What is the difference between a leader and a manager?

Introduction: Fashion labels?

It’s become a bit of a fashion to call all managers leaders. However, deep down, when you think of a leader, you think about a political leader, an army general, someone at the top of their industry, an innovator, or your organisation’s CEO.

You have probably seen countless infographics on social media with catchy phrases of what a Manager vs. leader does to their teams, usually negative towards managers.

But what’s the difference between a leader and a manager? Can you call them all leaders?

The terms are interchangeable when discussing organisational dynamics, productivity, and team efficiency. Both are quintessential for the growth and success of an organisation and often, qualities of leadership span over other roles, not only people managers but also aspiring individual contributors who want to rise through the ranks of the organisation quickly.

The Historical Perspective

Historically, leaders were often warriors or monarchs. At the same time, managers were the planners, the logistic experts ensuring resources were in place for conquests or ceremonies, so your initial thinking about politics or army leaders comes from there.

Today, leaders are visionaries in large organisations, and managers turn those visions into reality. But as their career aspirations grow, they want to exhibit leadership capability to be recognised and promoted. Much has to do with the type of organisation and culture you work in. If your career is important to you, there is an element of choice about who you want to work for.

Vision vs. Execution: The Difference

Leaders are often regarded as the North Star. They provide direction, set the broader vision, and offer a sense of purpose. They think in terms of what can be rather than what is. They envisioned groundbreaking products and solutions initially beyond the market's understanding. Think of tech visionaries or leaders of influential people movements across cultures.

Managers are the cartographers. They draw the map to reach the North Star. Their primary focus is on execution: setting plans, assigning roles, ensuring the timely completion of tasks, and achieving short-term goals to make the broader vision a reality. It’s those with line management responsibility in any job.

Yes, I hear you. Most companies blend those roles at the senior manager level and above – senior managers are expected to set a functional vision or a vision for a wider team, focus and instil a sense of purpose in their teams whilst at the same time - keeping a strong hold over the results, metrics, day to day performance and delivery on quarterly goals. Not forgetting the development of their teams on a regular basis.

Motivation vs. Control: People Dynamics

Leaders thrive on inspiring their teams. They motivate through encouragement, trust, and by setting examples. They believe in empowering individuals fostering a culture where each person feels their role is integral to the collective success.

Managers, on the other hand, ensure that the team stays on track. They monitor progress, address issues, set guidelines, and sometimes apply controls to ensure the task at hand is accomplished effectively. They are the custodians of discipline and order.

With Gen Z joining Millennials and firmly in the workplace, the expectation on those with people responsibility is that they would be leaders for us all – as coaches and mentors, nurturing, developing and inspiring. Whilst what they have to do as part of their jobs is manage the resources, including the workforce, data and analytics, ensuring maximum productivity from their people, often restructuring and reducing headcount.

And here is where the fundamental friction of the roles as they are today lies: to keep up with the expectations and demands of both roles. Adding to the mix of managers'/leaders' own career aspirations and expectations from those above them, burnout and well-being issues are prominent.

Risk-Taking vs. Risk Management: Approach to Challenges

Leaders are meant to be more receptive to taking risks. They understand that innovation requires stepping into the unknown. They're willing to take that leap of faith, driven by intuition and a belief in their vision.

Managers are meant to be the shield bearers. They prioritise stability and consistency, ensuring the boat remains steady even in turbulent waters. They are risk-averse, focusing on troubleshooting and risk mitigation.

This theory is just that – a theory. The individual styles and approaches shape what people do in their roles – as first-time managers, senior managers, directors, senior directors or C-suite executives. Risk-taking and risk-management come from capability and skill that can be trained through leadership training and real-life exposure/experience but also from personality traits and natural appetite, confidence and self-belief. The measure of how much of which is right often comes from the organisation’s culture and the tone set by those in the most senior roles.

Building Relationships vs. Building Systems

Leaders invest heavily in relationships. They recognise the value of emotional intelligence, camaraderie, and mutual respect. They often play the role of mentors, guiding their team members towards personal and professional growth.

Managers excel in structuring processes. They set systems in place, workflows, and protocols to ensure efficiency. Their success is measured by how seamlessly their systems function, providing productivity and reducing bottlenecks.

Does this feel right to you? The expectation of the modern people manager is to build and cultivate relationships as only through the right impact, influence and culture can they motivate and engage their teams to facilitate results. If you have someone focused on workflows and protocols, they would most likely face a huge staff turnover or stop their career at the level of a technical lead/individual contributor.

Emotional intelligence has become a foundation for all roles requiring impact and influence, regardless of people's responsibility or individual contributors. It is one of the most telling factors of career success today.

Strategic Thinking vs. Tactical Thinking

Leaders are often in the realm of strategic thinking. They consider long-term implications, anticipating future trends, challenges, and opportunities. They ponder upon the "Why" of actions and decisions.

Managers excel in tactical thinking. Their prowess lies in addressing the "How". They focus on short-term goals, immediate problem-solving, and ensuring daily operations align with the broader strategy.

This is a test for leadership capability and career growth in the day-to-day talent management planning. The more strategic and long-term you can think and plan, the more visible you are on the ‘leadership bench’, talented individual contributors who could be developed into leaders, i.e. promoted into more senior roles over time.

Flexibility vs. Consistency

Leaders are adaptable. They understand that change is the only constant, especially in dynamic markets. They're open to revising strategies based on evolving circumstances.

Managers prioritise consistency. They ensure that processes run as designed, day in and day out. They ensure that quality standards are met consistently, and deviations are corrected.

This dichotomy depends very much on the industry, the organisational structure and culture, and the types of roles people are in. Are those in positions with people responsibility expected to be people managers or technical experts, what background do they need to succeed in their roles? An HR Director’s role in a services company will be very different to that of a Head of Production Department in a product-led company.

Then again, people’s expectations influence what good looks like in this space, including what leadership skills and approaches they want to flourish in their roles.

Conclusion: A blend of qualities and responsibilities influenced by purpose and people engagement

In theory, a visionary leader's ideas would remain abstract without a manager's execution prowess. A manager's efficiency needs direction and purpose, which a leader provides.

In organisational cultures that are hierarchical that used to be the case, but in today’s movement towards more flat-structured and informal cultures there is a blend of capabilities that are needed from people at all levels to meet the ever-increasing complexity of matrix organisations and people expectations.

The best talent working for an organisation crave leadership, purpose, engagement and growth in their roles, influencing the blend of leadership and management approaches they need. Adapting to this is critical to the development of the company overall.

I would encourage you to think less about the difference between Manager vs leader and more about what leadership skills you want to develop to show up at work the best way you can for others, from your customers to your team to your stakeholders.

---

Sign up for my Saturday newsletter Leading Self & Others, for my thoughts and practical tips on creating leadership impact and high-performance.