Difference between leadership and management

The main difference between leaders and managers is that leaders have people follow them
while managers have people who work for them.

Leadership Management
The leader develops. The manager maintains.
The leader focuses on people. The manager focuses on systems and
structure.
The leader inspires trust. The manager relies on control.
The leader has a long-range perspective. The manager has a short-range view.
The leader asks what and why. The manager asks how and when.
The leaders eye is on the horizon. The manager has his or her eye always on the
bottom line.
The leader originates. The manager imitates.
The leader challenges it. The manager accepts the status quo.
The leader is his or her own person. The manager is the classic good soldier.
The leader does the right thing. The manager does things right.

Concept of effective management through leadership

As we already know that the leadership and management both are required for smooth and
fast growth of any organization but both qualities in one person, then it becomes a difficult
task to take decisions or to make choices.

If you find yourself suddenly placed in a management position, what are the basic concepts
of management that you should master, if you wish to avoid being labeled as one of the the
bully, the wimp, the mouthpiece and the psycho?

Be Flawlessly Consistent

Consistency is the key to successful management. It is said that Sun Tzu, to demonstrate the
importance of consistency to an emperor, held a military practice session using the emperor's
concubines. When one of the concubines, the emperor's favorite, refused to participate in the
"manly exercises", Sun Tzu had her beheaded. Needless to say, practice went smoothly after
that, as the other concubines realized that the punishments would be severe but consistent,
and that favorites meant nothing. We're obviously not advocating such an extreme action, but
the lesson is clear. As a manager, when you set the rules, they can't be broken - not even by
your top employees or by yourself. Punishing your favorite employees or yourself for rule
violations sends a loud, clear message - no one is exempt, and the rules are final.

Positive Reinforcement

Enough talk of military style strictness. Positive reinforcement is also a valuable tool in
successful management. Ben Franklin famously stated, "Tart words make no friends; a
spoonful or honey will catch more flies than a gallon of vinegar." While you need to
discipline employees for underperforming, you should also reward and compliment them
when they impress you. Positive behavior needs nurturing, and letting them taste honey is far
more effective than force feeding them vinegar.

The popular "Yes Sandwich" - in which a manager leads with a compliment, "sandwiches" in
the negative comment, then closes with a second compliment - is a popular example of
Franklin's philosophy. While the request for improvement was received, the employee doesn't
feel insulted in the process.

Evolve as a Leader

Being all of these - the office patriarch, the good cop and the bad cop all at the same time - is
never easy. That's why there are endless books written on successful office management.
Don't be rigid, but stand your ground and evolve your management style through trial and
error. No one ever said it was going to be easy.

Balance needed between leadership and manager

Being a leader sounds exciting, powerful. Everyone wants to be a leader who inspires the
troops. Being a manager sounds boring, like someone who spends all day forcing workers to
sweat over the assembly line. The problem with this either-or thinking is that both are needed
in a well-run enterprise.

Soft skills count

Take inexperienced managers, or those with low emotional intelligence. Such managers may
concentrate on driving their teams to get the job done, without concern for the soft skills of
building relationships with their team members.

These managers may think the leadership skills of coaching, encouraging and motivating
arent important. But the reality is, employees tend to be less responsive to needed changes
and improvements if their manager lacks the ability to build relationships. So, managers
without people-focused leadership skills are likely to find it harder to get employees to
commit to overtime when its needed, get volunteers for difficult projects or improve
productivity.

For example, a new manager thought she was doing a great job because her data processing
team met its deadlines and achieved its goals. However, her team disliked her exclusive focus
on getting the job done and felt she didnt care about them. Their frequent complaints about
her management style led to her inability to get promoted and ultimately her search for
another job. Luckily, a mentor helped the new manager grow her soft skills, which led to her
long-term success and a series of promotions at another company.
These types of managers havent transitioned from our industrial era focus on efficiency as
the most important thing. Maybe in the old days, a factory foreman could concentrate on
following orders, issuing orders, organizing employees for the tasks at hand and making sure
the job got done right. But that time is long gone, and maybe wasnt ever true.

Its not either-or

Management skills and leadership skills cant be separated. Employees look to their
managers for assignments, but they also look for feedback in the form of coaching, training
and encouragement. Tying every job to the companys larger goals and inspiring them to
contribute is just as important as ensuring they get their everyday work done.

For example, while you may want to spend time supporting your employees growth and
developing a positive company culture, you also need to make sure that your employees are
serving your clients properly or carrying out the necessary tasks for producing your products
and services.

Yes, those in the C-suite probably spend more time focusing on people, long-range planning,
strategy and communicating the big picture than a front-line manager. But even lower-level
managers need to be trained by their more experienced leaders in the art of balancing tactical
skills with their soft skills of understanding their teams motivations.

How to strike a balance

Every manager needs both managerial skills as well as leadership in order to meet targets and
deadlines. To strike a balance between being a manager and a leader, and to know when to
concentrate on each, ask yourself these questions:

Is the work getting done well without my intervention? If yes, concentrate on

motivating the team to keep performing well. If not, put on your manager hat and ask
the team whats getting in the way of better performance, then help them implement
changes.

Do you focus on results or process (how the job got done)? If you focus on results,
good for you. Thats what is most important. If you tend to focus on process more
than results, challenge yourself to become more comfortable with the reality that
many alternatives may exist to getting the same result.

Do colleagues in other parts of the organization come to you for advice? If yes, youre
probably seen as a leader. If not, look at what you can change to support and inspire
others.

What do you spend the most time talking about? The tasks at hand, processes and
deadlines, or the big picture and strategy? Managers need to discuss both but pay
attention to whether youre leaning too hard one direction or the other.
 Do you ask employees to accomplish objectives without explaining the need behind
the request? Employees are more likely to go the extra mile if they understand the
reasons theyre being asked to do something.

Who is responsible when things go wrong? Do you blame the team or yourself? A
leader understands that its ultimately his responsibility for the success or failure of
his team.

At the base of all such questions lies the ability to understand yourself and your team
members motivations and desires. A manager without the soft skills of leadership wont
know how to ask questions, listen and motivate. Without understanding, a manager cant be
as effective in encouraging innovation and improving productivity, the real goal of any
successful business.

Start training for leadership now

Now is a critical time for organizations to invest in teaching key individuals how to manage
and how to lead. Its relatively easy to teach management because it tends to focus on getting
tasks done in a particular way in a set time frame.

A.C. 2.1

Todays business climate of outsourcing, in-sourcing, virtual teams, and ROI-driven

objectives can leave a manager at any level feeling powerless. Yet, we often see examples of
those who can elicit unwavering support from their teams, driving highly effective projects,
and getting the best performance from employees despite ever-increasing workloads. What is
it about these individuals that makes them stand out as great leaders? Generally, the answer is
the difference between a strict management model and one that includes basic principals of
leadership. There are recognizable characteristics in great leaders and simple strategies
anyone can adopt to improve employee performance and change the work environment for
the better.

Experts have long studied the subtle differences between general management, leadership,
and truly great leaders. Thomas Cronin, author of, Thinking About Leadership observes,
Managers do things the right way , while leaders are more concerned with doing the right
thing. A focus on managing projects and deadlines leaves little room for leadership
activities, but it can be done in a step-by-step approach beginning with awareness and a little
common sense.

The remainder of this article addresses the following areas:

Personal Evaluation

Creating a Shared Vision

The Collaborative Process

 Communicating the Vision

Personal Evaluation

From the beginning, we are taught that outward signs of success are shown through upward
promotions and ever-increasing responsibilities. But not all great performers translate into
great managers. One has to consciously decide to take on a leadership role, adopting new
tactics to lead others. This requires careful thought and consideration of ones own goals and
a willingness to change. Begin with an honest inspection on your own situation by asking the
following questions:

How well do I understand the departments role in helping to meet the companys
larger goals?

Can I summarize the groups mission in one sentence?

Can I articulate the kind of environment in which I want to work and share that vision
with my team?

When necessary, am I willing to argue against my superiors to protect the integrity of

our work, and will the organization allow such challenges?

How well can I identify the strengths and weaknesses of those with whom I work, and
can I channel those strengths and weaknesses into positive tasks?

Am I willing to delegate assignments and provide the kind of information others need
to complete these tasks well?

Am I willing to make mistakes, accept others mistakes, and use these as

opportunities for improvement?

What will the groups role still exist in two years, five years, and beyond?

Am I willing to empower others to make decisions and foster creative thinking?

Do I believe I can make a difference, no matter how small?

Objective answers to these questions do not always provide a clear direction, but they do help
determine a personal commitment to accepting a leadership role. Self-inspection drills like
this one can lead to the realization that vast improvements are needed, or even that an
individual is in the wrong role or wrong organization altogether. Its a personal decision, but
a critical review for any manager, newly promoted, or seasoned veteran, to undertake from
time to time. It also lays the groundwork for the most important principal of management:
Communicating a Vision.

If you want to build a ship, then dont drum up men to gather wood, give orders,
and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and endless sea.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Creating a Shared Vision

The first critical task of any leader is to effectively communicate the vision. A mission
statement is the intrinsic, Why? of your departments very existence and the vision becomes
the How? a compass from which everything else is driven. The Alliance for Nonprofit
Management, a professional association of non-profit business managers, defines a vision
statement as, If a strategic plan is the blueprint for an organizations work, then the
vision is the artists rendering of the achievement of that plan. It is a description in words
that conjures up a similar picture for each member of the group of the destination of the
groups work together. This concept highlights the value of your contributions within the
organization now and in the future. Every assignment, every objective stems from this vision
and defines the basic goals for everyone within your group to achieve that vision.

Defining a vision is based largely on the expectations of your superiors within an

organization, but there is always room to further define your vision within the scope of those
expectations. For example, a department of technical writers may be perceived as necessary
for document management and process control, but a mission statement that illustrates a best-
in-class performance communicates significance a statement that the groups employees
may not really understand. Often, employees who do not feel valued or dont believe their
efforts matter have lower productivity and overall job satisfaction.

Establishing a carefully planned and documented vision with your direct reports defines goals
for the group and creates a personal ownership for every individual. Including your staff in a
collaborative process cultivates buy-in and general acceptance. While not all employees will
enthusiastically support the end results, youll have far greater success than if you attempt to
impose your will and force others to adopt a new guideline.

The Collaborative Process

When beginning to discuss a vision with your team, first define the core values of your
organization. These are the common ideals that everyone can understand, including integrity,
creativity, innovation, service, and accuracy. If challenged in a new business climate, the
organization would retain these principles. Review with your team the core values and
mission statements for the company and decide if your teams performance has adhered to
that mission.

The next phase of building a vision includes an examination of what your team will aspire to
become or achieve as long-term goals. James Collins and Jerry I. Porras illustrate this
technique in. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. They describe a
simple process of inspection that will further define the vision for your team. Begin with a
single sentence of what the department does, then ask the group to explain why it is
important. Ask this question five times. If your department ceased to exist tomorrow, what
would the company lose? This discussion leads to the heart of your departments
contributions to the organization as a whole.
Collin and Porras illustrate this technique with examples of visions from identifiable
companies that helped shape their mode of operation for years:

Become a $125 billion company by the year 2000. (Wal-Mart, 1990)

Become the dominant player in commercial aircraft, and bring the world into the jet
age. (Boeing, 1950)

Become the company that most changes the worldwide image of Japanese products as
being of poor quality. (Sony, early 1950s)

Crush Adidas. (Nike, 1960s)

Transform this division from a poorly respected internal products supplier to one of
the most respected, exciting, and sought-after divisions in the company. (components
support division of a computer products company, 1989)

Communicating the Vision

After you have established a vision for your department, communicating it becomes an
important final step. James OToole, author of Leadership from A to Z , describes this
communication in broad terms, The task of leadership is to communicate clearly and
repeatedly the organizations visionall with the intent of helping every person involved
understand what work needs to be does and why, and what part the individual plays in the
overall effort. Communicate the vision often, in both subtle and dramatic ways. Tie the
days events back to the vision, underscoring its relevance. From internal memos,
presentation, or posters, the vision servers a reminder to the team of their purpose and goals.
The vision can be incorporated into objective setting and performance review standards as
well as interdepartmental projects. These steps serve to energize and direct the groups
actions as stakeholders and advertise your efforts to upper management.

Developing leadership qualities as a manager not only improves the groups performance, but
also equips managers to deal with the demands of business performance. Managers today do
not have the luxury of time for in-depth strategy sessions, team-building excursions, and one-
on-one personal reviews thanks to an increased virtual work force. Teams are spread across
the globe, operating at difference hours, across cultures, all while working against critical
deadlines and lofty objectives. Yet taking the time to initiate a small goal like creating a
vision is the first step toward creating a better team, a stronger workforce, and entrepreneurial
thinkers. This crucial step initiates the beginning of a transformation within yourself and a
larger effect on the group you lead.

A.C. 3.1

On the basis of the earlier research at the Indian Institute of Management, into the following:

A Benevolent or Paternalistic leadership style in which the top level manager believes that all
his employees should be constantly guided treated with affection like a parent treats his
children, is relationship oriented, assigns tasks on the basis of his own likes and dislikes,
constantly guides them and protects them, understands their needs, salvages the situations of
crisis by active involvement of himself, distributes rewards to those who are loyal and
obedient, shares information with those who are close to him, etc

A Critical leadership style is characterized as closer to Theory X belief pattern where the
manager believes that employees should be closely and constantly supervised, directed and
reminded of their duties and responsibilities, is short term goal oriented, cannot tolerate
mistakes or conflicts among employees, personal power dominated, keeps all information to
himself, works strictly according to norms and rules and regulations and is highly discipline
oriented.

A Developmental leadership style is characterized as an empowering style, where the top

manager believes in developing the competencies of his staff, treats them as mature adults,
leaves them on their own most of the times, is long term goal oriented, shares information
with all to build their competencies, facilitates the resolution of conflicts and mistakes by the
employees themselves with minimal involvement from him.

Developmental style by nature seems to be the most desired organization building style.
However some individuals and some situations require at times benevolent and critical styles.
Some managers are not aware of the predominant style they tend to use and the effects their
style is producing on their employees.

While psychologist Kurt Lewin found following leadership styles

Autocratic Leadership

Autocratic or authoritarian leaders create a strict divide between the one giving the orders and
those expected to follow them. As such, autocrats tend to make decisions independently,
which can result in abuse of power and make their followers feel excluded. Lewin found that
creativity decreased under autocratic leadership.
Daft and Pirola-Merlo identify the autocratic leadership style as ruler-centered. Authority is
centralized and power is derived from being in strict control of situations. In an
organizational context, employees are not asked for their input. In a political setting,
constituents would simply be expected to follow the leader's demands. This style may be used
exclusively by a leader, or it may be employed when there is little time to make decisions or
consult others.

Democratic Leadership

Lewin discovered that democratic leaders are generally more effective than autocrats.
Democratic leaders offer guidance to their team members and seek their input on making
decisions. In Lewin's study, the children in the democratic group had less output than the
authoritarian group but their work was of higher quality. Daft and Pirola-Merlo's work
furthers this insight, noting that democratic leaders encourage group members to participate
but retain final say-so over important matters. This style creates balance, helps team members
feel valued and aligns more with Western democratic governments.

Delegative Leadership

The final form of leadership identified by Lewin and his team is called "delegative
leadership." However, delegative leaders do very little in the way of "leading." Delegative
leadership is often called laissez-faire because the leader offers almost no guidance to group
members. In Lewin's study, the children in the delegative group were the least productive.
They had no direction and therefore no real output. However, Daft and Pirola-Merlo note that
delegative leadership can be effective if group members are qualified in their field. Similarly,
laissez-faire policies are often advocated in economics on grounds that free trade functions
best with minimal government interference.

BASIS FOR
AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP
COMPARISON

Meaning Autocratic leadership is one wherein a Democratic leadership alludes to a type of

line of demarcation exist between the leadership in which the leader shares
leader and his followers and all the decision making power and other
decisions are taken by leader solely. responsibilities with the group members.

Authority Centralized Decentralized

Behavior Task Oriented Relation Oriented

orientation

Conceived from Theory X Theory Y

Control High level of control Low level of control

 BASIS FOR
AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP
COMPARISON

Autonomy Less High

Suitability Appropriate when the subordinates Appropriate when team members are
unskilled, uneducated and obedient. experienced, qualified and professional.

Key Differences Between Autocratic and Democratic

Leadership
The difference between autocratic and democratic leadership can be drawn clearly on the
following grounds:

1. Autocratic leadership can be defined as a leadership style, wherein a clear line of demarcation
between leader and follower exist, as the leader has got the absolute power of commanding
and decision making. On the other hand, a leadership style in which the leader values the
opinions and suggestions of the followers, but retains the final decision-making power in
his/her hands is known as democratic leadership.
2. There is centralization of powers in case of autocratic leadership, whereas the authority is
delegated to the group members in democratic leadership.
3. Autocratic leadership is task oriented that gives more emphasis on the completion of the task
successfully. As against, the Democratic leadership is relation oriented, which aims at
improving the superior-subordinate relationship, by sharing powers with the group members.
4. The idea of autocratic leadership is derived from McGregors Theory X on motivation. On
the contrary, democratic leadership is conceived from McGregors Theory Y on motivation.
5. High level of control is present in autocratic leadership, whereas democratic leadership
involves the low level of control.
6. There is a freedom of expression and independence in thinking, in democratic leadership,
which is not in the case of autocratic leadership.
7. Autocratic leadership is best suited when the followers or group members are not so educated
and skilled, but at the same time, they are obedient. As against, the Democratic leadership is
appropriate when the group members are experienced, qualified and professional.