The association with managers

The overlap between leadership and power is huge. Hence leadership is associated with a position. How? Because positional power is often the most visible (and direct) form of power. (Almost) By definition, those in a management position receive formal powers. But leadership is not necessarily about the position (read: ), as much as it is about behaviour. Let's compare leadership as a position and leadership as behaviour with concepts functions such manager, boss, guru, prophet.

Let's say leadership is a position. And we 'for now' disregard the notion of leadership as behaviour or potential. How does Leadership (as a position) relate to being a manager or a boss?

The idea of 'being the leader' should be observed within its context. We noticed that when you are the leader, this relates either to being ahead (in a competition) or within a social construct (a group, an organization in, a country).

Let's see how that relates to being the manager.

Management is a job, a responsibility. Being a manager is a job just like a senior specialist, an executive coach and the CEO are jobs. A manager has a level of control and responsibility for a part of the organization. This may include a combination of tasks, processes and/or employees. This responsibility may bring certain positional powers. But this doesn't mean a manager is always the leader. As we noticed, 'being the leader' is based on the context, distribution of power, perception of power, and might even change situation. However, the manager may also very well be the leader. A manager is often promoted into his position for a reason. Additionally, the 'being a manager' brings certain formal powers, making it not uncommon that you are the leader.

Another thing to remark is that a Leader is often thought of as the upgraded, more valued, more significant version of a manager. That's why people would prefer to call their job/position that of a leader instead of a management.

Being to boss is also not multi-exclusive from being a leader or a manager. Being the boss simply refers to the next level in the formal (power) hierarchy. Imagine a sales employee who reports to his team lead (his boss). The team lead in his turn reports the sales manager (his boss). The sales manager eventually report to the CEO (hiss boss). Being the boss is nothing more than your direct hierarchical superior. And as such, you can be both boss, manager and 'the' leader

Now let's look at leadership as something you do. We step away, for a moment, from the idea that leadership a certain position or the comparison of power.

As we noticed in our analysis of definitions, leading someone or something is about being a guide, showing direction, showing exemplary behaviour or being of influence. This emphasizes the things a leader 'does'. As later analysis will show, key topics revolve around: (Kotter 1990):

Being in a position of power does indeed give you the ability to influence others, setting a direction, or engaging with people. But if it is not actually 'done', then you are not leading. It's for that reason we often blame those in positions of power for not doing anything. We call them passive or accuse them of not showing 'leadership'. Likewise we can praise people without a formal position when they give us direction, set a goal, influence us or engage with us. We call them leaders or say they 'have potential'.

Managing something as an activity can refer to two things. The literal meaning of 'being able to achieve something'. And managing in the sense of controlling or being responsible for something. We will focus on the latter. Managing something or someone is often associated with the active pursuit of the things you are responsible for. When you make sure your direct reports have completed their tasks, if all the required data is collected, the processes are carried out as agreed, you are managing them. As Kotter (1990) frames is, management is about

If anything, management is about control. About getting results. Just like leading, managing is something we can all do. All jobs have a certain level of responsibility. Making sure you complete your responsibilities, is managing your own job. Just like it's your managers job to manage you.

A lot. And I mean A LOT. Has been written on the difference between leadership and managers. Most scholars agree that they are distinct constructs. They can be compared, but why compare things that aren't equal opposites, and overlaps in varyingly degrees?

That's because many executive coaches and business consultant confuse them in their frameworks or trainings, often based on pat knowledge. Yet some of those comparison list can be quite good to deepen our understanding. Find below some of good examples:

Collectively we idolize leadership, and as co-effect degraded management to some sort of outdated, functional, static concept belonging to the 20th century. We have transformed management in some sort of opposite evil of leadership. The Truth is, we need good management. Good management has brought us much in the last century and will keep bringing us a lot. We should refrain from blaming managers their lack of leadership and instead focus on their responsibilities and capabilities.

Management is at least as important. [2] In praise of bureacracy

Conclusion: Leadership and Management are distinct constructs. They have an overlap, yet are not equal opposites. One can be both leader and manager, only a leader or a manager, or neither. We need to be aware of not mistaking them for synonymous.