A colleague sent this to us this morning it was captioned Manager vs Leader

I have always believed that leaders and managers are two different kinds of people. This article is just to give you an insight into these two roles in case you are not clear.
Activities done by Leaders
1. Conceive and Initiate Strategies
2. Always strive for creating and sustaining competitive differentiation.
3. Try to be novel in all aspects.
4. Always focus on innovations
5. Look towards new business opportunities and markets
6. Have an influence on corporate activities and behaviors which always focus to achieve the above objectives

Activities done by managers
1. Implement Day to Day operations.
2. Establish process and systems to handle repeatable operations
3. Always focus on operating procedures to optimize productivity
4. Monitor performance of resources and work towards their development
5. Have a goal of effective utilization of company resources (whether it is employees, capital, equipment etc)

In short, a leader thinks and a manager implements.

The skill set of a manager and leader are totally different. A manager needs good planning, scheduling, resource utilization, people skills, quantitative data analysis, soft skills etc, where as the leader needs to understand the industry, environment, forecast the trends, influence people (customers, employees etc)

But in current organizations, when a person takes up as a manager, he would be slowly transforming himself as a leader. These creativity and influencing skills obtained by these people would be purely based out of their experience and understanding of various customers. There is a class of people who are leaders right from the beginning (people who come out as entrepreneurs at young ages), always have an upper hand as they always focus on ideas, profits, productivity, creating difference. So an organization always requires two groups of people, the leaders who can think creatively as well as managers who can implement these ideas effectively. It is very difficult for a person to perform both the roles as the skill set is different. Currently organizations are focusing on this aspect a lot during their recruitments.

Conclusion: Do a self review and see what set of skills you possess the most. There is a way you can acquire the skills of other group. But always plan your career always in a direction where you are always comfortable and you enjoy the most. Acquiring technical skill set is needed until some point in your career, once you are comfortable at that level, to grow up in the ladder, you need something more where you need to focus on which track you would like to take. This article can help you to some extent to choose.

to which I added this one from Jim Clemmer

Balancing Technology, Management, and Leadership

There is somethingcalled Performance Balance Triangle which is

- Management Sytems and Process,
- Technology and Tehnical Expertise
- People

Management Systems and Processes - organizational processes are the flow of materials, work activities, customer interactions, or information across an organization to produce, deliver, or support the products or services that its customers buy. Organizational systems are the underlying feedback and measurements loops, performance improvement methods, and organization structure. Personal systems and processes are the methods, habits, and approaches we all use to get things done.

Technology - an organization's core technology is the expertise and/or equipment that produces the products or services that its customers buy. Supporting technology may include web-based applications, software, telecommunications, robotics, production equipment, and the like to produce, deliver, or support the organization's core technology. Personal technology is the technical expertise we bring to the production, delivery, or support of either core or supporting technologies.

People (Leadership) - this includes those people an organization serves, the people they would like to serve, people in the organization doing the producing and serving, key external partners (such as distributors, strategic alliances, suppliers, etc.), everyone in the organization supporting the producers and serving the servers, shareholders or funding partners, and (very deliberately last) management.

In top performing organizations, each area is strong and constantly improving. For example, in our technological age, we all need to ensure that we're constantly upgrading our technical expertise and technological tools. We can't afford to fall behind. Let us take our own cases our computer systems have been a huge help with email, managing our time, storing and easily retrieving information, keeping contact and project records, maintaining our database, developing slides for presentations and workshops, and accessing a multitude of information and research through the Internet. Without it, we would all be 30 - 40% less productive and would need much more administrative help. But as with any technology, just automating sloppy personal habits and disorganization will mean we'll just mess it up faster.

If our understanding of our customer expectations are only partially accurate, expensive technology and "reengineered" processes will only deliver partial results. If people in our organizations can't communicate face-to-face, electronic communications won't improve communications very much. If we haven't established the discipline of setting priorities for our time or organizing ourselves, a computer or other wireless mobile device won't do it for us.

Systems and processes is also an extremely important area. An organization can be using the latest technologies and be highly people-focused, but if the methods and approaches used to structure and organize work is weak, performance will suffer badly. People in organizations can be empowered, energized, and enlightened, but if systems and processes (and technologies) don't enable them to perform well, they won't. Developing the discipline and using the most effective tools and techniques of personal and organization systems and processes is a critical element of high performance.
The Performance Balance triangle has people or leadership at its base. That's very deliberate. In well-balanced, high performing teams or organizations, technology, systems, and processes serve people. For example, as information technology (IT) specialists study why so many huge investments in equipment and software haven't paid off, they find the problem comes back to how the technology is designed and used, by whom, and for whom. There was a time when we used to say people need to be more technology literate. Now we say that technology needs to become more people literate.

Together it makes it a very worthwhile reading isn't it.

Dear Raman,

It's been some time now that we have been trying to penetrate thru the meaning and the versus distinction between the manager and the leader. However, let me put across the points that I have been reading for a while now,

A manager basically directs resources to complete predetermined goals or projects. For example, a manager may engage in hiring, training, and scheduling employees in order to accomplish work in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible.

On the other hand, a leader within a company develops individuals in order to complete predetermined goals and projects. A leader develops relationships with his/her employees by building communication, evoking images of success, and by eliciting loyalty.

It seems we need to understand this inside meaning of these terms or it'll be too difficult to seperate the two in our minds and at our workplaces.

Can we take this ahead, raman..

Regards,

Martin

Dear Raman, Martin & Colleagues,

After a brief run thru over your view points, how bout considering the real distinction and a comparison between manager vs leader to understand this concept more closely..

Manager: A company CEO directs Sarah, one of the companies up and coming managers, to hire enough new employees to provide the company with a state-of-the-art customer service department. Sarah undertakes her project with enthusiasm. She hires only those employees who can work the assigned hours, will accept the modest pay, and have experience working in customer service. She trains her new employees to perform the job to her expectations and assigns the employees to their new positions. Sarah measures her success in terms of efficiency, calls handled per hour, and cost effectiveness, i.e., did she meet her budget. However, Sarah did not anticipate that of the employees she hired, only a handful would remain working six months later.

Leader: Rob obtains the same assignment as Sarah. Rob hires employees that he believes he can develop a working relationship with, versus just those employees who will worked the assigned hours and take the modest pay. Rob's goal is to hire a diverse group of employees, some of who do not have any customer service experience, who he feels he can develop a personal connection. A large part of Rob's training involves team building, telling successful stories, and listening to each employee's own desires for what constitutes a fulfilling job. Rob still assigns his employees their job duties and schedules at the end of training, and he also measures success in terms of efficient and cost effectiveness, but he also measures success in terms of low employee turnover, employee morale, and employee development. Rob feels proud when one of his employees obtains an advance level position a year or two after being hired.

The above comparison has a deep lying meaning for us to understand the real life difference between the manager & the leader and I'm sure the above elaboration explains this story well.

Regards,

CHRM

"To win...you must stay in the game" - Claude Bristol

Dear Martin, Saumil, and all the others,

My analogy is - A leader is like an eagle and the manager is like the hen

The vast array of leadership concepts can be perplexing.

The dimensions are Head, Expert, Lead, Manage (HELM), each interconnected to You and the unique Character you bring to leadership.

Clear understanding of the five dimensions can steer high performance leadership and enterprise success. Why? Success requires clear goals so you know where to focus your efforts to achieve results. Each leadership dimension has an intrinsic core objective. Exceptional people focus on the dimensions of leadership where the intrinsic objectives align with both their personal and organizational goals.

Looking at the Five Dimensions of Leadership

Head

The ‘head’ is a role that is recognized as having a formal position of accountability, power, or control, relative to others. Usually this role has a title, whether boss, chief, director, team leader or manager.
The driving objective of the Head dimension is authority - perceived responsibility and accountability.

Expert

The ‘Expert’ role is recognized as having specialized experience, skill, or knowledge, often in the form of credentials, education, or licensure, to be used for the benefit of another person or entity. The driving objective of the Expert dimension is credibility – adherence to parameters set by a profession, evidence-based practices, or other standards.
Head and Expert are the role dimensions. Roles are continuous, in that once you meet conditions to obtain the role, you are in it regardless of any actions you do or don’t take. If you are so designated, you are a CEO all day long, an attorney regardless of whether you appear in court, a dentist even on vacation.

Lead
Leading is the act of gaining willing followers for a course of action when the path forward is unclear or undetermined. The act of leading begins when people choose to follow someone on a course of action. The skill of leading is to create relationships and environments where people willingly choose to follow. The driving objective of leading is change - movement from one state or condition to another.

Manage

Managing is the act of aligning resources within established processes to achieve predetermined objectives. It requires skill in handling the resources managed. The core objective of managing is stability - to achieve goals efficiently, effectively, and predictably.

To Lead and to Manage are act dimensions. Actions are discontinuous, in that they are observable events that have a beginning and end. Actions require skill to be implemented.

Managing differs from leading in whether the actions are dictated by established relationships and structures (managing) or are chosen willingly by followers (leading). Managing and leading are further distinguished from each other by whether the path forward is predetermined (following established processes) or involves new opportunities and unknown direction. An apt analogy is a parade. A parade does not need a leader, but can usually benefit from a good manager. However, getting parade participants to make changes to allow for the passage of emergency vehicles requires an act of leadership.

The Character dimension – what you, as an individual, bring to leadership

This dimension includes the unique qualities, experiences, values, perceptions, thinking, feeling, behaviors, desires – that you bring to an endeavor as a human being. It is your character that gives authenticity to the roles you fill, whether head or expert, and to the acts of leadership and management that you take.


Which dimensions of leadership should be your focus? Ask yourself the following questions:

~ Which dimensions do you emphasize in your daily interactions?

~ Which dimensions do you avoid or fail to use?

~ Do you rely too heavily on roles, perhaps at the expense of developing critical skills in the acts of leading and managing?

~ To which dimensions do the people who work for you or with you most respond?

~ Which dimensions are most appropriate for your circumstances?

~ Are the dimensions you use getting the performance you want from your organization?

Your answers will provide clues where to focus your leadership development efforts which, in turn, will maximize your leadership success. Source : ESquareLeadership

Being on the same subject Leading vs Managing here is something more to enlighten us...

Tom Stevens explains in his article

Dual-Action Leadership
Two Sides to the Practice of Leadership

Leading is the act of gaining willing followers for a course of action when the way forward is uncertain.

And thus, the intrinsic objective of leading is change.

Leading consists of actions such as:

• inviting followers to move toward a new vision of the future;

• informing about the territory ahead, preparing people for what to expect, and addressing fears;

• articulating important values that provide motivation for joint action;

• setting an emotional tone (especially passion for the endeavor);

• eliciting commitment to stay on the journey.

The implication of choice – as in “an invitation” to a future vision and gaining “willing” followers – is perhaps the most important aspect of leading. People give their best when they do so voluntarily. To bring out the best in people, they must choose to follow rather than be compelled.

Managing is just as crucial an action as leading. Managing is the act of organizing resources within prescribed ways to achieve predetermined goals. While managing can and does encompass organizing all kinds of resources, we are talking specifically here about managing people.

Managing consists of actions such as:

• establishing working processes, including methods to assess, plan, implement, and evaluate actions;

• setting goals, clarifying roles, and communicating expectations;

• providing discipline, including the rewards and consequences of behavior in the organization;

• creating organizational structures to accomplish the venture’s purpose;

• facilitating relationships between players inside and outside the organization.

Just as the intrinsic objective of leading is change, managing people has a very different intrinsic objective – stability.

While each side of the leadership action coin – leading and managing – is distinct, most executives must use a combination of both. To be effective they must do so artfully, taking into account the situational context and their personal qualities. Too much leading without managing can easily take people (investors, customers, or employees) down a rosy path that has no substance. Too much managing over leading and no one cares – why would anyone (investors, customers, or employees) even want to be involved?

Effective leadership action requires knowledge, skill, and experience that are distinct from either technical expertise or business know-how. Leadership by itself doesn’t exist. Leadership action comprises of two complimentary parts: Leading and Managing.

In some ways leading and managing are inseparable, like two sides of the same coin. And like ‘heads or tails’ on a coin, these two types of leadership actions have intrinsically opposed objectives.

I encourage would-be leaders to think ACTION.

Whether in the role of speaker, consultant, group facilitator, or executive coach, Tom communicates a passion for ideas that help leaders create organizations where people willingly contribute their best.

Tom received both a BA degree and an MSW degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a Certificate in Organizational Development from UNC-Charlotte. Tom is a professional member of the National Speaker's Association, a charter member of The Society for the Advancement of Consulting (the first from North Carolina!). In 2005 the citizens of Hillsborough, NC, elected Tom as their Mayor.

Tom gained practical leadership and management experience serving a dozen years as the chief executive of a family services organization before launching Esquare Leadership, LLC. Tom now brings his clients two decades of experience in leading seminars, facilitating groups, and engaging individuals to create meaningful change and raise the bar on performance.

Tom's clients have included large organizations such as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novozymes, Biogen Idec, NACCO Materials Handling Group (Hyster and Yale), Alcatel, the Bob Barker Company, and Duke University Health System; as well as professional practices, trade associations, chambers of commerce, entrepreneurial