Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?

In 1977, when Abraham Zaleznik wrote this article, the prevailing perspective on management was centered around organizational structure and processes. At that time, managerial development primarily focused on cultivating competence, control, and maintaining the appropriate balance of power within organizations. According to Zaleznik, this approach neglected the crucial elements of leadership, such as inspiration, vision, and human passion, which are instrumental in driving corporate success.

Zaleznik made a clear distinction between managers and leaders, suggesting that their differences lie deep within their core beliefs about chaos and order. Managers tend to embrace structured processes, seek stability and control, and often rush to resolve problems without a full understanding of their significance. In contrast, leaders are more inclined to tolerate chaos and lack of structure, and they are willing to delay making decisions to gain a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. Zaleznik argued that, in this sense, business leaders share more in common with creative thinkers like artists and scientists than with traditional managers. He emphasized the need for both managers and leaders in organizations to succeed but proposed a shift away from excessive focus on logic and strategic exercises in favor of an environment that nurtures creativity and imagination.

The ideal approach to developing leadership varies across societies and reflects their unique perspectives on power, its distribution, and usage. In the business world, the manager emerged as a new breed of leader, aligning with a power ethic that favors collective leadership over individualism. While managerial leadership ensures competence, control, and power balance among groups, it does not guarantee imagination, creativity, or ethical behavior in guiding corporate destinies.

Leadership inherently involves using power to influence the thoughts and actions of others. However, the concentration of power in an individual’s hands carries certain risks, including the temptation to prioritize immediate results, disregard legitimate ways to accumulate power, and lose self-control in the pursuit of power. These risks have contributed to the development of collective leadership and the managerial ethic, resulting in a conservative culture in large organizations. John D. Rockefeller III’s work, “The Second American Revolution,” underscores the dominance of tradition and inertia within organizations, making them resistant to taking risks or exploring new directions.

This culture gives rise to a preference for developing managers rather than individual leaders, inadvertently fostering a bureaucratic atmosphere in business. While managerial culture emphasizes rationality and control, leadership culture often idealizes great individuals and their ability to control themselves and others in a dramatic fashion. This perspective contrasts with the practical view that leadership is essentially about managing the work that others do.

Several questions arise from this analysis. Is the mystique surrounding leadership a remnant of our childhood, rooted in a sense of dependency and a yearning for heroic figures as parents? Or is it plausible that even highly competent managers may fall short in terms of leadership due to their limitations in envisioning purposes and creating value in work? In cases where managers lack imagination and effective communication skills, can they inadvertently perpetuate group conflicts rather than channeling them into broader desires and goals?

If problems indeed demand greatness, the process of selecting and developing leaders appears to involve a significant element of chance. There are no established methods for training “great” leaders. Furthermore, there’s a deeper issue in the tension between the need for competent managers and the desire for exceptional leaders.

The requirements for ensuring a pool of individuals who can effectively handle practical responsibilities might hinder the cultivation of great leaders. Conversely, the presence of exceptional leaders can potentially disrupt the development of managers, who tend to feel uneasy in the relative disorder that leaders often introduce.

One might argue that the solution lies in nurturing individuals who can fulfill both roles, blending management and leadership qualities. However, managers and leaders are fundamentally different in terms of motivation, personal backgrounds, and their modes of thinking and behavior.

Attitudes Toward Goals: Managers typically adopt impersonal, if not passive, attitudes towards goals. Their goals are derived from necessities, deeply ingrained in the history and culture of their organizations. For instance, the former chairman and CEO of General Motors, Frederic G. Donner, expressed this attitude when defining GM’s stance on product development. He emphasized the need to meet customer needs and desires, adapting to market changes, and balancing trends in preference with practical compromises.

However, leaders have an active and personal approach to goals. They shape ideas, evoking images and expectations, and defining specific desires and objectives. This proactive influence alters the way people perceive what is desirable, possible, and necessary. Leaders see themselves as actively creating and guiding goals, while managers respond to established needs and desires.

Conceptions of Work: Managers perceive work as an enabling process that involves interactions between people and ideas to formulate strategies and make decisions. They facilitate this process by calculating opposing interests, planning when contentious issues should be addressed, and mitigating tensions. Managers employ a range of flexible tactics, including negotiation, bargaining, as well as rewards, punishments, and other forms of coercion, to achieve their objectives.

Alfred P. Sloan’s actions at General Motors provide an example of this managerial approach to work. In the 1920s, as Ford dominated the automobile industry with water-cooled engines, Charles Kettering, with Pierre du Pont’s support, pursued the development of an air-cooled copper engine at GM. While Kettering believed in his product, GM’s manufacturing division leaders opposed it, citing technical unreliability and concerns about investing in a new product when existing marketing issues needed attention.

In contrast, leaders take a more active role in shaping the direction of work. They influence moods, create new expectations, and establish specific desires and objectives, ultimately determining the path a business takes. Their influence reshapes how people think about what they want and what’s possible. Leaders are proactive in altering the goals and directions of their organizations.

This distinction highlights that managers and leaders possess contrasting attitudes and approaches in their handling of goals and the conceptions of work.

In the summer of 1923, General Motors (GM) management decided to halt a project that had faced numerous setbacks and issues. This decision followed the recall of copper-engine Chevrolets from dealers and customers. Charles Kettering, who had been a driving force behind the project, was deeply discouraged upon realizing that the company had abandoned the engine. He expressed his disappointment to Alfred Sloan, even suggesting that he might leave GM unless the project was salvaged.

Sloan was well aware of Kettering’s unhappiness and his potential departure from the company. He also understood the divisions within GM, with manufacturing divisions opposing the new engine while Pierre du Pont supported Kettering. Sloan had previously expressed full confidence in Kettering, making the situation even more complex. His challenge was to make a decision that would keep Kettering, avoid alienating du Pont, and maintain the focus on conventional water-cooled engines for the division heads.

Sloan’s response to this conflict reveals important insights into managerial strategies. He attempted to reassure Kettering by presenting the situation ambiguously, implying that he and the executive committee supported Kettering but couldn’t force the divisions to adopt the new engine. Sloan framed the issue as a matter of people rather than the product. He also proposed restructuring the organization, creating a new division responsible for the new engine’s design, production, and marketing. Although this solution seemed ambiguous, it served to limit the conflict with Pierre du Pont.

In essence, Sloan’s managerial solution narrowed down the available options, reducing emotional reactions, and allowing key individuals to align with the plan. He appeased those who opposed him by creating a structural solution that appeared to offer concessions but, in reality, limited their choices. This approach facilitated the development of conventional water-cooled cars to meet immediate market demand.

Sloan’s actions reflect a common managerial approach to managing conflicts. It involves creating structural solutions that constrain choices, thus limiting opposition. This can be seen as a way to balance different views and coordinate opposing forces. In this sense, managers aim to shift the balance of power to reach compromises among conflicting values.

Leaders, on the other hand, operate differently. They seek fresh approaches to long-standing issues, exploring new options to solve problems. To be effective, leaders must project their ideas in ways that inspire people, giving substance to their visions.

A prime example of leadership is John F. Kennedy, who, during his brief presidency, generated excitement and engagement through his rhetoric. His famous inaugural address, although idealistic, elicited strong emotions and encouraged people to identify with him and the shared ideals he represented. Kennedy’s statement promised a willingness to make sacrifices for liberty’s survival, which could lead to challenging situations, as seen in the Vietnam War.

Leaders often work from high-risk positions, and they are inclined to embrace risks and challenges when the potential for opportunity and reward is promising. Their temperament drives them to seek out opportunities, and their enthusiasm excites others to follow their lead.

Managers tend to work closely with people, as they are more comfortable in collaborative settings. They avoid solitary activities, preferring social interaction. They have a need to work with others and collaborate, which is a key characteristic of managerial roles. Empathy, the capacity to sense others’ thoughts and feelings, varies among managers and is not always highly developed.

Leaders, however, work more intuitively and empathetically. They are driven by their ideas and seek to inspire others. Leaders excel in understanding the thoughts and feelings of those around them, which enables them to form deep emotional connections. They focus on the meaning of events and decisions to participants rather than the processes.

In the quest for solutions, managers often aim to transform win-lose situations into win-win scenarios. This involves a focus on decision-making processes, emphasizing procedure over substance. Managers may communicate indirectly through signals rather than direct messages, as signals allow for reinterpretation and avoid the emotional intensity associated with messages. Managers also tend to play for time, delaying major decisions to allow compromises to emerge and reduce the sting of win-lose situations.

Leaders, with their focus on generating excitement and new ideas, take risks, embrace uncertainty, and pursue change. Their energy and drive to create meaningful change can lead to intense and sometimes disorganized human relations within leader-dominated structures.

Finally, people’s senses of self, based on William James’ “once-born” and “twice-born” personality types, shape their career choices. Managers tend to adopt the “once-born” approach, seeking harmony and belonging within existing systems. In contrast, leaders often exhibit a “twice-born” personality, feeling separate from their environment and pursuing change.

The development of leaders primarily occurs through personal mastery and one-on-one relationships, which provide invaluable mentorship and guidance. While organizations attempt to develop leaders through various programs and peer training, the effectiveness of such efforts remains questionable. The ability to confront challenges and tolerate aggressive interactions is crucial in leader development, as it promotes emotional relationships and encourages leadership growth.