Leadership and Management:

The terms leadership and management are often used interchangeably. Many dictionary definitions are very similar - suggesting leadership and management are both about guiding or controlling a group of people to achieve a goal. There are many web articles that try to differentiate between the two, but they often give reasons that describe differences of style rather than their essential difference, e.g.:

• Leadership inspires, management plans.
• Leadership is there first, management does it again.
• Leaders praise, managers find fault.
• Leaders ask questions, managers give directions.
• Leaders help others achieve, managers expect support.

A good leader will often have the flexibility to use all these behaviours as and when the context demands it. So what is the difference between them, why is so much effort spent on defining their differences, and does it matter? To answer these questions, we need to start by looking at definitions that make the difference between leadership and management very clear.
There is an essential difference between leadership and management which is captured in these definitions:

• Leadership is setting a new direction or vision for a group that they follow, ie: a leader is the spearhead for that new direction.
• Management controls or directs people/resources in a group according to principles or values that have been established.

There is much more to these definitions than may at first appear. Albert Einstein said that everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler. However, it is an oversimplification to think that leaders lead and followers follow, because the relationship between leadership, management, and followers is a complex one. Also, leadership and management are often part of the same role because there is a continual adjustment of the direction (leadership) and controlling resources to achieve that direction (management). We can see the difference more clearly by looking at some examples - of leadership without management, and management without leadership.
The difference between leadership and management can be illustrated by considering instances when there is one without the other.  Leadership without management sets a direction or vision that others follow, without considering how the new direction is going to be achieved.  Other people then have to work hard in the trail that is left behind, picking up the pieces and making it work.
You can see an example of this in Lord of the Rings.  At the council of Elrond, there is an argument about how they should proceed.  Frodo Baggins rescues the council from the conflict by taking responsibility for destroying the ring.  He sets a direction, but has no idea how to go about it.  During the quest, most of the management of the group comes from others - particularly Gandalf and Aragorn.
There can be leaders who don’t manage in the workplace.  For example, an entrepreneur might grow a business by networking, building relationships, and generating ideas for new products.  However, he/she might also rely on a deputy - e.g. a factory manager - to ensure the right staff are recruited, products or services are produced, and the business is delivered.
Management without leadership controls resources to maintain the status quo or ensure things happen according to already-established plans.  For example, a sports referee manages opposing teams to ensure they keep within the rules of the game.  However, a referee does not usually provide “leadership” because there is no new change, no new direction.
The absence of leadership should not be confused with the type of leadership that calls for ‘no action’ to be taken. For example, when Gandhi went on hunger strike and called for protests to stop, during the negotiations for India’s independence, he demonstrated great leadership - because taking no action was a new direction for the Indian people at that time.
Also, what is often referred to as “participative management” can be a very effective form of leadership. In this approach, a new direction may seem to emerge from the group rather than the leader. However, the leader has facilitated that new direction whilst also engendering ownership within the group - i.e., it is an advanced form of leadership.

Symbolic Leadership

Sometimes, an individual may act as a figure head for change and be viewed as a leader even though he/she hasn’t set any new direction.  This can arise when a group sets a direction of its own accord, and needs a spearhead in order to express it.
In prison, Nelson Mandela was an example of symbolic leadership.  Although his ability to take action was limited, he continued to grow in power and influence (as the symbolic leader for the anti-apartheid movement).  This power came from the mass movement, from the group that are nominally viewed as the followers.  Following his release from prison, he demonstrated actual leadership by leading South Africa into a process of reconciliation rather than retribution.
This illustrates the complexity of the relationship between leaders, followers, and context.  A leader’s power often comes from the followers.  For example, in democratic government, leaders are elected because of the direction they offer - e.g. for economic growth or social development.  However, if they subsequently pursue a direction that is different from the expectations of the electorate, they may lose the next election, or even provoke civil unrest beforehand.

Leadership Styles

Being innovative

• As leadership - involves setting a new visionary direction - e.g. JFK setting the goal of putting a man on the moon.
• As management - involves producing creative ideas to ensure the vision is realised - e.g. coming up with ideas that enabled Apollo 13 to return safely to earth.

Participative management"

• As leadership - involves facilitating a new direction through team discussion.
• As management - involves winning the commitment of a team to a defined goal.