There are three unavoidable questions that always crop up when attempting to delineate the distinction between leadership and management, namely: Are leaders and/or managers born or made? Which is more important than the other, and are the function of leadership and the function of management mutually exclusive. In normal life, the terms leadership and management are used interchangeably and most people cannot see the difference between a leader and a manager. Even leaders and managers themselves are confused about what functions they carry out and in the end all believe that they are leaders. Yet they are not the same. There are as different arguments as there are people offering answers to these questions, and answering one might lead to having to manage the others.
Different situations call for different choices on this matter yet it can be argued that in light of modern history, there is more of a shortage of leaders than there is of managers. Historically and ontologically management follows upon leadership, not the other way around. It is therefore logical to argue that a leader can become a manager but a manager cannot become a leader that easily. Put simplistically, before anything is managed there must be a conceptual framework of that which is to be administered or managed, and this is where leadership inheres. Nothing can be managed if it does not exist in the first place and the origin of things always requires visioning and clarity, which is a central part of leadership.
Let us unravel this further. Leaders are followed by others on the basis of mixed yet positive feelings of hope, possibility of success, trust in the person leading, excitement about the idea as articulated by the leader, the opportunity for self-actualisation and a general faith in the aesthetic vision enunciated by the leader of a desired future state of affairs that can be achieved and which has the potential to benefit all.
There seems to be unanimity amongst leadership theoreticians that leaders and managers execute tasks and functions that are almost opposite in nature in that leadership as such strives towards delivering constructive change, movement and transformation in situations or organisations whereas management as such works towards order, stability to ensure consistency which in turn leads to efficient running of operations. In other words, a typical manager assures the longevity of a status quo that was brought about by a leader.
As pointed put in the previous installment, leadership on one hand is original and cannot be taught but must be learned. On the other hand, management can be taught at school. Managers in the man are trained in the art of project management and attunement of resources to comply with and satisfy established policies and set rules. Also one aspect is clear, namely that a person can manage on behalf of someone else but one cannot lead on behalf of someone else.
It must be emphasised that leadership and management, even though they are not the same thing, go hand in hand and any effort to have a watertight separation between them is likely to create more problems than solve existing ones. This is why more often than not they overlap and only a trained eye will delineate where leadership ends and management begins. Also, situations and contexts assist to both shape as well as separate the functions of leaders from those of managers. Leadership emerges more often in situations of crisis, the outcome of which is to be managed. This is when the confusion often creeps in. For instance, our own history of the liberation struggle demonstrates rather clearly that the people who pioneered the cause and mobilised others to join in the effort to fight for the national freedom of the country were leaders had very little to manage except their own convictions and fears. Others followed them and even became capable executioners of the programmes of the struggle. Leaders were those who were inspiring others and motivating the rest of us to begin to see the importance of and need for the country and nation to be liberated. The leaders are those who possessed the conviction, the foresight, the courage and the fortitude to communicate that the struggle was to be waged ‘by any means necessary!’ Then the leaders distributed various responsibilities, tasks and roles to managers who were to oversee the process in specified conditions and settings. Those who were given tasks had to report to the leaders on the progress and changes necessary as well as on the needs as they arose. As a matter of fact, the spirit of the struggle for national freedom and independence was powered by a leadership vision and spirit that all could associate with and commit to. The management of its consequences is what generates disagreements right now. This is so because leadership is about having a vision, and a vision is followed, not managed.
This ought to make clear that most people we have in positions of responsibility after independence are not leaders but managers of programs of the government and the state on the one hand and different entities and political formations on the other. Most of them are in executive positions that do not require any vision. They manage systems and processes by making sure that laws are executed to the letter and the programmes they carry out must be done in the best interests of existing organisations. Leaders create organisations that do not exist, managers maintain them. Appointed officials and officers are apparatchiks and the ‘nomenklatura’ of their respective appointing leader and organisations and therefore are by no means leaders, even though they fulfill important and necessary functions.
Michael Maccoby is among the theoreticians who maintain that management is a function that is exercised in any business whereas leadership is about a relationship between the leader and the led, the ruler and the ruled that in turn energises the organisation. They also instruct that managers are critical in the process of managing change and success as they make the vision of the leader work. While leaders provide the vision, articulate the direction, review the big picture for others and communicate how to tackle the hurdles along the road, managers take the vision and commit by providing time lines, resources and setting the agenda by orchestrating the human capital to make things happen in accord with the vision of the leader. What is essential is that there must be game plan set by the leader. This is why people talk about strategy, which is a war term describing the activity of the commander as he deploys, directs, positions and repositions his fighting men in combat. Hence the teaching that structure follows strategy, not the other way around.
It is also important to point out that leadership has two things that managers do not need to have to succeed in their operations, and that is authority and power. Managers are in the shadow of the power and authority of their appointing leader with authority. In other words, whereas leaders have a history of acquiring authority and power much more directly by themselves, either through history or raw power of might or intellect or charisma, the ability to instill into others a perception and appreciation that the leader is a cut above the rest and is in possession of supernatural powers such that others will benefit by following him/her, managers simply need to have knowledge of the operation and guarantee success by following rules and precepts.
By Joseph Diescho