GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Managers vs. Leaders

• 30707
  

  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
• 3457
  

  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
• 1342
  

  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
• 1126
  

  The distinctions drawn by Colvard and most of the responders speak more to the differences between good and bad managers and leaders than between managers and leaders.

  Shelton J. Jones Posted July 21, 2003 9:45 AM
• 1077
  

  I happen to believe the government is transforming from "just managers" to "great leaders". Thank-you so much, the clarification was greatly needed and appreciated.

  VLGay Posted July 16, 2003 10:44 PM
• 1052
  

  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.

  Rick Catron Posted July 14, 2003 3:46 PM
• 1044
  

  In my more than half century of life I've come to witness actions by both leaders and managers. They are two distinctly different entities. I've served in all branches of the military as well as federal civil service and I'm here to tell you, THERE ARE NO LEADERS IN THE AIR FORCE, only managers! Jimmy Doolittle was the last Air Force leader. Too bad!

  G.L.Lewis Posted July 11, 2003 10:58 AM
• 1013
  

  The purported differences between management and leadership are artificial at best. A lot of ink has been wasted over the years extolling leaders by denigrating managers. In truth, they are points along two spectra: organizational size and scope of responsibilities. The major, useful distinction between the two is their scope: managers can be defined as heads of larger organizations with broader responsibilities while leaders are heads of smaller organizations with narrower responsibilities. One is not better than the other.

  Shelton J. Jones Posted July 8, 2003 2:37 PM
• 1002
  

  This article is typical hyperbole on the part of the author; and as the old saying goes, with a little modification, those who can do, those who can't preach. The same applies in federal government. Those who can do, those who can't sit in positions of supposed authority. Most managers and leaders are puppets who dance to the tune of their masters.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 8, 2003 7:42 AM
• 999
  

  Let me add:

  -Leaders look out for their people; managers look out for themselves.

  -Leaders don't give in to political pressure; managers just salute and execute.

  -Leaders lead by integrity; managers lead by fear.

  -Leaders' first loyalty is to their followers; managers' first loyalty is to their leaders.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 7, 2003 4:45 PM
• 995
  

  This article is concise and to the point. In my 30+ years of Federal Service I have often met managers who feel they are leaders simply by their position. In some cases we have individuals who are suppose to be leaders who operate at the managerial level. This article clearly explains the difference and I would like permission to re-print this article in our monthly newsletter. Can you please respond back to me on this issue. Thank you, Bill

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 7, 2003 8:39 AM
• 993
  

  It is nice to read an article about managers and leaders. It is too bad that I work for the government, where none of the terms apply. We are directed by political parties and they always have special interests to please. Make a contribution and get a pay back.

  Oh how I long for the days of real leaders and managers who know how to manage/lead a workforce. Instead we all get politicians. Take House Appropriations Chairman C.W. Young, R-Fla, "He refrained from supporting ammendents in committee due to GOP leadership and conservative opposition." In other words he knew he would be in trouble and not get presidential/party support when he runs for re-election so he drops the correct idea in favor of a political one. The government is a business, not like the ones we know but it is a political business run by the party in power, not for the right reasons but for political reasons. Is it any wonder why the country lacks accountability. We can't even account for the taxpayers money we spend, why would we care about the people we use for personal gain.

  The good of the country is secondary to the wants of the party in power at the time.

  Meyers-Briggs is used to weed out those who would oppose the current party, not to select a diverse group of ideas and leaders/managers.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 7, 2003 8:12 AM