Not everyone is cut out to be a manager, yet there are people who are leaders within a company and are not in managerial positions. Managers do need to have leadership skills, but this is not the only requirement to be an effective manager.
The Biggest Difference
The biggest difference between being a manager and being a leader is that the management mentality reflects the nature of the corporation itself. For example, the folks at Apple Computer, which has a boat load of cash and a devoted consumer following, appear to be leaders. But in reality, they are just managers. Steve Jobs was a leader, and when the company had to decide if they wanted a leader or a manager in charge, they opted for the manager who took them to the brink of bankruptcy.
Some people will say that this is yesterday’s news, but the truth is there are few leaders in established businesses as most have been replaced in large part by the management mentality. That mentality is to wait for something negative to happen so a hero can rise out of the organization. Most software companies wait for problems to be reported rather than proactively seeking where the problems could come from after release. This results in the famous update or upgrade we all wait for so our technology does not become infested with malware or our personal information isn’t hacked into.
Idea Generators
Earlier, Apple Computer was used as an example of the stale corporate management mentality. Consider what Jobs did after he got unceremoniously kicked out of Apple. He took another idea and started his own company again. Leadership makes things happen, while management manages the status quo. If this is considered from a military frame of mind, it is the difference between offense and defense. There are times when the situation requires a defensive mindset, but all things being equal, sitting around waiting for something bad to happen is a foundation for defeat.
What About a Hybrid?
That leads to the possibility of melding the management and leadership mindsets together to get the best of both worlds. This is being attempted in some companies in which managers are encouraged to act more like coaches and team leaders to meet the changing work culture where the concept of team effort and team success is emphasized. Unfortunately, this response to the demand by employees distorts the distinction between leadership and management. Expecting all managers to be leaders is irresponsible, since both distinct qualities are needed for a company to be successful. Not every employee can be coached or is interested in having a coach.
The idea that management is more reactive than proactive is a necessary evil in the modern corporate workplace. There are employees who will try to do as little as possible and expand that concept to occupy as much time as possible. These employees need to be managed, meaning there is a problem that requires a reactive response from the company. Managers should have no room for exhibiting leadership qualities to employees who are siphoning off productivity to meet their own ends. The possibility of being proactive in these situations is a concept that usually comes too late because the damage has already been done.
Leadership should be proactive because the ideas that come from leaders require an investment of time and resources to see the idea become reality. There are no heroes in the process because the focus is on multiple people making something happen. Who they are and what their roles are in arriving at a finished product comes secondary.
Steve Jobs said it best. He said that people like symbols, and that he was a symbol of the success of Apple. But he quickly pointed out that there were a number of people involved in the success of the company and its product line. That defines a leader—a person who is not content to wait for something to happen. He makes it happen.
