Managers vs. Leaders: What’s the Difference?

How can you recognize when a manager has real leadership potential? As one client put it, “Managers do things right, while leaders do the right things.” He views managers as implementers, and leaders as initiators.

There is, however, an overlap. In some ways it can be easier to pinpoint what a manager does. We can list things like financial analysis, market planning or human resources management for that matter. Leaders, on the other hand, create visions. They are inspiring. They do not merely provide direction, but create the music, orchestrate the resources and create environments that realize new achievements.

While managers and leaders share many similar qualities, a manager’s performance carries far fewer risks than a leader’s performance. In addition, there seems to be a difference in the underlying motivational characteristics of these two groups.

This is not to say that everyone, at some given point or time, is not capable of leading. All of us can rise to the occasion, realize that this is our moment and lead a crowd of people out of a burning building—or answer some other immediate cause. All of us can become situational leaders. The difference with true leaders however, is that leading is at their core. It is part of their character, their style—it’s a real, underlying sense of purpose.

In a recent Caliper study, more than 300 presidents and chief executive officers cited what they consider the most important—and the most difficult aspects—of being a leader. “Surrounding oneself with the right people” was selected 41% of the time, second only to “creating the right vision” as one of the most critical parts of leadership.

“Surrounding oneself with the right people” was also selected as one of the three most difficult aspects of being an effective leader—just behind “maintaining momentum” and “developing staff.”

These chief executives said three main factors keep most managers from becoming leaders: not understanding others well enough, not solving problems quickly enough and not taking necessary risks.

The study also asked the perennial question: Is leadership predominantly something you are born with or that you develop through experience? Respondents said they felt they were born with 40% of their leadership ability and developed the remaining 60% through experience.

What personality qualities account for this 40% of innate leadership ability? The study assessed the personality strengths of these chief executives and found they were adept at influencing and directing others, skillful at building relationships and masterful at solving problems and making decisions. In essence, these leaders are extremely bright, assertive, driven to persuade, empathic and resilient. Having a need to get things accomplished, they are willing to take risks. They are also moderately sociable, demonstrate a healthy level of skepticism and are motivated to come up with new ideas.

That’s a very strong profile that most managers just don’t measure up to. Instead, most successful managers are rather conservative. They succeed by working within established guidelines, which is exactly why they were hired.

And therein lays the dilemma most companies face: How can potential leaders rise through the ranks of management? If they maintain the status quo, their leadership skills won’t be recognized. If they rock the boat, other managers may feel threatened and try to subvert them.

Identifying and developing future leaders is one of the most important challenges facing chief executives today. Yet most organizations have a tendency to suffocate potential leaders.

Certainly a hallmark of an effective leader is to create a vision for the company’s future. Essential to that vision is recognizing the potential in future leaders, mentoring, coaching and developing them, giving them responsibility early and realizing that a very different type of leader may be needed for tomorrow than exists today.
the Difference?

Herbert M. Greenberg is president and CEO of Caliper.