Managers and Leaders Different but Complementary

Leadership and management are often assumed to mean the same thing or are at least very similar (Briggs, 2015). Both involve controlling people towards the accomplishment of agreed goals. Some sources, however, emphasize their differences. They say that a leader inspires what a manager plans for execution or implementation. A leader praises and a manager criticizes, they also say. A manager directs while a leader asks questions. But in most cases, the attributes of one are also found or expected in the other. And either can be effective or ineffective (Briggs).

But a leader is central to an organization (Robbins, 2015). That is why he leads. He is taken by the company to inspire or motivate all organizational ranks to blend and achieve common goals as one force. Like a manager, his inspiration sets the direction and transmits this direction to everyone within the organization. It is his work to encourage all the members of the organization to coordinate efforts with eagerness. Although a manager sets the formal direction of the organization, the leader sets that direction in a less stringent way.

A leader also raises the morale of everyone and fosters courage in times of crisis and uncertainty (Robbins). A manager, nonetheless, has an equally valuable and irreplaceable role in the organization (Robbins, 2015). He creates systems, rules, and operating procedures whereby to fulfill the goals of the organization. He follows this up with the mechanics for implementation. In order to insure implementation, he sets up incentive programs for those who are responsible for implementing specific goals and programs (Robbins).

Most organizations require common skills from both the leader and the manager (Robbins, 2015). Their respective skills are both necessary for the smooth operation and success of the organization, especially if it is a large one. A leader sets the active direction, which the manager sets down as a formal rule or guide. Both of them move in the same direction or towards one destination. Large businesses or organizations can afford to hire many managers to insure the accomplishment of their overall goals.

But a manager is not only destined for planning and evaluating how far these goals are being achieved. He is also supposed to lead effectively. The owner of a business or top official of an organization may think that his job is confined to leading but he must also manage the organization. Managing is getting the policies obeyed and implemented. But leading is directing the flow of activities towards the one end of organizational or business success.

This dual activity requires the skills of both a leader and a manager (Robbins). Everyone knows that only the highest officials in an organization dictate the goals, mission and vision of an organization (Robbins, 2015). Goals are concrete, measurable and have time requirements. A manager is hired to put organizational resources in attaining them. But setting the direction for that attainment is altogether different. A leader sets that direction in the heart of employees. He impresses the importance of the mission and operating principles of the organization.

He infuses them with its values. He endeavors to reach their emotion and create a connection between the goals and their welfare but in a real and sincere way. The leader struggles to make employees see their importance in the very existence of the organization. He stresses the dynamism of that co-existence. And he makes the organization's mission appealing by.