A very common question thrown around is “What is the difference between a leader and a manager?”.  To me, it is very straight forwards - A Leader leads, and Manager manages. Leading or managing are not necessarily good or bad, but understanding the difference is important.

Leading

Another term for leading is “to guide”, although a much better one for me is “guide someone along the way”.  In a literal sense this might mean showing someone how to get somewhere in town, although this is only scratching the surface. While physically guiding someone is a great thing, generally in our workplaces leading refers more towards guiding someone towards a goal. This goal could be improving a sales metric, implementing a new system, or welcoming a new team member. The specific instance isn’t important, instead it’s the vision and seeing a path to achieving it that is interesting. Leading is the ability to see an end result, and bring people along the path to get there. Therein lies one of it’s challenges - you have to get people to follow you to that destination. For me, figuring out how to convince others that my goal is worthwhile is part of the fun. Not only does it challenge my view points (and help improve my idea), it helps foster stronger connections with my teammates.

Here leading goes beyond pointing at some distant point and saying “go there” and extends into being part of the journey and solution. Just like giving someone directions to the post office isn’t leading them (you’d have to actually walk with them there) leaders don’t just sit back and give pointers. Leaders are part of the journey to the destination they envision. They share in the successes and challenges with those they lead, and help the group reach the destination together. Frequently it feels like many projects suffer due to a lack of leadership - someone seeing the way forward.

Managing

Another term for managing is “to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction”.  This implies that one is placed into this, and that one’s power to do those things is reliant on someone behind a bigger desk.  It would, for example, be very hard to just decide to start managing a team or process at work without your boss (or someone else) making it official (although it would be an interesting exercise in confidence to just walk in and take something over like that).

Frequently we focus on the “supervisory” and “executive” parts of that definition, which makes sense; they’re the most apparent in most jobs. Line workers reports to their supervisors, CEO’s manage their companies. Titles frequently have “Manager” or “Team Lead” in them to indicate some amount of power over subordinates.

Managing doesn’t solely relate to managing people, however, which is where the “administrative” part comes in.  Process managers are individuals who keep an eye on processes and are incredibly important.  These individuals serve as the main point of contact for decisions about a system or process. While they may also manage others, it is not necessary. Executive assistants are another example; they manage their manager’s calendars, schedules and other tasks without directing others.

I’ve always been intrigued by this multiple meaning, and found it very interesting when an individual wants to be a “manager”. They’re very rarely referring to the administrative part, and almost always fixated on the “supervisory” part, likely because it is perceived as the only way to progress or improve in one’s career, something that is incorrect.

What’s the difference?

A leader is someone who steps up, points at a destination and goes (with or without followers).  A manager is someone who occupies an official capacity and ensure whatever resources are available are being used properly (be they people, equipment, etc).  It is entirely possible for an individual to be both a leader and a manager at the same time, or just manage, or just lead, or neither. None of these combinations is inherently better or worse than the other, just different. The higher up one goes in an organization, however, the more likely it is they’ll take on a blend of roles. A CEO, for example, must both manager and lead.

Many of us get it stuck in our head that unless we are officially ordained to do something, we can’t/shouldn’t do it. The thinking is that unless someone higher up (your boss, the CEO, whatever) decides to do something, it doesn’t need doing.  This is entirely backwards.  There can only be so many official managers/leaders at any given company.  This means their sight is limited and guarantees they will miss something, or that they simply will not have time to get to everything.  This opens space for leadership to occur at all levels, not just those “official” ones. This allows “non-official” leaders at all levels to step up and, well, lead.

At the end of it all

Both managing and leading also be practiced at any scale. There’s always small projects the need leadership (those little things that annoy you, but aren’t “important” enough to make official), and we all manage SOMETHING in our lives (finances, computer use, etc.). The largest difference I have seen is that leading can be done by anyone in almost any circumstance, whereas managing generally has some conditions that need to be in place (e.g. being made a manager). It’s important not to get stuck in a mental trap that the only way forward in your career is to be a manager or leader, and instead focus on the impact you can make.