By Joseph Diescho
In the previous three offerings, in an attempt to illustrate that leadership and management are not the same thing, we have established a few conclusions: One, that even though very often the functions of leadership and management converge and are executed by the same people, they are essentially not the same. Two that those who make history are those who are leaders who originate processes, not managers who carry out policies and programmes set by leaders. And three, that leaders are self-made whereas managers can be trained at an institution. Caution was also given that this distinction does not seek to diminish the importance of one over the other, but to demonstrate that they are both necessary and ought to be appreciated differently and whenever necessary, applied with dexterity. Equally, alert was issued that those who manage must be content to manage and not try too hard to be leaders as they face different circumstances altogether and their levels of success measured, recorder and historicised very differently.
It is very important to understand and appreciate that the success of both leadership and management resides where the two functions intersect. Therefore, it is helpful to attach some capital to leadership in management and management in leadership, as one without the other, could be hollow. We also need to realise that in any of the languages we speak in Namibia, the difference between leaders and managers is very elusive and in the context of our colonial history on the one hand and liberation political struggle on the other, the distinction of these two phenomena is even more blurred as we conflate everything that has to do with decision making is seen as leadership.
More about managers: Historically managers are those individuals who were seen to plan, budget and control the process that was already conceptualised and set in motion (by others), and were not perceived to define the need for change or moving forward. Managers were seen to maintain defined structures and processes and turn them into successes with the aid of available resources, be they human, material and/or other. They were those individuals who turned the vision and objectives of leaders into reality by the use of control mechanisms and methods of reward and punishment to accomplish pre-determined objectives and set targets.
Managers embrace all duties and functions that pertain to the initiation of an enterprise
Manager’s work with and through established rules and formally established groups to pursue pre-set and defined goals.
Managers plan, organise and control others to accomplish pre-determined objectives.
Managers essentially get things done through people through established rules and regulations.
Managers know what is required and see to it that it gets done in the best and cheapest way.
Managers manage the process and agency, which directs and guides the operations of an organisation in meeting already, established goals and objectives.
Managers make cooperative efforts to make coordination of a system work.
To summarise the main differences between leaders and managers, it is safe to say that leaders have authority whereas managers have power. Authority is the ability to make others realise that the one person giving instructions has the power to make things happen with them as the doers. Power is the ability to get things done the way one wants even in the face of resistance.
Let us narrow down the difference between leaders and managers even more:
Leaders foster change–managers sustain systems
Leaders change the way people think–managers maintain what is desirable
Leaders innovate–managers administer
Leaders develop–managers sustain
Leaders develop people–managers control people
Leaders rely on people–managers rely on systems
Leaders think strategically about tomorrow–managers systematically about today
Leaders do the right things–managers do things right
Leaders are original–managers imitate
Leaders inspire trust–managers spread fear and vulnerability
Leaders have their eyes on the horizon–managers focus on the bottom line
Leaders question the status quo–managers defend the status quo
Leaders are their own persons–managers are classic good soldiers
Leaders are concerned and worry about others–managers care and worry only about themselves
Leaders prepare others to be ready–managers prevent others from being ready and independent
Leaders dream big–managers measure short-term gains
Leaders take risks–managers avoid risks
Leaders discern–managers judge
Leaders have followers–managers have subordinates
Leaders notice others when they do well–managers want to be noticed themselves all the time
Leaders welcome the future–managers fear the future
Leaders enable and make space for others–managers program others
Leaders give credit whenever and wherever it is due–managers take credit even for what they did not do
Leaders are facilitators–managers are bosses
Leaders ask–managers tell
Leaders rejoice in their followers’ success–managers are tormented by the success of others
Leaders encourage diversity–managers require conformity
Leaders ask what and why–managers ask how and when
Leaders serve–managers are served
To paraphrase an old Eastern teaching, a leader says: Do not follow me for I may not lead, do not lead me for I may not follow, just walk by my side and let us together co-create the world. A manager says: Follow me for I am your boss and I say so.