The difference between leader and manager can be summarized this way:“When you are a leader, you work from the heart. As a manager, you work from the head.” Although it is probably more complex than that, the point to remember is the difference between what you do as a leader and what you do as a manager—and the constant need to be able to do both. Furthermore, the head and heart need to be partners, not independent operators.
A manager focuses attention on efficiency, effectiveness, and making sure the right things happen at the right time. You are in a manager role when you set performance objectives with staff, prepare budgets, review cashflow projections, develop action plans, and evaluate programs or fund raising strategies or any other aspect of the company. Managing may also include doing hundreds of other tasks that require focused and logical attention to the good health of the organization.
On the other hand, a leader is a strategist, a visionary, and some-one who inspires others to greatness. You are leading when you share your vision for your organization, or when you bring staff and people together to design a program or develop a strategy or resolve a problem. Leaders motivate staff and people, serve as role models, inspire people to cooperate, build community and capacity inside and outside the organization, and create learning environments in which people can grow and develop themselves without fear.
Leaders follow their own intuition which may inturn be more benefit to the company. Their Followers are often more loyal to them. Managers do things by the book and follow company policy. Their Subordinates may or may not be loyal to them. A Leader in practical terms motivates others to do the task. A Manager in business terms ensures tasks are done through others.
I hope now you can give a satisfactory answer to anyone you want. :) Besides, other comments from CiteHR members are also welcome.
The difference between a leader and a manager is same as that of difference between Mahatma Gandhi and Russi Modi, Ex-MD of TATA Steel.
Mahatma Gandhi had never paid anything to his followers.
Followers are not paid anything and cannot be recruited whereas subordinates are always paid something for their services and can be recruited.
A Manager wants to retain the Status quo of the systems / process whereas a Leader always wants to change for the betterment. A leader always work in high risk zone and no comfort zone whereas it is totally opposite with a Manager.
I came across the article on the net
Leadership vs. Management
The biggest difference between managers and leaders is the way they motivate the people who work or follow them, and this sets the tone for most other aspects of what they do.
Many people, by the way, are both. They have management jobs, but they realize that you cannot buy hearts, especially to follow them down a difficult path, and so act as leaders too.
Managers have subordinates
By definition, managers have subordinates - unless their title is honorary and given as a mark of seniority, in which case the title is a misnomer and their power over others is other than formal authority.
Authoritarian, transactional style
Managers have a position of authority vested in them by the company, and their subordinates work for them and largely do as they are told. Management style is transactional, in that the manager tells the subordinate what to do, and the subordinate does this not because they are a blind robot, but because they have been promised a reward (at minimum their salary) for doing so.
Managers are paid to get things done (they are subordinates too), often within tight constraints of time and money. They thus naturally pass on this work focus to their subordinates.
An interesting research finding about managers is that they tend to come from stable home backgrounds and led relatively normal and comfortable lives. This leads them to be relatively risk-averse and they will seek to avoid conflict where possible. In terms of people, they generally like to run a 'happy ship'.
Leaders have followers
Leaders do not have subordinates - at least not when they are leading. Many organizational leaders do have subordinates, but only because they are also managers. But when they want to lead, they have to give up formal authoritarian control, because to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.
Charismatic, transformational style
Telling people what to do does not inspire them to follow you. You have to appeal to them, showing how following them will lead to their hearts' desire. They must want to follow you enough to stop what they are doing and perhaps walk into danger and situations that they would not normally consider risking.
Although many leaders have a charismatic style to some extent, this does not require a loud personality. They are always good with people, and quiet styles that give credit to others (and takes blame on themselves) are very effective at creating the loyalty that great leaders engender.
Although leaders are good with people, this does not mean they are friendly with them. In order to keep the mystique of leadership, they often retain a degree of separation and aloofness.
This does not mean that leaders do not pay attention to tasks - in fact they are often very achievement-focused. What they do realize, however, is the importance of enthusing others to work towards their vision.
In the same study that showed managers as risk-averse, leaders appeared as risk-seeking, although they are not blind thrill-seekers. When pursuing their vision, they consider it natural to encounter problems and hurdles that must be overcome along the way. They are thus comfortable with risk and will see routes that others avoid as potential opportunities for advantage and will happily break rules in order to get things done.
A surprising number of these leaders had some form of handicap in their lives which they had to overcome. Some had traumatic childhoods, some had problems such as dyslexia, others were shorter than average.
Very interest topic. This is the actually the bain of today's management.
I always look at the defination of leaders and managers in such, leaders SERVE the people he leads and a manager EXPECTS to BE served by the people he leads.
2 very different purpose and 2 very different outcomes. The higher we go, the more service we do. Not the other way around. Gandhi was one great leader, why? Because he was a great giver and a great servant. Look at any charateristic of a great leader and you will find him a greater servant.
Very different defination from what we know leaders are like today because they forgot that it begins with being a servant. And in forgetting this they become only a manager.
cheers and smiles.
Found This Useful? +Vote Up This Page Via Google.
Why Vote? User validation is extremely important for good content to prosper.
Disclaimer: This network and the advice provided in good faith by our members only facilitates as a direction towards the actions necessary. The advice should be validated by proper consultation with a certified professional. The network or the members providing advice cannot be held liable for any consequences, under any circumstances.
Explore Topical Knowledge Areas
Topic Categories >> company policy decision making effective leadership great leaders hr perspective knowledge sharing lateral thinking leadership leadership skills leadership training Location-India-Delhi mahatma gandhi management style minimum narayan murthy prime minister situational leadership situational leadership training Complete List Of Categories
Interesting Relevant Discussions