GovernmentExecutive.com

We often talk of management and leadership as if they are the same thing. They are not.

The two are related, but their central functions are different. Managers provide leadership, and leaders perform management functions. But managers don't perform the unique functions of leaders.

Here are some key differences:

• A manager takes care of where you are; a leader takes you to a new place.
• A manager deals with complexity; a leader deals with uncertainty.
• A manager is concerned with finding the facts; a leader makes decisions.
• A manager is concerned with doing things right; a leader is concerned with doing the right things.
• A manager's critical concern is efficiency; a leader focuses on effectiveness.
• A manager creates policies; a leader establishes principles.
• A manager sees and hears what is going on; a leader hears when there is no sound and sees when there is no light.
• A manager finds answers and solutions; a leader formulates the questions and identifies the problems.
• A manager looks for similarities between current and previous problems; a leader looks for differences.
• A manager thinks that a successful solution to a management problem can be used again; a leader wonders whether the problem in a new environment might require a different solution.

Multiple functions, limited resources and conflicting demands for time and resources, require management. It involves setting priorities, establishing processes, overseeing the execution of tasks and measuring progress against expectations. Management is focused on the short term, ensuring that resources are expended and progress is made within time frames of days, weeks and months. Leadership, which deals with uncertainty, is focused on the long term. The effects of a policy decision to invest in staff development, for example, might never be objectively determined or, at best, might only be seen after many years.

Management involves looking at the facts and assessing status, which can be aided by technical tools, such as spreadsheets, PERT (program evaluation and review technique) charts, and the like. Leadership involves looking at inadequate or nonexistent information and then making a decision. Leaders must have the courage to act and the humility to listen. They must be open to new data, but at some point act with the data available.

Management's concern with efficiency means doing things right to conserve resources. Leadership is focused on effectiveness - doing the right thing. For example, the military must manage its resources well to maximize efficiency. But in waging war, the military's critical responsibility is to be effective and win the war regardless of the resources required. Getting a bargain does not reflect effective leadership if it means losing the war. Good management is important, but good leadership is essential.

The public sector develops a lot of good managers, but very few leaders. Government focuses too much on abstract or formal education, rather than experience. The Senior Executive Service has provisions for mobility and development through experience, but they are rarely used.

Developing Leaders

Developing managers and leaders involves stages of understanding, not prescriptively, but conceptually.

Phase 1 is higher education or academic training that focuses on abstract learning, in which solutions to problems are provided in textbooks.

Phase 2 applies that abstract process to the actual workplace, in which there are often no right or wrong answers. This is the critical phase in which a future manager or leader develops the confidence to make decisions without knowing the right answers. This requires attempting tasks that are challenging, so that success will demonstrate competence.

Phase 3 involves social and political dimensions, as a performer moves from working independently to working with others as a supervisor or member of a product or process team. It is no longer enough to simply know the facts, since the process now includes others and involves subjectivity.

Phase 4 replaces simpler tasks that involve teams or small groups with complex tasks that involve independent, but often interrelated, large groups. In this pivotal stage, managers accept responsibility for things outside their expertise and rely on someone else to provide the facts. The manager may have more authority, but has become more dependent upon others. This might be the time to get more formal training, such as seminars or academic programs in management, to develop skills that weren't addressed in earlier education. There is no turning back after this transition from performing objective tasks to subjective decision-making and problem solving.

Phase 5 separates leaders from managers. The management role changes from maintaining an organization's values to creating them. Leaders establish the principles upon which their subordinates formulate policies.

Building on Strengths

Becoming a leader requires understanding oneself. There are many tools available, such as the Meyers Briggs profile, to help with that assessment. Recognizing personal characteristics is important in learning how to deal with others, recognizing strengths and weaknesses, and adopting an appropriate leadership style. An extrovert must learn to listen more and talk less. An introvert must speak up more and get heard. A manager who is more comfortable knowing all the details and giving explicit orders should not adopt a participative management style, but rather recognize the limitations of an authoritative style. Adopting a style that is inconsistent with one's personality not only creates stress but it often leads to failure.

Leaders also must understand their professional traits. One useful tool is the 360-degree feedback survey, which allows managers to get the perspectives of their bosses, peers and subordinates. Such a total view is valuable because managers tend to assess their behavior in terms of their intent, not the effect.

Today the federal system, both its structure and processes, is changing. New agencies, such as the Homeland Security Department, are being formed. The federal personnel system is being modified significantly. Outsourcing has become a household word in the government. Civil servants are going to a new place, and it will take leaders - not just managers - to get them there.

VIEW ALL 12 COMMENTS POST COMMENT

COMMENTS

• Bravo to "a good manager and proud of it." I couldn't have said it better myself. I completely reject these notions that management=bad leadership. Warren Bennis, who I admire as a great writer on the topic of leadership, fell into this trap himself: http://brucelynnblog.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B5C035B7809F740A!232.entry Bruce Lynn Posted August 13, 2007 2:04 PM
• Rick Catron makes a good statement, "The difference between a manager and a leader is managers make people do what they want. Leaders make people want to do what they need to do." Managers and leaders both motivate people to achieve goals and objectives. Managers are often leaders and leaders often function as managers. Deming suggests that good leaders have the ability to influence or convince others of change. He also suggests that managers have the authority and power to change or influence things by virtue of their formal power, position, office, or title. Whereas leaders lead by example or virtue of their influence, managers have the authority and formal power to accomplish or change things. Leaders influence (accomplish or change things) beyond their formal area of authority or control. People will follow both due to characteristics of loyalty, communication skills, example, integrity, competence, etc. Great managers will be leaders who inspire others to innovation and to achieve and maintain peak performance - productively and intellectually. Few, if any, managers (who are not leaders) motivate and inspire people enough to die for a cause much less an organizational mission statement. Great leaders though have the ability and charisma to inspire others to accept and share their personal vision to the point of over achievement and willing to sacrifice self and sometimes even their lives. Take the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins this last football season. No one sacrificed their lives for their team, but do you think they performed up to their capabilities and expectations? Evaluating by team talent and skills, most people I believe would agree that the Cowboys overachieved and the Redskins underachieved. I would also put forth that most would also agree that the primary reason was due not to the coach’s managerial skills, ability, and knowledge of X’s and O’s, but due to leadership and the team buying (Bill Parcels) or not buying (Steve Spurrier) into the vision and challenges of competition and ability to win. While there may not be an explicit "WE" in TEAM, there is an "I" in QUITTER. What you want is a manager who is also a leader. Jeff Richardson Posted February 23, 2004 8:21 PM
• Yep, here we go again, espousing the simpleton attitude that manager=bad, leader=good. Anyone read 'First Break All the Rules?', 'Good To Great', or 'Execution'? If not, buy them all and read them now and you'll forever be rid of this pox of consultant-speak and the feelings of inadequacy foisted on good managers everywhere. Good/great/awesome managers are vital, critical, and essential to the success of any organization -- government, not-for-profit, or private sector. To trivialize what is required of managers and aggrandize what is required of leaders does a great disservice to both. I'm disappointed with GovExec to promote such a backward and simple-minded philosophy. Signed- A good manager and proud of it GovExec.com reader Posted August 15, 2003 9:02 AM

VIEW ALL 12 COMMENTS