There are different differences in leadership and management. Sometimes you can keep them separate and sometimes you have to be both a manager and a leader. Here's the difference between leadership and management, as well as some tips on integrating the two.
Leadership and management are two different ideas and actions. In many organizations, leaders and executives are the same people. The difference is how you, as a leader and manager, separate the tasks of two states – and try to find ways to integrate them at the same time. Generally, leadership can be defined as a vision and goal or strategy. On the other hand, the management of the samples or the goal is. If you are a manager and leader, you must compare two. If you brought you without management, you put a policy without an idea of how to succeed. But if you run out of control, do you find people in your business wondering why they do what they do. Allowed, in some organizations, the senior or executive manager can really lead, that is, setting a policy, while the server or managers are performing. Let us look at the true difference between management and leadership and find out how to integrate them.
One of the first major differences between leadership and management is the idea of change. A leader must start a change – it's all the idea of setting a strategy or a new goal. As most organizations know, change is difficult and sometimes uncomfortable. The leader sets the change as positive, explains why the change is made and puts either to manage it or allow a group of managers to do that. However, the manager must respond to the change when he is faced with changes and then hold the position quo – until another change is included. Management is implementing adaptation and maintenance – not necessarily determining changes that need to take place.
Another difference between leadership and management is the individual's appearance on the company. Leaders take a look at the bird "or" 50,000 feet "view of the organization and its circumstances. From this point of view, the leader can look at the big picture – how does the agency work, what processes are related to any area and what changes will make things more efficient and cost effective. although it is consistent with the big picture, it must continue to look at the film, what is happening right in his area. This is not a short perspective, but a view that can control the nuts and bolts of the unit.
Leaders and managers must also take different views on processes and procedures. The leader is concerned about overall processes. Remember that from the bird's point of view, the leader can see which method is effective and who are not. Monitoring in processing can come from the main leader, but the procedures or the implementation of the new processes are Management Mode. Administrators with microscreens can do broad performance of its procedures in order to be able to proceed from beginning to end. In parallel with the same lines, the leader can even define the appropriate outcome, so the process changes to other managers. In this situation, the leader can say that the time it takes to complete "Method X" is too long – the result is a shorter time limit. Managers need to worry about the devices that will help them achieve the desired results – for example, new equipment might need to shorten the timeframe for X's process and the manager must have knowledge of the devices to make this recommendation.
Motivation and control are also two other differences in leadership and management. Leader should provide motivation – After all, the leader is putting new instructions. He or she must be prepared to motivate by explaining why changes occur and what the consequences are. Motivation should also come from "kudos" for jobs that are well done and for improvement – this also means that incentives must be an incentive for incompetence. Managing Director may need to take control after leadership leadership issues. This does not mean that the administrator has to manage or manage people or processes. This means that the manager must take a firm grip on the process and ensure that people complete their tasks.
There are obviously varieties between leadership and management, and we have only discussed a few here. But what if you are, as managers become increasingly, manager and leader? How can you unite and balance both sides of leadership / management equation? Sometimes there is a question of points: you may need to start a change and motivation, then turn right and control the processes and tools. There may be an easier way to look at the integration of management and leadership. According to Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, managing less is a great way to simply be a leader and manager all depends on one. When Welch initially looked at his executives, he felt that they were too close and did not give employees enough width to make decisions on their own within the framework. He changed managers to "create a vision" for employees and always make sure that the future vision was at a target – if the management horizon could not be changed.
The most common argument of Welch's theory is that managers need to manage – they must be aware of what is happening at all times. Welch expects: relax. Allow people to perform. Obviously, if there is a problem, you may have to revert to the manager and go down to the start of the release. But by focusing on ultimate success and letting people get there, you encourage yourself to attract attention and motivation. You also allow a new group of leaders to appear.
Be aware of the difference between management and leadership. Use both wisely as an integrated way of encouraging, but also to ensure that the teams are on track.