Leadership vs management: What's the difference?

Good question Vanessa.
I've worked for many different companies over the years as well as being self employed. I worked for small companies as well as large enterprises. I've also worked with many client companies which have broadened my exposure further on this topic.
In my experience I've typically seen the two terms interchangeable for the same position, even at the same company. Some people will call the position a Leadership position while others in the same company call it a Management position.
The term Manager is typically used in reference to a person’s title. In an Organizational Chart you will see the title "Manager of" this or "Manager of" that. You don't find titles identifying "Leader of" this or that.
I view Leadership and Management as two different roles for the same position. Management refers to the administrative functions such as managing budgets, managing compensation, managing issues raised by employees. Leadership refers to the inspirational aspects that can (and should be) demonstrated by Managers. Leadership includes thought leadership; identifying better, faster or cheaper ways of doing things. Leadership also includes motivating and challenging employees to be their best and to further develop their skills. Leaders make employees feel appreciated and valued for their contributions. Leaders inspire employees to do all they can to make their company great.
Management can be performed by people with no Leadership skills. Likewise, Leadership can be demonstrated by individuals with no Management skills. As Fred mentions above, on occasion you find a great person who excels at both.

Top performing managers are able to apply resources to manage through the current set of circumstances delivering good or very good results from the given situation. Good managers provide great value to an organization. They ask these questions. Where are we trying to go? What resources are there to get us there? How will we know if we are on the right track? Managers are usually seen as the person who manages the day to day operations and therefore people understand that the manager is in charge. A good manager will get you there under normal circumstances.

A capable leader has a different focus. He or she will often ask these questions? Is the direction we are headed the very best one for the organization? What trends and changes will we encounter that might dictate a different approach or direction? Does this course of action insure the long-term viability of the organization? The leader is much more likely to spend time and effort enrolling others in the appropriateness of the task at hand. For there to be leadership there must be followership. Leaders have to be able to get people to want to follow their leadership.

Usually the very best of these two are not interchangeable. Great leaders often make mediocre managers lacking the "get it done today" focus. The very best managers often have little leadership inclination because they are focused on hard deadlines and measures.

Ideally an organization has at least one of each and they have the mutual respect to understand that they need each other to serve the organization optimally.

What a wide range of answers! While it is subject to some debate, there is a clear difference between management and leadership.
Leadership is about vision and direction. Leaders create chaos.
Management is about coping with day-to-day operations. Managers create order out of chaos.
Every organization needs both but not equally and not necessarily at all the time. While you can learn to be a leader, not all managers are leaders and, in fact, we don't want everyone to be a leader.
Barry Pozner's book, The Leadership Challenge is worth a read as is anything from John Kotter.

I think there are many great responses here, and all of them are valuable. The only thing that I will add is this:

You manage things, and you lead people.

Carole King sang "Where you lead I will follow" and that's the key to how I differentiate between these terms.

Leaders inspire team members to follow voluntarily, to work together collaboratively to achieve a goal that might be aspirational, ground-breaking, possibly therefore ill-defined yet, somehow, commonly understood.

Managers devise and exert controls over team members to organise and direct their efforts towards defined objectives, determining what each member must contribute and discouraging or preventing variations from the planned path.

Both are necessary, although the degree of each depends on the nature of the job and the demands of the organisation. As others have said it is unusual to find people who have both sets of skills, but that doesn't matter too much. In most jobs a manager can obtain consistent and predictable results by agreeing the details of the tasks and overseeing the employees as they fulfill them. Let's not be idealistic, here, that's what most organisations need from most employees.

But, even in those routine roles, the best employees will be attracted and retained where the organisation is well led from the top. And some roles, with responsibility for creating new business opportunities, for example, must have a higher proportion of leadership than management in them.

What's interesting, from my observations over too many years, is that senior executives can get away with inspirational leadership and very little managerial ability. And vice versa. They do this because their organisation recognises the value of their leadership, or alternatively of their great planning and strong control, and surrounds them with people who can add the missing ingredients .

As you climb the ladder, however, it's wise to have the managerial skills because the budget doesn't allow middle managers to have a Chief of Staff, and managerial failure is obvious much more quickly than leadership failure.

Leadership is about creating the environment in which others can accomplish great things. Management is ensuring that those in a specific environment are working effectively and productively. Both competencies are critical to the success of any important venture.

As an example, Martin Luther King, one of the most important civil rights leaders in America during the 1960's, was famous for his inspiring, visionary rhetoric (leadership) and he debriefed every speaking event with his staff, often to their discomfort when they did not produce the crowd they had promised (management).

In short, leadership inspires, creates, envisions; management decides, administers, organizes.

For one you can be in management but not manage anyone. There are allot of positions out there that are titled manager or management that do not have direct people managing requirements. While the only way to be a leader or be in a leadership role is to lead people. In addition anyone can be a manager, only a select few can be leaders. A manager(if they are managing people) can have influence over people because of their title without ever having earned that influence, respect or trust. A leader, will not only have that influence because of their title, but they will have earned it through deeds, the will be respected because they earned it, and they will be trusted by the people who work for them because they have proven they are trustworthy.

Management fears not have the answer
Leadership isn't afraid to ask questions

A few years ago Aubrey and James Daniels wrote that you are a leader only if you have followers. Follower behavior, not leader behavior, defines leadership. I like that perspective. As far as your question goes, Vanessa, leaders can be found everywhere in organizational ranks, not just among managers. Leadership is a talent, skill, or perhaps a behavior. Management is a position, and don't we wish more managers were better leaders?

Management is "what" we do.
Leadership is "how" we do it.

Management is a job.
Leadership is a choice.

Management takes time.
Leadership takes heart.

Management is about process.
Leadership is about people.

Management looks for what makes us different.
Leadership looks for what brings us together.

Leaders are defined by the trust and respect they earn in an organization. They inspire others to excel, to do their very best. They set a clear vision for the organization and lead by example. Whereas one can attend MBA school and get the credentials of a manager, no such school exists that will confer a leadership degree.

"Leaders" have the ability to develop and inspire those around them to do great things - so yes a good leader will always be an exceptional manager by virtue of the fact that these qualities improve productivity and foster collaboration and teamwork. "Managers" are predominantly task oriented and often lack the necessary skills to catapult them into the arena of true leadership. These skills can be taught, but they have to be willing to apply what they learn for real elevation to occur.

Let's look at two basketball greats. Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. Both were obviously leaders of their respective teams and both won NBA championships.

Yet when it came to coaching (which I would call management) there was a stark difference. Larry Bird became the only NBA player to win Most Valuable Player as a player and Coach of the Year in his first year as a coach. Magic Johnson took over coaching the LA Lakers in the middle of the season and quit after losing 5 of 6 games.

Leaders rise to the top of their professions by knowing their strengths and applying those in the workplace. Management on the other hand must work with all ages, education levels, goals and aspirations, salary levels, gender and not only get their personnel to work together but to inspire each to excel in their particular duties. Management, to me, has always been the tougher of the two because of the communication and motivation that's needed. Larry Bird knew his players could not play like him but found a way to get the best out of each of them and went on the make the playoffs in his first year as a coach. Magic Johnson, on the other hand, was unable to adapt his leadership skills on the court to the coaches bench.

Many of baseball's greatest managers were mediocre to average players. But sitting on the bench gave them the opportunity to study player personalities. So the next time you think your top salesperson will make your best sales manager ... take a closer look at someone in the middle to the bottom in sales. There just might be a diamond in the rough down there waiting to be discovered.

I find it worrying that people always seem to want to separate the two, when it comes to people.

Managers who are poor leaders don't command any respect from the people they manage in the long run, they can't get things done, and often turn out to be those "promoted to the level of their incompetence".

And vice-versa leaders who cannot manage effectively, quickly find themselves out of the leadership role. If you can't call the decision correctly on a regular basis, if you can't ensure the viability of your team vs. workload and so on, you're not going to have much respect either.

The trouble for most organisations is that there are millions of managers, who simply can't lead, and millions of leaders who simply cannot manage.

Often the personality traits for each type of individual are so overwhelmingly angled in one direction or another that they can't function in the other capacity.

And from an L&D point of view, I see no real evidence that you can train someone to become a leader if they have no aptitude for it (lack of charisma is often a major problem - though not so much in accounting and technical areas where competence and knowledge tend to command the most respect) or that you can train someone to manage if they show no talent for it (no eye for detail for example).

Sales is the one place which is normally very good at dividing these people out, the leaders tend to be the strategists for acquisition and the cold calling new business types, the managers tend to be the ones who ensure the stability of a relationship once it has been won.

Most other business areas tend to expect the same person to be both, which is a bit sad really. Because it creates enormous conflict in teams between "managers" (usually company appointed to lead and manage) and the unofficial "leaders" (usually informally appointed by the team - and these can vary from situation to situation - based on group judgement of competence).

It would be better to concentrate on changing the leadership role of managers, and facilitating better understanding of informal leadership and flexible command chains. Than to divert too much attention on bringing them into the same person.

Leaders are borne and Managers are made.

Leaders Create Vision and Mission for the Organisation and Managers Manage the functions, planning realizing the Vision and Mission.

Leaders normally do not look at Many Choices and Managers explore and evaluate many choices and options before doing a thing.

Leaders Take Risk and Managers manage risk.

Many Successful Business leaders in the world are less educated than the Managers they employ. (Like Bill Gates, Dhirubhai Ambani from India).

Education may guarantee to become a Good Manager but not Guarantee to be a Good leader.

The Success lies on the Borne leader to educate oneself to Manage the things with Leadership on top.

.... Many more to understand in deep.

Vanessa , this topic is debated umpteen number of times in several different forums. Anybody can be a leader if he or she possesses certain traits of leadership. It need not necessary for a leader to be good manager but a manager has to be a good leader if he or she wants to be a successful manager. Leadership is a very vast term. In life one meet several people who shows certain traits of leadership. A leader can be found anywhere. A leader is the one who shows a new vision for you, who imbibes courage in you to do something different, who listen to you & understand you. A leader is the one who understand your strength & weakness. A leader is the one who guides you in tough time by leading from the front. Leadership is the quality of a human being wherein being a manager is a task to perform. Without being a good manger a leader can be successful because he or she is a guide & guru to you. He or she is more interested in putting there ward on the road to success. Being a manager is a task to perform but for being a successful manager one has to be a good Leader.

Good leadership skills get people to follow you.
Good management skills keep people following you, or get them to follow you again.

A good executive needs both to be successful.

For me, leadership is about being able to engage people and get the best from them in fulfilling the job.

It calls for self-knowledge (about strengths, weaknesses, temperament and how you get in your own way). In my opinion, developing and acting from awareness is the number one way to improve your leadership skills.

It needs you to be Present - fully aware of yourself and others in the moment and able to respond honestly to any situation.

It needs humility - it's not about ego.

It's never about bullying and coercion.

Management is about using tools and resources effectively, delivering on time and to specification, efficiency, method and structure. Good management is essential, but to get everyone with you, leadership ability is also needed.

Marry the two and you can achieve anything. Separate them, and you will run into problems somewhere along the way.

As a former Division Leader in the Navy and current manager, I'm going to say that no, leadership and management are not one in the same.

Leaders want to move everyone towards a common goal or objective. However, many people within an organization do not always believe in that goal or objective. As such, leaders may tend to inspire people to get to that goal and entice them to share the vision.

However, managers must realize that not everyone will want to obtain the same goal, or even care for that matter. Therefore, managers must attempt to keep people in line and working, but not necessarily striving for the vision. They must just let their staff do the best they can at what they do, not try to change them to focus on an overarching objective.

Great leaders tend to look forward and onward at striving for the greater good of something bigger than themselves. Managers look inward toward their core group and focus them on growing their own skills and achieving more personal objectives.

All Leadership/Management is about making decisions. Everything else is routine.

All decisions are about risk taking/making. Everything else is just calculation.

Leaders optimise upside opportunity.
Managers minimise downside risk.
Both are needed in appropriate balance to optimise return/outcome.

I have been exploring this distinction in my own blog for half a decade if you are interested in illustration and elaboration - http://brucelynnblog.spaces.live.com.

PS. I wholeheartedly condemn the views and tones which paint the cartoonish distinction of 'Leader good, Manager bad' (Perry, Stephen, Monica, John, Fred). It is that sort of attitude which has fostered the upside-heavy focus of the past decade largely disregarding downsides which has led us to the economic crisis we are in now. Vision and opportunity and chaos and change is all wonderful stuff. But unless supported by good Management, you get the mess we are in now.

Leadership is about steering the ship
to its destination and being responsible
for everything inside it.

Management is about making sure
the engine functions well,
the galley is serving good food on time,
the entertainers are singing or dancing,
and so on...

Leadership is about people and vision...
Management is about technicalities.

Good Luck!

Links:
http://jd2-thegreatlight.blogspot.com
http://tnemeganam102.blogspot.com

Saiyid Safdar Abbas Zaidi •
Managers may not be leaders but leaders have to be managers. Managers have subordinates .They are paid to get things done, so they too are subordinates. Leaders have followers, they don’t have subordinates. But leaders in organizational setting do have subordinates only because they are managers as well.
Managers ensure process flows, structural clarity, sustained excellence, fairness and equality; they are to be conduits of ideas /innovation through out the organization.
Leaders lead without the formal authoritarian control, to lead means to have followers and following is a voluntary act.
Managers tend to be relatively risk free, leaders tend to be risk seeking, managers manage work, leaders lead people

What would you manage if you didn't have someone leading the way? It IS important to have both leaders AND managers. And by definition, a leader needs to stay out of the way of the manager and vice versa.

Truly one can point to many leaders like Ted Turner, Richard Branson, and more who recognize the attributes of leadership. They lead by example, by creativity, by risk taking, and by being smart enough to hire the right managers who are better than they are at implementing.

If one tries to lead and manage at the same time, one cannot be successful at any sustainable rate. I have seen leaders who not only tried to manage, but also micromanage, therefore crippling the ability of the very managers they hired to help them!

A leader's job is to constantly survey the situation, keep the whole picture in mind, and strategize. Think of the generals of the armies standing on the hill. How could you lead the charge and observe the enemy if you were in with the troops? How could you maximize the strengths of the company and utilize your best assets if you were mired in the execution of previous and existing projects?

I see owners of businesses frequently who are confused as to why their business is not growing, yet they are spending all of their time on the everyday machinations of their business as a manager instead of leading.

Ted Turner is a master of leadership. I love his quote: "Lead, follow or get out of the way!" I recently heard an interview of a person who worked with him. She was discussing one of his most successful ideas and stated that he simply came to her team and said "I want to do ___" and then left it up to them to figure out how to get it implemented. Perfect!

If you are a good leader, you have created a team that you can trust to implement your ideas to your set guidelines. You are the creator of your business. You are the example for them to follow. You are the one they look to to inspire them to the next big thing.

No, you can't be both a leader and a manager - IMHO :-)

Managers have subordinates whom they exert power over, delegate responsibility to and whose actions they are accountable for. They control and plan...it's very routine-oriented; an objective approach to outcomes. They avoid risk and deviating from social norms. They think inside the box. Management is hierarchical. Managers are realists, quite pragmatic if you will.

Leaders have no subordinates, but rather followers. They don't delegate...they do. They are proactive, as opposed to reactive. They are passionate. They seek to set direction and foster change. They are not routine-oriented. They are shapers and facilitators. They take a subjective approach to outcomes. They are risk-takers, not afraid to bend or even break the rules. They think outside the box. No hierarchy here. Leaders are visionaries, idealists in every respect.

I believe leaders can also be managers, but it takes a much diversified individual and great skill to pull this off effectively. In large organizations, leaders are often also managers. There has to be some sense of control to ensure success of their vision. As for managers also being leaders, this I find very unlikely. Managers are paid to get things done, to follow norms, to run a tight ship. They are indeed subordinates themselves; accountable to others. In order to lead they would have to forgo authority, because to lead means you have followers and following is voluntary.

I first saw this list during a management training program at Hewlett-Packard (before Carly Fiorina X-CEO). I’ve kept it over the years to remind me to be a leader and not just a manager.

I also use it as a coaching tool for helping our clients’ managers grow into future leaders. As you can see from this list, there is a big difference between being a manager and being a leader. http://www.rossross.com/2010/05/are-you-a-leader-or-a-manager/
Hope it helps with the discussion.

I agree with Mr Edgar intoto--leaders can not be made/created ,they are born with leadership traits
Leadership is like love .Love is universal but intensely personal. Likewise leadership is universal and it is personal as well. Love energizes the universe so does leadership.
From this energy flows action. Leadership encompasses the whole universe in its fold; Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are the shining examples of this Universality, their footprints are indelible, eternal. Leadership derives energy from the love of the vision/ mission that he/she is set to realize. Mother Teresa is an example of this purity of love that kept her energized to keep going strongly/enthusiastically with the noble mission of serving the poor preaching LOVE ALL -HATE NONE to make this world hatred free. Similarly it was the love of the vision/mission to have their countries free from the shackles of slavery that energized Gandhi and Mandela. They had the reservoir of energy/passion that kept their people energized and motivated and mission achieved. How apt the remark of Follet, ‘’there is energy, passion, unawakened life in us--those who call it forth are leaders”, fits in with these leaders