Leaders and Managers - The Same or Not?

In the corporate world, those who work hard with initiative, integrity, and pride often get promoted to become a manager or a leader.

But what's the difference between a manager and a leader?

If you are a manager, you are responsible for controlling "things". If you're a leader, you live by universal and timeless principle that never change. As a leader, you have moral authority - you focus more on "people" rather than things.

There is a never-ending debate in the manager vs. leader topic. I say there's no need to debate about it. A manager who cannot lead will run out of steam while a leader who cannot manage will run out of functions.

To briefly summarize:

• Managers - control things (technical - deadlines, action items, etc.)
  
• Leaders - influence people (behavioral - empowerment, support, etc.)
  
  

Each and everyone of us should strive to be a leader, whether it's a given position or not. Mahatma Gandhi was a leader yet he held no formal authority - no position. Really, what I'm trying to suggest is that if you want to be an effective individual, you need to focus on controlling things by influencing people.

By controlling things, I don't mean that you act like Hitler, I mean that you direct resources responsibly with due diligence to complete predetermined goals or projects. And by influencing people, I don't mean that you take advantage or be manipulative, I mean that you treat them fairly because the only way to make them do anything is if they want to. Believe it.

Should you be a manager and a leader at the same time? Whether at work, home, or at a social function - the answer is yes. As a managing leader or a leading manager, you are now responsible for controlling "things" by influencing "people". Handling technical issues is important but handling people issues is even more important. You know what things that need to get done - now go and influence those who need to get things done.

Goals don't delay deadlines nor complete themselves - people do.