https://tinyurl.com/3bpttkz5
It is appropriate here briefly to explain and give examples of, the differences between management and leadership.
There are lots of confusions and overlaps, and also big differences when comparing leadership with management.
The biggest most fundamental overlap between leadership and management - there are many individual points - is that good leadership always includes responsibility for managing.
The opposite is not the case. It would be incorrect to suggest that management includes a responsibility to lead, in the true sense of both terms.
Beyond this fundamental overlap - that leadership is actually a much bigger and deeper role than management - a useful way to understand the differences between leadership and management is to consider some typical responsibilities of leading and managing, and to determine whether each is more a function of leading or of managing.
Of course, by inflating the meaning of the word 'managing', or reducing the significance of the meaning of the word 'leading', it is possible to argue that many of these activities listed below could fit into either category, but according to general technical appreciation, it is reasonable to categorise the following responsibilities as being either:
To emphasise the differences, the two lists of responsibilities are arranged in pairs, showing the typical management 'level' or depth of responsibility, compared to the corresponding leadership responsibility for the same area of work.
Management | Leadership |
|
|
Observant readers will notice that the final entry in the leadership list is 'All management... (delegated to others...)'.
This emphasises that:
*Note: Management may, of course, be a bigger responsibility than leadership where the scale of a management role is much bigger than the scale of a leadership role, for example, the quality assurance manager for a global corporation compared to the leader of a small independent advertising agency.
Also, it is important to note again that many managers are also leaders, and so will be doing or perhaps will be asked to do, things that appear on the leadership list.
Where a manager does things that appear in the leadership list when actually he or she is leading, as well as managing.
James Scouller has an additional and helpful viewpoint on the distinction between leadership and management: He says:
" Leadership is more about change, inspiration, setting the purpose and direction, and building the enthusiasm, unity and 'staying-power' for the journey ahead. Management is less about change, and more about stability and making the best use of resources to get things done... But here is the key point: leadership and management are not separate. And they are not necessarily done by different people. It's not a case of, 'You are either a manager or a leader'. Leadership and management overlap.. ." (From The Three Levels of Leadership, J Scouller, 2011)
From entrepreneurs and start-ups, to experienced businesspeople - individuals always mistake leadership for management. This can be harmful to your results - watch this video from the Big Think to find out why, and how to remedy this.
Professor of Leadership at the Harvard Business School, John Kotter points out that in today's business world there is too much management and not enough leadership. Both are incredibly important, but in a rapidly changing world, great leadership is invaluable. He argues that if organizations do not recognize this fact, they risk sinking into complacency and achieving little.
Traditionally, Management is described as:
On the other hand, Leadership is described as:
Peter Farey (1993) took this a step further, identifying two extra dimensions in which Leaders and Managers can act. He suggested that Leaders can either be:
Farey subsequently developed a practical Leadership vs. Management model (below) in which he used the context of Task vs. People (or Relationships) to develop an extra dimension in which to compare the two, and the various style or approaches which can be employed by individuals in a position of responsibility.
The model itself is designed to represent both attitudes and behaviours displayed by responsible individuals.
Above the horizontal midline, leaders can be found - individuals showing a desire for new, radical ideas. These people wish to be unique and revolutionary, challenging the current constraints and existing mechanisms for change.
Below it, managers lie, focussing instead on achieving results by utilising and building upon what already exists. These individuals focus on smooth operation, striking for efficiency and productivity in all that they and their team do.
To the right of the vertical midline, People Leaders and People Managers can be found.
Whereas to the left, Task Leaders and Task Managers can be found.
Each of these comes with its own unique traits and behaviours, which are often suited to individual situations. Though some may find themselves primarily drawn to specific behaviours, it is sometimes suitable to interchange these depending on the scenario and team members presented to you.
People Leadership is focused on the idea of inspiring others to succeed.
The idea of People Leadership is intricately related to charisma. If we think historically, we often think of individuals who, using their personality, are able to create a sense of followership - others want to work for them, regardless of their arguments (though, this obviously can also end in disaster).
This is not necessarily an innate trait - though it often can be - others have to learn how to bring the best out of others by first bringing the best out of themselves.
Task Leadership is often referred to as the entrepreneurial aspect of management.
The Task Leader wishes to search for new and innovative solutions, objects and processes which do not yet exist; whereas Task Managers try only to improve those things which already exist.
However, balance is once again required - too little Task Leadership and the status quo will always remain so. On the flip-side, too much Task Leadership and the individual can become obsessed with winning - so much so that other departments, teams and managers become competitors and will not be on the receiving end of any support or collaborative opportunity.