Leaders vs Managers

Over the last couple of years I've thought a lot about the difference between a Manager and  a Leader. I've also had to learn in which camp I reside.

Throughout history there have always been leaders and managers. And that doesn't change in today's workplace (obviously) but it's important to understand what you are and also which one you're working for.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, in fact, I think organisations need both to be successful.
I am saying they are very different and recognising that is critical to you and your organisation's success.

Managers

Managers are, by their nature, list makers and list finishers. Management is often defined as a science and the more I learn, the more I understand why. Management is all about getting it done on time, on budget and on quality (or 2 of the 3 for Project Managers).

Managers thrive in having the order to the day understanding exactly how things will play out. For there people the big picture is important, but only in so much as how it impacts what they are doing right now.

Every organisation needs these people, especially the good ones. They are the people who clean up the loose ends, make sure the processes are up-to-date and followed, and make sure everything is done in a neat little package. They also want to be sure it's reproducible to become more efficient the next time.

If you want to identify a manager, look at his/her desk. It's neat, orderly and things stacked in piles. There's lots of coloured file folders and everything makes sense.

They also take a lot of notes in meetings. Very detailed notes.

Leaders

Leaders are different than managers. Leaders live in the "what's next" world. They also are much less concerned about the minute details of an project but much more focused on the "get it done" success factor. That is a great trait but it can cause as many problems as it solves if the Leader is always going in weird and odd places with the organisation.

Leaders are the ones who love the ambiguity and thrive when someone hands them a project with no direction other than "go figure this out."

If you want to identify a leader, look at his/her desk -- if you can find it. Desks are always a mess with random paper everywhere. Notes stuck to monitors and scribbled on pads of paper all over the place.

Whiteboards are the leaders friend... But they will look like an ink explosion until they are explained.

In meetings, from my experience, leaders take the notes they need. They quickly dismiss many portions of a meeting that don't apply to them.  And the notes are pretty much a mess.

Good leaders and good managers need each other

It's true. Any organization needs both good leaders AND good managers to truly be successful. A good leader will miss the small details and move on to the next project too quickly. Things will get left undone because something else came up.

Good managers need the leader to find what's next and temper the decision making away from purely process- or metrics-based reasoning.

 That's why you need to work with a good manager and a good leader to have the whole package.

A good manager will manage the swath of disorder that the leader produces. The good leader will stay (somewhat) on-side to be sure things don't get out of hand. Simply put, it's a partnership. The problem is most organizations don't tend to have both -- or at least don't treat them equally.

Managers call leaders reckless and incapable of following process

Leaders call managers rigid and mired in systems unable to see the big picture of their actions.

That's why they need to be brought together (Yin and the Yang) to succeed. Success exists not in the details but in the collective work of both.

On the surface this seems obvious, as with all simple truths. However, in practise this is really hard to master and create.

So which one am I?

I'm a leader. I like the ambiguity and love being given a random problem to figure out -- And I'm pretty good at it. In every organization in which I've ever worked, I was always given the hard, weird, convoluted problem and projects. I used to think it was almost a form of punishment. However I realised than in most cases, it was because people trusted me to just go figure it out. It was important, it needed to get done well, but it was too messed up to give to anyone else.

The problem was it meant my measure of success was always different. In stead of having an easy, on time project, it was for me, a miracle we didn't get fired (because we were about to). Or success looked like finishing a project at all because no one thought it was possible.

Also I fit this category because I create a path of disorder. I know I do it, but that's where I thrive. I'm not as bad as I used to be, and I do make sure I understand the processes and requirements. Once I know how the managers who work with me are measured and how their systems work I can make sure I keep them in situations where they can be successful. I know I need a great manager to work with me to keep things moving but that's what the partnership is all about.