Leader vs Manager Both a manager and a leader may know the business well.

But the leader must know it better and in a different way. S/he must grasp the essential facts and the underlying forces that determine the past and present trends in the business, so that s/he can generate a vision and a strategy to bring about its future. One telling sign of a good leader is an honest attitude towards the facts, towards objective truth. A subjective leader obscures the facts for the sake of narrow self-interest, partisan interest or prejudice. Effective leaders continually ask questions, probing all levels of the organization for information, testing their own perceptions, and rechecking the facts. They talk to their constituents. They want to know what is working and what is not. They keep an open mind for serendipity to bring them the knowledge they need to know what is true. An important source of information for this sort of leader is knowledge of the failures and mistakes that are being made in their organization. To survive in the twenty-first century, we are going to need a new generation of leaders leaders, not managers. The distinction is an important one. Leaders conquer the context the turbulent, ambiguous surroundings that sometimes seem to conspire against us and will surely suffocate us if we let them while managers surrender to it. Leaders investigate reality, taking in the pertinent factors and analyzing them carefully. On this basis they produce visions, concepts, plans, and programs. Managers adopt the truth from others and implement it without probing for the facts that reveal reality. There is profound difference a chasm between leaders and managers. A good manager does things right. A leader does the right things. Doing the right things implies a goal, a direction, an objective, a vision, a dream, a path, a reach. Lots of people spend their lives climbing a ladder and then they get to the top of the wrong wall. Most losing organizations are overmanaged and under-led. Their managers accomplish the wrong things beautifully and efficiently. They climb the wrong wall. Managing is about efficiency. Leading is about effectiveness. Managing is about how. Leading is about what and why. Management is about systems, controls, procedures, policies, and structure. Leadership is about trust about people. Leadership is about innovating and initiating. Management is about copying, about managing the status quo. Leadership is creative, adaptive, and agile. Leadership looks at the horizon, not just the bottom line. Leaders base their vision, their appeal to others, and their integrity on reality, on the facts, on a careful estimate of the forces at play, and on the trends and contradictions. They develop the means for changing the original balance of forces so that their vision can be realized. A leader is someone who has the capacity to create a compelling vision that takes people to a new place, and to translate that vision into action. Leaders draw other people to them by enrolling them in their vision. What leaders do is inspire people, empower them. They pull rather than push. This "pull" style of leadership attracts and energizes people to enroll in a vision of the future. It motivates people by helping them identify with the task and the goal rather than by rewarding or punishing them. Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing. The difference may be summarized as

activities of vision and judgment effectiveness versus activities of mastering routines efficiency. SITUATIONAL APPROACH Another approach to leadership studies is the situational approach, the basic premise of which is that different situations demand different types of leadership. A situation, within this context, is a "set of values and attitudes with which the individual or group has to deal in a process of activity and with regard to which this activity is planned and its results appreciated. Every concrete activity is the solution of a situation." Situations can be complicated affairs and generally have five elements: the structure of interpersonal relationships within the group; the characteristics of the group as a whole; the characteristics of the group's environment from which members come; physical constraints on the group; and the perceptual representation, within the group and among its members, of these elements and the "attitudes and values engendered by them" (from the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by David L. Sills). Situational influences thus constrain the leader who must adapt his or her style of leadership to the situation at hand. Situational leadership, according to Northouse, has both a directive and a supportive dynamic. A situationally motivated leader realizes that the skills and motivation of any group member are not static and the mix of the leader's supportive and directive activities must likewise change with the situation. TANNENBAUM Tannenbaum & Schmidt concentrated more on delegation & freedom in decision making to subordinates and there by on the team development. As the teams freedom increases, the managers authority decreases. This is a positive way for both teams and managers to develop. We already dealt delegating in a different blog post. Tannenbaum & Schmidt defined 7 levels of delegated freedom which moves from manager-oriented to subordinate-oriented. As team develops, level moves from one to the next the area of freedom increases and the need for managers intervention decreases. Following levels are self-explanatory and easy to understand: 1. Manager takes decision and announces it only manager plays the decision-making role; no team involvement 2. Manager decides and then Sells his decision to the team no change in decision; but team may raise some concerns 3. Manager presents decision with background ideas for the decision and invite questions team knows what options manager considered for his decision; more team involvement 4. Manager suggests provisional decision & invites discussion regarding the decision team can have a say on managers decision; it can be changed based on discussion 5. Manager presents the problem or situation, get suggestions, then decides team is free to come up with options; manager decides on those options 6. Manager explains the situation or problem, defines the parameters and asks team to decide on the solution manager delegated whole thing to the team; but still manager is accountable for the outcome 7. Manager allows team to develop options and decide on the action, within the managers received limit complete freedom level; team does all the work almost as what the manager does at level 1.