The other day I was having a deep conversation with someone about leadership, management, entrepreneurship and everything in between. We spent a good deal of time talking about each three, but the first two seemed to go together and we chatted about what the difference between them were or were they even different at all? I have long felt that there is a distinct difference between the two, and when I was asked if I thought there was a difference, I did not hesitate to voice my thoughts on the matter.
A long time ago, a co-worker of mine schooled me on what the difference was, and it went something like this: managers will always do things the right way, but leaders will always do the right thing. Since hearing this, I have never thought of the two to be the same, they are distinctly different, and there are certain types that are one and certain types that are the other. I do believe that leaders can manage as well, but I do not think that managers can lead. I believe management is something that can be taught and learned, however leadership is something that you either have or you do not.
The person I was talking to about the subject had a very good perspective on the two and what the differences were. He too felt that they were distinctly different, and he felt that people are led and things are managed. I never thought of it that way, but hearing it put that way made total sense. You can manage processes, requirements, deliverables, but you do not manage the people responsible for them, rather you lead them.
Take a look back in history, we honor those that have been considered great leaders. Take a close look at the “greatest” leaders, they all have something in common. They have all been good people persons, they knew how to lead, they knew what it meant to motivate individuals to do courageous and great things.
Last I checked, no where in the history books is there any mention of great managers 
5 Comments
Leave a Reply
ABOUT 15 MEANINGS
Will Kern's take on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not really, but it is my take on startups, the web, life and everything in between. Have a question or just want to shoot me an e-mail: kernwill [at] yahoo dot com.
Interesting subject - but one that depends a lot on definitions.
My own definition: management involves gathering and managing resources (including human resources) and removing obstructions (including human obstructions). Leadership involves setting direction and inspiring others.
Achieving anything involving a team requires some of both of these things. Management without leadership is sterile and pointless. Leadership without management is futile and prone to failure.
And for all of those great leaders you hear of in history, if you look closer, you will find that they were also great managers. Napoleon organized a large-scale reworking of France’s legal and administrative systems. Eisenhower was as much the manager of the European War as the leader of it. One of Lincoln’s greatest strengths was the way that he managed the outsized egos of his subordinates.
As to people in history known more for management than leadership: I’d point to General Leslie Groves, the manager of the Manhattan Project. (Oppenheimer the scientist was the leader. Groves the general and engineer managed the project by organizing resources and priorities.) While Groves acted in a leadership role also, his primary contribution was as a manager.
@dr. dzoe,
I can always count on you to lend your expertise on a particular subject matter. Your example of achieving as a team, I would agree completely with the first part, however the second part I would argue a bit with. Great leaders do inspire others, and have the where with all to understand the needs of the team (management expertise) and put the right people in the right positions to get things done. Not all leaders are good leaders, but the ones that are understand all those needs and inspire others to fill them.
I suspect that we’re not too far away from each other on this. But I’ll hold to my claim that to accomplish great things, both great leadership and great management is required. Not necessarily from the same person - it is quite possible to have a team in which the management is provided by a different person than the leader. (In the example that I cited, the Manhattan Project, there was a strong element of this split.) But I don’t care how great a leader you are - if you can’t manage the details, and don’t have someone around to manage them for you, all you’re going to inspire is one great mess.
I’m also reminded by what Omar Bradley said: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. I take that to mean that you can worry all you want about leading the troops to take that hill - if you haven’t managed the resources so the troops have enough bullets to shoot and food to eat, they may take the hill, but they won’t hold it for long.
One more quote, that I just stumbled across: “Behind every great leader there was an even greater logistician” - M. Cox. In context of this discussion, figure that logistician = manager.
@Dr. Dzoe,
I think you are correct, we are pretty close on this one. And yes, I agree that for every good team there needs to be leadership and management, and it does not necessarily have to come from the same person.