Leadership and management are often mistaken as the same thing. By definition, they are different. They can be defined by intention, as well as action. Managers are thought to lead their subordinates, when in reality they only control them. Leaders technically do not manage at all, but instead show an injustice that should be changed, and lead the fight against it. While the two positions are very different, and often conflicting, they somehow need each other, as well. Managers are too passive, and leaders are sometimes too aggressive. If there were a way for the two to meet in the middle, it would be the perfect combination. Despite this observation, the two are separate by definition.
Leadership can easily be defined separately from management. According to, “How Companies Become Platform Leaders,” leadership is based on its intentions. While managers seek to force employees to work for them, as well as for the company, leaders seek to lead, whether it is for the good of the company or not. At times, leaders within companies have been known to lead even against the benefit of the company. Leaders, unlike management, also have followers. They are able to make people the focus, rather than the company or corporation and, above all, have the ability to lead their group in taking a risk. Managers often do not have this option.
Managers differ from leaders, and are defined by their intention, but also by their actions. Managers, seek to better the company and enforce the gainful employment of their subordinates . While this sounds tyrannical, there are many ways for a manager to achieve these goals without ruining the manager to employee relations. For example, a reward system could be instigated, wherein employees are rewarded for good behavior, or achieving certain goals. The authoritarian managerial style, however, is one of the most popular managerial styles, wherein the manager asserts dominance over the subordinates, showing they are not one to be disagreed with . Managers are defined, also, by their actions. Rather than lead a group, they have subordinates to manage. They do not lead in risk, but instead seek the comfort of a successful company. If the company is not successful, they manage subordinates into focusing on work, thus making the company successful.
Many do not believe there is a difference between a manager and a leader, but there are. For example, when faced with an ethical work crisis involving race, a leader might solve the issue with honesty and integrity, attempting to fulfill the needs of all parties if possible. A manager, however, will have the power of executive decision and will likely follow a strategic flowchart in order to make a decision about what it so be done . Similarly, if a company found itself in a compromising ethical position, a leader would likely lead any willing parties against unethical actions, regardless of the discomfort it might cause. A manager, however, would be comfortable with the managerial post and, as such, would do what they could to control situations such as Public Relations, or subordinates in general in order to ensure the comfort of the company’s progress continued and employment remained secure.
My general leadership views have a few implications. For example, the behavior of some leaders could be seen as irresponsible, irrational, or negligent. Some leaders may abandon their professional post entirely in order to lead the fight against what they view as corporate tyranny or injustice. The implication here is corporate tyranny and injustice is, at times, subjective. In the event a corporation is acting with a racial bias toward minorities, something must be done, as this is objectively unethical. All individuals within a company must be treated equally. However, for example, if a company has converted to green energy, but has not yet offered vegan food options in their grocery outlets, this would be a subjective call for justice. Some may see it as a necessity, but many grocers offer plentiful vegan options, further negating the necessity for any fight to happen. Regardless, an individual may lead the fight, abandoning their post within the corporation. Not only is it leading, and abandonment of post, at this point, but also mutiny. While leadership should be a valued trait that needs to be separated from managerial qualities, something must be said for those who think a fight must be led for subjective causes.
In sum, there is a difference between managing and leading. Managers manage subordinates in order to progress a company down one path and maintain their own comfort level. They are in it for a few gains, and do their job by following a template. Leaders, however, attempt to right the wrongs they see in the world. They do not attempt to control their subordinates, and they welcome risk. Comfort is unknown to them. However, the causes they attempt to change are sometimes viewed as subjective, and not always worth the hysterics, they incite in the public. Management understands when to be quiet, but does not know when to change. Leadership understands when to change, but not always when to be quiet.
References
Armstrong, M., Brown, D., & Reilly, P. (2011). Increasing the effectiveness of reward management: an evidence-based approach . Employee Relations, 33(2), 106-120.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How Companies Become Platform Leaders. Management Review, 56-59.
Teague, P., & Roche, W. K. (2012). Line managers and the management of workplace conflict: evidence from Ireland. Human Resources Management Journal, 235-251.
Tenbrunsel, A., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical Deicion Making: Where We've Been and Where We're Going. The Academy of Manage Annals, 2(1), 545-607.
