Round II. Describe the difference between:

I got really useful information when I asked this type of question before.

How would you describe the difference between leadership and management?

These seem to get used as synonyms in corporate America. I see them as different. I am curious how you all think about it.

A leader inspires the best out of their people.  Usually by example and collaborating with the group to get the best outcome.

A manager is a wannabe boss who orders action and generally believes that their way is the only possible way.  They may get a good outcome but the staff won't enjoy the process nearly as much and there isn't much room for innovation or creativity.

Leadership gets things done because people WANT to do them, usually by involving them in the process and inspiring/motivating them.

Management makes things happen using negative reinforcement if they don't happen. 

I read a book years ago that said if you motivate peoples' hands you can keep them going for a shift. If you motivate peoples' hearts you can keep them going for a career.

There's a lot of overlap. They have similar definitions. Both can be actions, or positions depending on the context. I think that's why they're often used interchangeably. I think it's possible to be a good leader without being a manager, but it's difficult to be a good manager without being a leader as well.

Leadership is driving a group to their goals.  Leaders motivate everyone to move forward.  CEO's are, generally leaders.

Managers convert that above vision into results.  Organizing people, removing barriers, giving them the tools they need to succeed and fighting for their team in the bigger organization.  At least, that's how I do it. 

-Rob

I really appreciate all your input.

The best definition of leadership I heard was from a friend of mine. She defines leadership as the ability to raise, maintain and focus people's energy. 

I have been looking for an equally concise definition of management. As it relates to people, the best definition I came up with for management is this.  Management is the art and science of getting resources and people with a plan, in the right place at the right time to to get things done.

Does anyone have something better? 

Simon Sinek has some very interesting videos that talk about leadership.  And he does a good job differentiating leadership from management.

Very interesting points he makes.  

Leadership is getting together a grand vision and getting people to back it.

Management is organizing people and assigning them the tasks they need to be doing to accomplish that vision.

Leadership shows the way, management tells the way. 

A leader is in the trenches with the team fighting toward the objective. 

A manager is at headquarters telling the team to get out of the trench and go towards the objective. 

One is a sargent. One is a general. 

Management is a role/position. It is a person in a hierarchy that has authority to acquire, direct, monitor, and dispose of resources (frequently staff).

Leadership is a manner of behavior. It is engaging in actions that set a standard for how people in a position should do their duties. One of my personal philosophies to try to remain a good leader is to never ask a subordinate to do a task I would not personally do myself, nor to hold people to higher quality standards than I would hold myself.

Ideally management should be behaving as leaders, and people who are leaders should be given authority to manage, but those two things do not always happen.

My assistant at the brewery is a strong leader at this company, but he does not have much of a management role right now (because there just isn't enough staff). He works the hardest of anyone around here and holds the highest standards for cleanliness and accountability. We pay him more than other people in his position might normally get because he is such a leader that those of us in management can point to as an example and say "that is how it should be done."

I've dealt with managers who were not leaders. They did not involve themselves with the people they managed and did not set standards based on their behavior. Those of us just below them in the chain of authority had to act as leaders to set the standards for the company.

Often people are leaders, but they are *bad* leaders. They set standards for not caring about quality, shirking responsibility, and being disrespectful to customers. That is still leadership, because their (bad) behavior is setting the standard of what other people in their organization do.

Appleseed said:

A leader is in the trenches with the team fighting toward the objective. 

A manager is at headquarters telling the team to get out of the trench and go towards the objective. 

One is a sargent. One is a general. 

But you can also have the field lietenant or ship's captain who is both a leader and a manager.

Okay, I'm a Trekkie, but Kirk and Pickard were both leaders and managers.

Appleseed said:

A leader is in the trenches with the team fighting toward the objective. 

A manager is at headquarters telling the team to get out of the trench and go towards the objective. 

One is a sargent. One is a general. 

I’m going to disagree, lots of times a good leader doesn’t have to “do” anything, being able to convey a message/idea/dream in a way that makes or entices others to want to do it for the good of whomever benefits and themselves often doesn’t require actual action. On the the other side a manager is often best described as an organizer. Not the guy who makes or passes on a “dream” but the guy who actually makes the nuances work. Edit: I’m going to also say that a manager CAN be the dreamer and the leader but most companies hire a set of people to do a certain job and they rarely look for that guy to do both.

People often make the distinction based  on their own experiences with management (upper and lower) but most of the tasks and functions are the same with the details making the difference.

In reply to chandler :

You are correct. My definition was most definitely based on personal experience.

I have to disagree that the two are mutually exclusive, and that a leader is good and a manager is bad.  I mean, Jim Jones was a very effective leader, instilling confidence and fierce loaylty in his followers.  He led by example, people were willing to follow him...and he led them all to certain death.  Is that good?  

And I have worked with many managers who juggle a thousand balls at once and handle all of the important details to ensure that their employees have the resources they need to be successful, get the proper training, get paid, have health insurance, etc etc etc.  Are they out there in the field?  No.  But would a salesperson be effective without a cell phone, literature. training, leads, flight arrangements, and so on?  Would a soldier be effective without their gun, food, Jeep/Hummer, maps, ammo, plans, communications, etc?  

So my definition of a Leader is someone who is out front, metaphoricaly and/or literally.  They are showing the way, setting an example or establishing a path for others to follow.  This can be good or this can be bad depending on how effective they are and where they are going.  The key is, you are only a leader if people are willing to follow. 

My definition of a Manager is someone who keeps things going.  A good manager finds process improvements, greater efficiencies and improved logistics in what they manage, and is someone people turn to for guidance and input.  A bad manager simply oversees a process, perhaps one that is largely automatic or redundant, shuffling papers and cashing paychecks.  

I think that a manager can also be a leader because they are able to inspire and lead their team to success.  I don't think Leaders make good managers however, in fact, the most successful leaders in history probably had good managers behind them!  But without someone blazing the way, there would be nothing to manage.  

for me it'seven simpler. My current boss is a leader, my former boss was a manager. I WANT to do good work for current, I did it before because I was expected to. 

In my world, management is anyone who has people reporting to them and leadership includes only the heads of business units and a few other key decision makers.  In a company of tens of thousands, we have thousands of 'management' types but only a hundred or so 'leadership' types.

I think when done well, the Venn diagram has a lot of overlap.

And I think that trying to pin it down to a definitive difference slights the reality that neither exists only in relation to the other.

Not that there aren't useful things to be learned by the exercise!

I’ve never worked for a great leader.  Mostly managers enforcing rules.   

I was taught that a leader doesn't have to be a manager, a leader can be in the trenches and show leadership ability and potential. As for manager, there are good ones and bad ones. The good ones are the ones that learned leadership in the trenches and lead by example. The bad ones, well they are just a hindrance but things usually get done because of that leader in the trenches.

There are different leadership styles. 

Sometimes a leader is a visionary- a figurehead. One who is visible, and communicates things that inspire. 

But sometimes a leader is in the trenches, leading from behind. He may he almost completely invisible and without title or fanfare. 

The easiest way to identify a leader is to look behind him and see if anyone is following. Some people are great leaders and don't even know it. 

A manager sets the stage. He organizes and facilitates details and processes so people can succeed. 

I am a strong leader- generally lead from behind. But I am not a great manager. I juggle details and priorities in my head without good processes and techniques to back them up- basics really good horse sense. 

But I am able to be the most successful as a leader when I have a good manager behind me handling the details and feeding me work, processes, personnel, and resources to accomplish what I do. 

In construction, Field Superintendents are leaders, and handle all the problems and dynamics of one job. They are the face of the job, and define the success at the project level. Project Managers work in the office, and handle the problems of many jobs. They write contracts, answer to Senior Management for the fiscal responsibility of the job, legal matters, order materials, contract with vendors. They are the face of the company TO the job  

My company sometimes says "You can run a job with a mediocre Project Manager and a good Super, but you can't run a job with a mediocre Superintendent". That's only party true. Senior Management doesn't recognize that when I have a mediocre Project Manager, I am actually Project Managing from the field. When I am Project Managing, I am not leading well. I do my job best when there is a good manager behind me backing me up. 

Maybe I should clarify. I see leadership and management as separate, but highly complementary skills and abilities.  You need have a combination to be effective. I think that why they become synonymous in peoples minds.  This

I have yet to meet a person strong in one and completely devoid of the other.  I have met many who were clearly much stronger in one.  As SVreX alluded to, the most effective people know where their strengths are, use their strengths, and surround themselves with people strong where they are weaker.