Let us consider how leaders acquire authority and/or power. The Italian theorist of power Nichollo Machiavelli pointed out in his book The Prince that in order for a leader to be effective in leading others, he must be either feared or revered or both. History seems to prove this point to be correct. Leaders such as Shaka Zulu kaSenzangakhona and Mandume yaNdemufayo were feared. Leaders such as Nelson Mandela are revered. The rest of them fall in between, depending on how people are disaffected at certain points in the trajectory of such leaders.
Change in conditions and circumstances also affect the levels of referring and fearing. For instance, in the beginning of the rulership of Adolf Hitler, he was revered by many Germans who were moved by his unusual tenacity to interpret their conditions after the First World War in a manner that he made them see themselves and their conditions for the better if they followed his vision of a better Germany, or Lebensraum, that they followed him blindly until things changed when they were victims in and of the process.
In the schemes of the games of politics, leaders are characterized by the extent to which they have power or authority or both. In studies of these matters, theorists suggest that power is that ability to get things the way one wants in the face of resistance. Power is generally acquired through military, physical or psychological force by vanquishing others. It is also acquired by coercion through manufacturing consent by way of propaganda, manipulation, misinformation and miseducation. Power can also be attained by means of inducement such as imposing sanctions in order to cause submission and compliance. It can be acquired through persuasion such as fancy talk and demagoguery whereby the rest is hoodwinked and cajoled through the power of oratory and metaphor. Power can be accumulated through a process whereby one person gets to be accepted to have earned the right to order, reorder and even forbid things from happening.
Authority on the other hand has different sources. Key amongst the sources of authority is hereditary rights, by which certain individuals are born into families with lineages of unquestionable authority. The King/Queen of England, the Netherlands, Norway, Swaziland and the likes of many of our traditional authorities come to mind here. They do not have to know or do anything, but are guaranteed leadership with absolute authority simply by virtue of being born into the royal family. Some acquire authority by virtue of connections.
Knowledge that one knew Nelson Mandela intimately is likely to give such a person some recognition to possess qualities of leadership compared to enemies of Mandela. Levels of knowledge, skills and expertise can offer a person authority to lead. For instance, in one of the South African Bantustans, Ciskei, upon the attainment of independence, the president needed people to appoint as cabinet ministers. There were very few people with knowledge and skills for ministries such that he appointed a relative of his who was a taxi driver as minister of transport, as he was the only one with knowledge of the homeland’s roads, and people accepted him as such. Competence is another source of authority. One of the good traits of the evolving Namibian political leadership system is the ability of our leaders to cast their eyes on the wider horizon to identify and elect the best and most competent citizens into positions of leadership.
People also acquire authority by reference – when a departing legitimate leader pronounces a preference of his/her successor. Then there are those who are seen as authoritative by virtue of the level of information they possess about a certain problem or experience such that others will defer to them to lead them. This is what is often referred to as situational leadership. People can accumulate authority by way of their magnanimity and good work to others such that others would look up to them as special human beings and reward them with power and decision making on their behalf. Almost in all situations of leaders with authority, there is an essential factor, namely, charisma or that admiration that others have for the leader that they believe and internalized that he knows more, and with him/her around conditions can only get better.
Let us sketch more succinctly and schematically the most common differences between leaders and managers. In an attempt to illustrate that leadership and management are not the same thing, we can establish 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 programs set by leaders. And three, that leaders are self-made whereas managers can be trained at an institution. Caution is 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 but ought to be appreciated differently and whenever necessary, applied with dexterity. Equally, alert is 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 are measured, recorded and historicized 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 realize 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 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;
• Managers work with and through established rules and formally established groups to pursue pre-set and defined goals;
• Managers plan, organize, 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 that it gets done in the best and cheapest way;
• Managers manage the process and agency which directs and guides the operations of an organization in meeting already established goals and objectives;
• Managers make cooperative efforts to coordinate a system of work.
To summarize 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 realize 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.