Leadership and Management - Semantics or a case of mistaken identities?

Very often, the leadership and management are terms used interchangeably in a business casual conversation, but in reality, the two practices are clearly distinct from each other. The observable behavioral differences between the two can be subtle and difficult to distinguish the casual observer. As an experienced manager and leader, I can say with passion and conviction, titles, responsibilities and expectations of each are not the same.

I have commented before that great managers can not always be great leaders, great leaders have probably been as great managers. The suggestion at play here is that the total cache of observable behavioral characteristics attributed to the manager would be less than the number attributed to the leaders from great leaders are often too great managers. No doubt, this is a controversial position and would be a good philosophical argument. My purpose here is to provide guidance in my reasoning based on my experiences and research. I also want to provide a practical tool for understanding the similarities and differences between a manager and a leader. There is plenty of scientific material highlighting empirically based study after study of managerial behavior and attributes of leadership, if you want to immerse yourself in the materials. However, if you are interested in a brief but useful explanation of what separates managers from leaders, read on.

During most of the 20 th century, the management approaches to running a business, and interaction with employees, have been characterized as a structure of command and control. Militarism in the form and application, the structure of command and control commerce served by providing clear lines of hierarchical organization, the definition of tasks and responsibilities, and a top-down orientation. Recall, if you will, the informal term used to refer to big industrialists like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Astor and Morgan as "captains" of industry.

To achieve efficiencies of mass production, fight two world wars, and grow a modern industrialized nation, the command structure and management control to fit the bill perfectly. The workers toiled on assembly lines of their repetitive task under the supervision of a foreman or supervisor, who may or may not have understood the work of Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management. Clearly, the leadership behaviors and attributes are required to realize the enormous tasks of industrialization of a nation. However, the attributes of the thesis has been limited only to heads of large organizations.

By the mid-20 th century, the structures previously blank command and control began to take a more sophisticated blend of management and science, with the adoption of theoretical models and practical approaches to management Maslow, Hertzberg, Demming, Odiorne , and Druker. However, as our nation have matured and begun to move towards a knowledge society and information easier to command and control management strategies were beginning to change. The psychology and behavior of workers began to take on color theory and scientific explanations. Workers are beginning to be seen as a multifaceted and multidimensional. Women and minorities have been adding to the diversity of the workforce in increasing numbers.

In the second half of the 20 th century as the industrial age gave way to the era of knowledge and information, the traditional command and control structures began to evolve into structures that supported innovation; intrepreneurship, works skunk, quality circles, work groups and self directed. Furthermore, corporate ethics, citizenship, and responsibility always related companies to the social expectations of our society. Business leaders have had to develop the adaptive skills necessary to guide companies through these winds of change swirling. At the same time, workers were becoming more independent and interdependent. The workers wanted to manage themselves, and have rejected traditional forms of command and management control in favor of models of leadership based.

The attributes of a good manager in a structure of command and control have been moving to the attributes that make up the modern model of leadership in corporate governance. Combine the expectation of independence of the workers with the initiatives of "flattening" organizations, and what he knew, suddenly has to adapt as a manager, taking on the characteristics of leadership behavior to continue to be successful. In this scenario, managers now have wider spans of control, and the work is done in self-directed teams through organizational matrices. The titles vary from supervisor to team leader, from manager to team coordinator reflecting a softer approach to the traditional leadership.

After a degree of research, I managed to build a contemporary list of observable behavioral attributes that are common to those engaged in management and leadership activities. Two interesting revelations came as I created these lists. The first was the sheer number of search "hits" with "the behavioral attributes of a manager" (27 results) and "behavioral attributes of a leader" (6 hits). This scientific result is in contrast to my earlier position that the number of behavioral characteristics attributed to managers would be less than the number attributed to executives as great leaders are often too great managers. The second interesting revelation is that many of the behavioral attributes required to describe a manager were required to describe a leader.

How to view and consider the leadership behaviors observed above, inevitably, certain names come to mind that we associate with the list of the attributes of leadership. Names like Max Dupree, James Cash Penney, Mary Kay Ash, and Herb Kelleher come to mind. These people embodied the attributes of leadership in their approach to business, and many of the behavioral characteristics of leadership are constantly present in each of these leaders. Moreover, these leaders also exhibited behaviors associated ethereal leaders such as compassion, empathy, morality, honesty and integrity. Although these behaviors are not so easily observed, they are the intrinsic beliefs that influence every decision and action these leaders and others do. The careful study of their activities will reveal these behavioral attributes carefully woven into the fabric of their culture and activities.

Note that in the discussions above, there is no reference to an age or gender, because neither is a limiting factor or an enabling factor. There are successful managers who are older women and younger men. There are successful leaders who are older women and younger men. Also note that no reference is made to the location / region, culture, or education. This is because the demographics are not a limiting factor and not an enabler. Successful leadership is not limited to regional factors, educational or cultural. History has proven this to us repeatedly through the emergence of entrepreneurs from all corners of the world.

Instinctively, everyone seems to be able to separate the leaders of the managers when the characteristics of leadership are clearly manifested in observable behavioral leaders and aspiring leaders. Although we are not all MBAs, or bring checklists ordered around in our pockets, we learn to recognize those who skillfully apply the true characteristics of business leadership through their observable actions and consistent ability to lead.

For those in positions of leadership in search of direction and guidance in the selection of managers, potential leaders and executive leadership, this article provides a practical framework from which to do your analysis. For those in positions of leadership trying to grow leaders for stock management, the article begins the process of identifying potential leaders emerging. Whether you are taking or grooming internal leadership, remember that good managers do not always translate into good leaders and that there are observable differences between the two ....