Leadership vs. Management

Being a good leader and a good manager are not the same thing. The problem is, we often look to a single individual for both.

An effective leader sets the direction, socializes it, and rallies an organization to work hard towards it. It requires vision, compelling communication, and the ability to detect opportunities.

An effective manager makes sure the organization works in a way that meets expectations of timeliness, quality, safety, and sustainable productivity. It requires attention, clear communication, and the ability to foresee risks.

There’s obviously significant overlap: synthesis, prioritization, prediction, personability, etc. serve both roles well.

I’ve met a bunch of good leaders who were very ineffective managers. Maybe they were bad at it, or maybe they just didn’t have the time. The make-or-break difference was this: did they recognize their problem? The great leaders were the ones who saw their deficiency and delegated the management to others. The leaders who caused havoc were the ones who thought they were great managers and continued to leave a mess in their wake - either by micro-managing or under-managing.

I’ve also met some managers who were not inspiring leaders. Focused on the mechanisms that governed their projects - the schedules, reports, and checklists - they lost track of the people doing the work, and allowed their motivations to diverge from the objective. The best managers carried a strategic understanding into every meeting, and constantly reminded their teams what they were working towards. They didn’t set the direction, but they helped keep it alive.

Both roles are crucial to success, and both roles need to be done well - so the key is to track them separately and make sure both sets of requirements are being met. Maybe leader-manager pairs are the best setup, instead of looking for one person who can do both.

NOTE: I used to discuss this topic with Brendon Volpe, who writes a lot better than I do.