Leadership vs Management? There is no right answer. Sometimes managers get promoted to become leaders. Sometimes leaders need to act as managers as their organizations grow. Just be aware of your own strengths and apply them as needed according to the differences given above.

Leadership versus Management - What is your Role?

There are subtle differences between leadership versus management. So how can you distinguish between the two? And which is more important?

"Leadership" comes from the Norse and Anglo Saxon language. It means "path", "journey" or "route". It is focused on looking ahead and being visionary.

"Management" comes from the Latin language. It means "hand". It is focused on being "hands on" or controlling resources such as people, materials and money.

Traditionally, managers controlled a business and were promoted on the basis of technical rather than interpersonal skills.
 

As the pace of change began to move more swiftly in business, the idea of leadership versus management came to prominence.
 

Businesses looked to people who could see a way forward in uncertain times, people who would inspire others and gain respect.

It is accepted that a business will not survive if it is operated by leaders or managers alone. The skills of management and leadership combined are needed to grow a business.

If you are responsible for leading or managing others, be aware of the difference between leadership and management and which is most appropriate at any given time.

For example, giving feedback to employees could be seen as either a management or a leadership task, depending on the way it is carried out. Will your employees get feedback on the speed and efficiency of how they performed against deadlines? (management focus) or will they be given feedback on the process used to meet those deadlines; what went well and not so well, what they learned from the experience, with a focus on developing their skills in the future?(leadership focus).

Performance based employee appraisal systems have tended to reward management skills. If businesses want to develop more leadership vs management skills in their management group, they need to reward leadership qualities such as good communication skills, how well they inspire others and their role in developing high performing teams.

Measuring leadership vs management is challenging as leadership tends to be less tangible. Also, there is no single leadership model that works; if you look at the leaders you admire, you will find that they all have different attributes and ways of working.

Leaders appeal to your emotions. It has been proven that the brain is stimulated by emotional thoughts 3000 times faster than rational thoughts. This fact alone shows the importance of developing your leadership skills even if you are in a management role.

Leadership vs. Management - Does it Really Matter?

It’s seems like the profession of management, or supervision, has fallen out of style these days. I hear things like’ “we need more leaders, and less managers”, and “well, she’s a good manager, but not a leader”. A lot of leadership books, courses, and gurus espouse the wonderful virtues of leadership, while contrasting against the archaic, horrible characteristics of management. I also see various lists of leadership characteristics, often compared side-by-side to a management list, encouraging aspiring leaders to be more like leaders, and less like managers. As if you can turn off one switch and turn on another.
 

It’s almost as if they are saying: leadership – good; management – bad. I think the comparison, or differentiation, is kind of silly and isn’t really very helpful when it comes to developing leaders or improving our own leadership skills.
 

I find it more practical to refer to “leader” as a role, someone who is in a position of leadership (we used to call them managers and supervisors). Someone in one of these roles needs to be effective in order to be successful. So what does it take to be effective? Well, there are a thousand books on the subject of what it takes to be an effective leader, everything from “Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun”, to “Leadership the Sopranos Way”. I’d rather take a look at some proven, research-based lists of competencies (skills, traits, knowledge). Lominger, PDI, CCL, DDI all have done extensive research, studying successful leaders and dissecting what makes them tick. When you look at the lists of competencies, you’ll find elements of leadership (setting a vision, inspiring others) and elements of management (planning, performance management). Follow a successful leader around for a week, and you’ll see her doing many of these things, often during the same meeting of conversation. For example, during a staff meeting the leader might describe a vision for a new idea, then move into planning on how to implement the idea, while getting everyone all fired up and discussing on how to lead the change, to figuring how much it’s going to cost.

So how about if we just focus on what it takes for a leader to be successful in a specific context, and then how to develop those competencies Wouldn’t that be a better use of our time and energy? Although it probably wouldn’t sell a lot of books and make for a dull keynote speech.

Leadership vs Management

There's a huge difference between management and leadership as there is also a clear connection between the two in terms of business success.  Many people claim that you can easily be a manager without much leadership skills but you can't be a good leader without being a jimdandy of a manager first. That is why you may say that many times leadership and management skills and techniques go hand in hand. Even though you've worked your way through effective management, you still may never be capable to attain the status of a leader. On the bright side, leadership is a skill that can be learned, trained and improved with practice. Leadership is more than a career as leadership can be considered a calling. While managers tend to follow company policy and do things by the book, leaders will rather follow their intuition. Leaders let their strategies, vision, values and goals be the guideline for behavior and action. Managers are more likely to attempt controlling the others.  Leading and managing are two different ways of working through people. The leader stirs emotions and uses passion while the manager uses rational, formal methods. It also very much depends on how your associates, employees, teammates or co-workers see you. If your  followers will happily put their whole trust in you then you are definitely more than just a manager.

Leadership vs. Management

As a person who makes their living in the field of leadership, I can tell you without any doubt that “Leadership” is different than “Management.” While there seems to be a never ending stream of politically correct pontificating in corporate circles about the differences between managers and leaders, most of it misses the mark. Leaders and managers play different roles, and have different purposes. They both are unique in their value, and in their contribution. While most of the commentary I have read on Leadership vs. Management attempts to please all constituencies, those of you who have read my work in the past know that I am rarely politically correct, nor do I ever seek to try and please all the people all the time.

While there is clearly a need for both managers and leaders in the business world, and while I respect and have developed close friendships with many a manager, this author simply believes that the law of scarcity applies to the topic at hand. There is an infinitely greater supply of managers causing a much greater demand for leaders. Put simply, because leaders are much more difficult to come by, they are therefore more valuable to the enterprise.

The paragraph above begs the question why are there fewer leaders than managers? I believe it is largely for one of three reasons:

1. I know this isn’t a popular stance, but the reality is that not everyone has it in them to be a leader, and thus the old axiom “a born leader.”
2. Many people that possess leadership ability haven’t cultivated their leadership skills to the point where they’re comfortable in leading, or;
3. While there are many managers that possess highly refined leadership skills, many of them simply don’t possess the desire to be in a leadership role. 

The intrinsic quality of leadership often begins with nothing more than raw talent and a certain state of mind. To possess the innate qualities of a leader is however not the same thing as being a leader. As important as your DNA is, effective leadership skills are developed and refined by time, experience, and a true desire to be more than just a manager…the desire to be a true leader.

Let’s breakdown the DNA of a typical leader A leader is usually a very creative, dynamic, outgoing, and unflappable individual. They tend to think big picture focusing on vision and strategy while looking to make a long-term impact. By way of contrast let’s examine the DNA of a manager. Managers are usually more analytical while focusing on process and procedure looking to make short-term contributions. Two key points of distinction between leaders and managers are that leaders attend to the needs of the enterprise with a focus on the future, while managers attend to the needs of individuals with a focus on the present.

We have all witnessed companies that have been over managed in the absence of leadership. When leadership has been abdicated to management in a corporate setting you will always find that growth slows, morale declines, creativity wanes, and the competitive edge is weakened. That being said, I have personally experienced the value of true leadership at every stage of my life from the athletic playing field, to the military battleground, to the corporate boardroom. Let’s look at an example of the value of leadership from each of the three areas:

• An example from the world of athletics: If you were the owner of an NFL franchise and had to choose between having the #1 quarterback in the league or the #1 center in league what would your choice be? Again this doesn’t mean that a great center isn’t valuable, it just means that the role player isn’t as valuable to the team as having the talent factor and leadership characteristics of a true impact player. Simply reflect back upon your own life experiences and you’ll see that you have come across many utility players over the years, but very few franchise players.
• A military example: Contrast if you will the differences of two enlisted men of the same rank. The first is a NCO in a headquarters unit charged with the administrative support of a company commander.  The second NCO is a combat controller in a special operations unit charged with coordinating air strikes from the ground behind enemy lines.  While both of the enlisted men described above hold the same rank, are part of a team, and play important roles, one is clearly an impact player in a leadership capacity while the other is solely a utility player acting in a management capacity.  The military has determined that it is a rare individual who exhibits the characteristics necessary to become a member of a special operations unit.  Therefore they are willing to make a much larger investment in the combat controller, and in return, the military expects a much larger contribution from that individual.
• A corporate example: This example will be short and sweet, but hopefully very clear in its statement of impact. Who do you believe is of greater value and makes a larger contribution to a corporation, someone who administers policy and creates processes, or someone who sets the vision and creates the strategy? Just examine the difference in the pay stubs of the two individuals contrasted above and you’ll quickly see who the enterprise deems to be of higher value.

I want to be clear that I am not “anti” management. I am however very “pro” leadership when it comes to optimizing the talent factor in any organization. My bias toward leadership doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the principles behind such truisms as: “there is no “I” in team” or, “the sum of the parts is greater than the whole” or that “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.” Rather it simply means that I believe you achieve a much greater return on human capital with investments made into leadership due to the scope and scale of the impact that a leader can make. The bottom line is that I prefer to lead rather than manage, and to be led rather than to be managed.

The trick is to invest in your managers such that they embrace and adopt leadership traits and characteristics. The strongest organizations apply leadership development programs across the enterprise to enrich the quality and productivity of their workforce. The simple truth of the matter is that if you don’t develop leaders from within you won’t have depth or scale to your organization as it applies to leadership. A bonus is always hidden when you come across a great leader who happens to possess strong management skills as well…   

Leadership Versus Management, and Technical Expertise

In order to introduce leadership program participants to the enigma of leadership, I ask them the tough leadership questions raised by current leadership studies. One question is this: Are the categories of leadership, management, and expertise clearly distinguishable, do they overlap, or are they useless and not worth maintaining?

After a discussion, the participants are asked to vote. Typically, about one-third of them think the categories overlap, and no one votes for the last option. I think the appeal of the second option is that the intellectual task of defending it seems less onerous.

John Kotter (1990) is one theorist who argues clearly and persuasively for the first position. Leadership and management are distinct and the differences crucial for understanding change. Management, Kotter argues, copes with complexity. In contrast, leadership copes with change. In coping with complexity, “good management brings a degree of order and consistency to key dimensions like the quality of profitability of products.”

Leadership, in contrast, focuses on the larger context for action and attends to the changes that are shaping the bureaucracy itself. Within this change context, managers plan and budget, organize and staff, and control and solve problems. In contrast, leaders establish direction, align people, and motivate and inspire.

Leadership Versus Management Quote

“Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.”

Leadership Versus Management and The Action Wheel:

In terms of the Authentic Action Wheel framework, both management and leadership expend energy (power). Leadership, however, tends toward mission and meaning, management toward structure and resources. Kotter’s distinctions are crisp and useful and merit serious attention by theorists and practitioners alike.

Authentic action theory enriches Kotter’s analyses by pinpointing a potential trap for both positional leaders and managers. If change and complexity threaten positional leaders’ coping capacity, they tend to preoccupy themselves with power. Managers threatened by change give undue attention to structure.

Value and direction lose currency as leaders seek political advantage. Likewise, managers tend to take their attention away from the energy necessary to inspirit organizational action and to preoccupy themselves with organizational maintenance and monitoring. But do managers need to be concerned with energizing?

The picture becomes more complicated when technical expertise is added to the litany of role problems. Technical experts match resources to structural problems, offering advice, counsel, and hands-on informed practice. When threatened, instead of attending to their expert contribution to the organization, they may preoccupy themselves with their own importance. They focus backward, from structure to resources, afraid that change will render their skills unnecessary.

Leadership vs Management...Going Beyond Position

Authentic action challenges leaders, managers, and technical experts to remain authentic, face their fears of changing complexity, and courageously take on the essential tasks of their roles.

But is not leadership more profound and widespread than position? Does it not transcend roles and call all people to engage in real work and authentic action? A leading expert, a leading manager, and a leading leader all have one thing in common. Each practices authentic engagement, framing issues for himself or herself and others by moving counter-clockwise around the Authentic Action Wheel.

That engagement is positional leaders’, managers’, and experts’ deepest and most salutary action. Thus, authentic action both affirms the distinction between leadership versus management, and technical expertise and pushes beyond it, to a deeper unity of purpose and value.

Nothing Enigmatic About Leadership

The debate over leadership versus management will not help organizations as this debate only produces useless stereotypes. Leadership and management are both important, but they seek to do different things. Management has the inherent implication that if the organization is doing well, little or no change is needed. However, the business environments today have become complex and sophisticated, making the organization at an ever-changing mode.

The markets constantly change in their tastes, behavior, and attitude. Technology today is different from yesterday and will surely be different from what comes tomorrow. These quick shifts all mean change.

A management-oriented organization will not spot these changes, much less act on them because it tends to comfortably look within the organization only. The leader or leaders spring from these managers, anyway. They are the ones that start to ask what more can be done and what quick responses to quickly changing times can be given. In other words, leaders are those managers who start to look outside of the organization after a long time of looking within.

Leadership is different from management, but not for the prevailing mindset in which people tend to box these definitions in. It has nothing to do with charisma or gifted personality traits. There is hardly anything enigmatic about leadership. The old view is merely a romantic rendition of the dichotomy between managers and leaders. Likewise, leaders are also not those who are the chosen ones. Again, this is a banal romanticism of the whole thing.

Leadership is also not necessarily better than management, in terms of the existence of an organization. Neither does leadership become a more desired state of things that should replace management. Leadership cannot exist in a vacuum because it is not what it can be without the able support of management. Both leadership and management are necessary components of a successful business environment and human resource organization.

The only reason why the debate has existed is because there has to be some differences to be defined. All this is for a reason, too. Without setting the differences, the organization cannot define the functions and, therefore, cannot measure the effectiveness of each. It should be noted that a leader and a manager are both members of the organization that expect upward mobility. Assessments are still necessary for the activities of hiring and promotion, as well as succession planning.

Both leader and manager are necessary in a successful workplace. Because these are high-profile positions and are, thus, coveted, the debate of leadership versus management will always remain unresolved. After all, the business environment is inherently competitive all the time.

Leadership vs Management

Bob Sutton, a Professor of Management Science and Engineering in the Stanford Engineering School, has an interesting blog which we have just come across. Sutton, a regular writer for amongst others, The Financial Times, The Huffington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, looks at the difference between leadership and management in a recent blog. Sutton's main point is that an absolute binary distinction between the two terms can often be misleading.

Sutton quotes Warren Bennis: "There is a profound difference between management and leadership, and both are important. To manage means to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct. Leading is influencing, guiding in a direction, course, action, opinion. The distinction is crucial".

Sutton goes on to say: "I am all for grand visions and strategies. But the people who seem to make them come true usually seem to have deep understanding of the little details required to make them work -- or if they don't, they have the wisdom to surround themselves with people who can offset their weaknesses and who have the courage to argue with them when there is no clear path between their dreams and reality.

I am not much rejecting the distinction between leadership and management, but I am saying that the best leaders do something that might be most properly called a mix of leadership and management ... or at least, lead in a way that constantly takes into account the importance of management. And some of the worst senior executives use the distinction between leadership and management as an excuse to avoid learning the details they need to understand the big picture and to select the right strategies."

Leadership vs. Management: Quiz Answers

Okay, time's up, pens down. Whether you actually took the leadership mini-quiz or not, the idea was to explore this important issue, and it's possible impact on your cubicle career. As we said last week, our world accommodates both carnivores and vegetarians, and the one doesn't necessarily fall prey to the other. In other words, the task - and yes, privilege, of leading - isn't for everyone, nor should it be. I mean, what an absurd world it would be if there were only leaders...who would the followers be? After all, there can only be leaders if there are followers.

Without further delay, here are your long-awaited answers to last weeks questions:

1. Are leaders and managers the same thing?

No, absolutely not. But the answer isn't really so simple, because being one doesn't exclude the other. For example, and based on your place in the chain of command, you may well be expected to successfully implement plans and execute orders issued by higher authority (i.e. being a good manager). Yet, and in order for you to attain the level of cooperation and motivation from your subordinates (team members) necessary to meet the objective, you'll need to show a variety of leadership qualities. While this ain't exactly the 'who came first, the chicken or the egg?' conundrum, it is pretty damned close.

2. What are the differences between the two?

Vive la difference!, 'cause both are essential to any organization, yet there are basic characteristics that help to distinguish one from the other. The way you self-evaluate, will help you determine which primary role is right for you. Here's nine (9) basic variants:

3. Are you more comfortable with ideas and concepts, or products and systems?

As you can see, the former is vaguer, even stressing, while the latter is much more predictable and 'safe.' So, if you prefer safety and tangible, more concrete stuff, (like products and systems) then you're more likely to want to be a manager. Really, it's all about your comfort zone- in and out of the cubicle.

4. Are you more present or future oriented?

Like the above, managers are well valued- and rightly so- for their inherent pragmatism. They want to deal with the here and now, and leave the future to others. It's the leader types who give themselves the time to think, to dream, and to develop a vision for the future.

5. Do you like to bend or break the rules to meet the mission?

The leader would, of course, answer in the affirmative while the manager would not. Leaders are not risk-averse, and because they are also self-confident and possess great verbal skills, they can usually get away with this kind of stuff. But, as you well know, it is all a matter of proportion, after all.

6. Do you deal better with change/innovation or the status quo?

Again, a no-brainer. And that's not to say that being a leader type that's also a change agent will make you a star or even contribute to the overall success of either yourself or your entity. It's just that the leader finds change and innovation more stimulating, sexier, if you will, than simply enjoying the comforts that the status quo offers.

7. Do you like being in authority? Prefer giving orders or inspiring others?

Fortunately for those of us who like being honchos, there are many more who just do not giving orders or being responsible for people or things, at work or elsewhere. This is great, because, as we said earlier, there can't be leaders without followers! The old axiom that you can't really give orders unless you've already learned to take them, is also quite true. And that's why it's the better organizations that prevent over mobility by junior staff. I guess that you can call it 'paying your dues.' So, the manager is a lot like a First Sergeant, he issues orders and enforces the rules. The leader, though, teaches, inspires, and motivates, so as to tap the very best that the staff has to offer.

8. Are you willing to take the risks that go with increased responsibility?

Leaders are almost fascinated by risk, and the challenges it brings, not only to the organization, but to the leader, personally and internally. The leader accepts blame for staff screw-ups, gives credit to subordinates, and actually celebrates successes big and small. Make no mistake, this leading thing is damned hard work. Because now, you're not only accountable to your bosses, but also to your subordinates. Since they both rely on you, the risks increase almost geometrically.

9. Can you invest the time and emotional energy required to lead others?

Unlike the kind of authority, or 'power' that gets issued to a manager or supervisor type, the leader must work, and damned hard at that, to earn every iota of loyalty from his team members. Listening, caring, encouraging, correcting, and yes-even kicking ass-is all part of the multi-faceted role that a leader needs to not just assume, but really become. Simply put, the leader always eats last.

10. Define 'heliotropic'

'Turning towards the sun.' That says it all.

I have to thank the Editor for giving me this assignment, because the research I've done and the thinking I've tried to do, have helped me answer a question that has puzzled me forever. Actually, it's an answer to the very same question that started last weeks' column; that is whether leaders are born or made...

The answer is-neither. Because leadership is even better than that, it's a choice, your choice.

The Endless and Useless Debate on Leadership vs. Management

The debate on leadership versus management never seems to cease nor gets resolved. The reason for this is simple. There is no need to resolve this debate issue. There should not be a debate in the first place, in fact. A manager who cannot lead will eventually run out of steam, anyway. While a leader who cannot manage will ultimately run out of function.

The two concepts of leadership and management are so intertwined that any attempt to separate the two in a person is a self-defeating attempt, as well as a futile endeavor. There should not be any value judgment between the two qualities as far as the aim to make the organization succeed is concerned, as there should not be any separation between them. They are not necessarily symbiotic, just necessarily complementary.

The global debate over leadership versus management never ceases because the stakes are high all the time. Everyone involved in the business world know that the crux of the debate is a crucial consideration. A manager has the mandate to control and oversee. His basic goal is to maintain the status quo, while on the other hand, a leader makes it his mission to reinvent towards making the organization better (Sullivan, 2006).