There has been a lot of politically correct pontificating late in corporate circles about the differences between managers and leaders. Most of the comments have I read attempts to please both viewers. Those who have read my work in the past know that I rarely are politically correct nor try to always try to please all people all the time.
While there is clearly a need for both executives and leaders in the business world and while I value and have developed close friendship with many CEOs, this author simply believes that the shortcoming is in the field. There is infinitely greater supply of managers that leads to much higher demand for leaders. Simply put, because leaders are much harder to come with, they are therefore more valuable for companies.
The above point indicates why there are fewer leaders than managers? I think it's because not everyone is in them to be a leader and then the old axiominn "born leader". Own quality leadership often starts with nothing but raw materials and a certain state of mind. Being guided by the leaders, however, is not the same as being a leader. As important as DNA, successful leadership skills are developed and refined by time, experience and true desire to be more than just a manager than true leader.
Let break DNA as a typical leader … The leader is usually a very creative, dynamic, infinite and unobtrusive person. They tend to think about a big picture focusing on vision and direction while looking for long-term effects. Let's, however, look at the DNA manager. Managers are usually analytical but focused on processes and procedures are looking for short-term contributions. The following list adapted from the manager, Craig Hickman, John Wiley & Sons leader, shows the DNA gap between leaders and managers:
Managers build systems and procedures, Leaders build team and develop talent.
Managers surround themselves with subordinates and leaders around them with the best and brightest.
Managers eliminate risk and leaders thrive on risk.
Managers find comfort in the status quo & Leaders serve as an impetus for change and growth.
Managers for industry standards and leaders demand the best.
Managers operate while leaders apply influence.
Managers of command and leaders prompt.
Managers formulate policies and leaders set examples.
Managers guide … Leaders suggested.
Managers are receptive while leaders are preventive.
Managers plan … Leaders of innovation.
Managers adapt … Leaders revolutionized.
Managers reorganiz … Leaders reinvested.
Managers pursue tangible while leaders seek intangible.
We have all witnessed companies that have been successful in the absence of leadership. Once leadership has been assigned to corporate management, you will always find growth slowing down, moral decline, creativity decreases, and competitive edge weakens. By saying, I personally have experienced the value of true leadership in all stages of my life from the sports stadium, to military battle in the boardroom. Consider an example of leadership leadership from each of the three areas:
o Example of the World of Athletes … If you were the owner of the NFL election and had to choose between # 1 quarterback in the league or # 1 center in the league what would be your choice? However, this does not mean that a large center is not valuable, it just means that the role play is not as valuable to the team and has the talent and leadership of the truth. Simply reflect on your own life experience and you'll see that you've come across many utility players over the years, but very few game consoles.
o Military example … Contrast if you make the difference between two motivated men with the same status. The fist is a headquarters manager, managed by the company's administrative assistance. Another sergeant is a fighter in special business units who are responsible for coordinating groundworks on the ground behind enemies. While both men described above have the same status, they are part of the team and play important roles, one clearly influenced player is in the forefront, but the other is the sole utility of a manager who is in charge of management. The Hernum has decided that it is a rare person who shows the features necessary to become a member of a particular business unit. As a result, they are willing to make much more investment in the fighter, and instead, the army expects a much larger contribution of the individual.
o Company example … This example will be short and sweaty, but hopefully very clear in the statement of impact. Who considers you more valuable and makes a bigger contribution to a company, someone who manages strategy and creates a process or someone who sets policies and creates policies? Just check the difference between the two pay-per-viewer bills above and you'll easily see which company thinks to be higher.
I want to be clear that I'm not an "anti" manager. However, I am a very "professional" leader when it comes to maximizing the talent in any organization. My headline toward leadership does not mean that I do not understand the principles behind such truisms as: "there is no" I "in the team" or "the sum of things is greater than anything" or that "a chain is just as strong as its the weakest link. "Simply simply, I simply believe that you get a much greater return on manpower with investment in leadership because of the scope and extent of impact the leader can do. As a result, I'd rather lead rather than manage and lead rather than manage.