Leadership vs. Management: Key Differences Explained

Leadership and management are two inescapable facts of daily life. Almost every entity — from political formations, to football clubs, to organizations and companies — has people at the helm who are supposed to provide strategic direction and guidance. The question that remains unanswered for most people is whether these individuals should be referred to as managers or leaders. The debate over whether any difference exists between leadership and management has continued for a long period of time. While some believe that leadership and management are distinct, others hold the view that the two concepts overlap. Still others are of the opinion that the two terms are, in essence, synonymous. Among those who deem the two concepts distinct, some argue that leadership and management are mutually exclusive — that a competent manager cannot make a good leader, and vice versa.

It would be easy to refer to all managers as leaders. However, one could reasonably ask whether leadership is exercised by all managers. It should also be noted that there are individuals in positions of leadership who have no management roles or duties. Given that the two terms continue to be used interchangeably in some settings, there is a need to determine whether any meaningful difference exists between leadership and management. This is especially important given the need to better understand both concepts with an aim of finding out how leadership and management skills can best be nurtured and further enhanced. In today's dynamic world, and given the vigorous nature of modern workplaces, it is important to determine what exactly constitutes leadership and management and how leaders and managers fit within those settings. The relevance of highlighting the differences — if any — between leadership and management therefore cannot be overstated.

Is there any difference between leadership and management? Over time, the terms leadership and management have been used synonymously. However, there are those who argue that the two are inherently distinct. There is a need to determine whether the two concepts share roles, duties, and mandates. Also, in an attempt to find out whether and how the two concepts are connected, the unique functions and activities of both ought to be highlighted.

In seeking to highlight differences between leadership and management, it is necessary to define the terms separately in order to determine whether they converge or intersect. Various definitions of leadership have been offered over time. As a matter of fact, it has often been said that the existing definitions of leadership are as many as the persons who have defined the term. According to Kellerman (as cited in Rost, 1993), "leadership is the process by which one individual consistently exerts more impact than others on the nature and direction of group activity" (p. 72). As Rost (1993) points out, this definition is largely focused on the viewpoint of "do-as-the-leader's-wishes" (p. 72). One key aspect of this definition is consistency. A person who influences the course and conduct of a given group for a short period of time and then loses that influence cannot be regarded as a true leader under this definition. A group in this context could be made up of any number of people, and its mandate could vary widely. Those who fit Kellerman's definition include, but are not limited to, religious leaders such as the Pope and political leaders such as heads of state.

Yet another scholar who has attempted to define leadership is Gardner. According to Gardner (as cited in Rost, 1993), "leadership is the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and his or her followers" (p. 72). The defining aspect of this definition is that a leader need not necessarily be an individual — a "leader" could comprise a team of people exerting influence over an even larger group. Gardner also identifies two key ingredients of leadership: example and persuasion. This means that a leader must not only be persuasive enough to win the confidence of followers, but must also lead by example. Additionally, as per Gardner's definition, the objectives pursued could either be shared by leader and followers or held solely by the leader, with the leader in the latter case persuading followers to adopt the same positions.

Others who have contributed definitions of leadership include Northouse and Nahavandi. A leader, according to Nahavandi (as cited in Ricketts and Ricketts, 2010), is "any person who influences individuals and groups within an organization, helps them in the establishment of goals, and guides them toward the achievement of those goals, thereby allowing them to be effective" (p. 5). Northouse (as cited in Ricketts and Ricketts, 2010), on the other hand, views leadership as a process occasioned by the influence of a group by an individual, with that influence directed toward the accomplishment of a specific objective.

A review of definitions of leadership would not be complete without highlighting the definition found in Stogdill's leadership handbook. Bertocci (2009) notes that the handbook is widely accepted as an authoritative source on matters of leadership. According to Stogdill (as cited in Bertocci, 2009), "leadership occurs when one group member modifies the motivation or competencies of others in the group" (p. 5). Under this view, leadership is not necessarily elective — a person could assume a position of leadership in a group setting without being expressly elected to that role. Stogdill (as cited in Bertocci, 2009) further holds that "leaders are agents of change, persons whose acts affect other people more than other people's acts affect them" (p. 5). By describing leaders as agents of change, Stogdill acknowledges that through their influence, leaders often bring about change — whether positive or negative. This definition also underscores the importance of persuasion in leadership. As Bertocci observes, Stogdill's definition places great emphasis on the ability of a leader to influence the behavior of others, and persuasion is a critical skill in that regard.

As Ricketts and Ricketts (2010) note, more than three hundred and fifty definitions of leadership have been offered over the past seven decades. From the definitions reviewed above, several key leadership characteristics emerge — characteristics that will be useful in determining what differences, if any, exist between leadership and management.

Having reviewed various definitions of leadership, it is equally important to consider how management has been defined by scholars and practitioners. Management, according to Armstrong and Stephens (2005), "is about deciding what to do and then getting it done through people" (p. 3). As the authors further explain, people are a key resource through which management is exercised — indeed, all other resources are managed through people. Given that overall resource management is entrusted to managers, Armstrong and Stephens (2005) also propose a broader definition: management is concerned with "deciding what to do and then getting it done through the effective use of resources" (p. 3).