The difference is that to function as a leader, a person must exercise influence over another person in the attainment of institutional goals.
Managerial functions of organizing, planning, scheduling, processing information, communication, and so on, do not necessarily involve leadership. Some managers perform both type of functions and can be described as leaders; but others do not. There is no automatic link between the two concepts.
Moreover, leaders are not necessarily just at the top of organizations. Influence can be exerted in most job functions and at all levels of seniority or hierarchy. Bennis and Nanus (1985) developed the distinction between managers and leaders as follows: i. Leadership is path finding. ii. Management is path following.
iii. Leadership is about doing the right things. iv. Management is about doing things right. Further differences between the two concepts are as follows: (1) Managerial behaviour occurs in an institutional context whereas leadership can occur anywhere.
For example, a mob can have a leader but not a manager. (2) A manager receives power and authority from legal, legitimate sources while a leader may not have authority but can receive power directly from his followers, i.e.
, leaders have accepted authority while managers have formal authority. (3) A manager has command over the allocation and distribution of sanctions such as promotions and awards or withholding increments or removal from job. They have the power over their subordinates’ security and physiological needs. On the other hand, a leader can grant or withheld access to satisfying the very purpose” of joining the groups i.
e., denial of the satisfaction of the need for belongingness or ego. (4) A manager may continue in office so long as he/she retires whereas a leader maintains his/her position only through the day-to-day wish of the followers. (5) People follow managers because their job description, supported by a system of rewards and sanctions requires them to follow; while people follow a leader voluntarily. (6) Managers are accountable for the job behaviours of their subordinates as well as their own behaviour.
Leaders are accountable only for their own behaviour. (7) Leadership is about having a vision. It involves, thinking strategically. Leaders have a view of where the institution should go or be or should do; it means deciding what is important for the success of the organization, envisaging the future. A leader’s responsibility is to think what the key criteria for success are for the present as well as for the future. On the other hand, managers are more concerned with implementing strategies and plans. They are concerned with activities which are designed to produce “consistency and order’, whereas leadership is concerned with ‘constructive or adaptive change’. (8) Management involves making detailed plans and steps and timetables for achieving results, then marshalling resources to make it happen.
Leaders develop a vision for the future and strategies for achieving that vision. (9) Management comprises of the distribution and allocation tasks in accordance with plans, staffing them appropriately, delegating responsibility and monitoring implementation. Leadership involves communicating the vision so that others understand and agree with it. (10) Management involves monitoring results of a plan, identifying problems with the plan and then solving them. Leadership involves ‘energizing people’ towards the vision, appealing to their needs and values so that they overcome barriers to change. (11) Management produces predictability and order so that others, such as students, parents and the larger society can rely on consistent results. Leadership produces change that is often a quantum leap, such as new approaches of teaching, evaluating or managing people, that enhances the institution’s prestige and status. These differences between the terms ‘leadership’ and ‘management’ identified by Kotter (1990) are comprehensive enough to clarify the meaning and interrelatedness of the two concepts.
Institutions need both management and leadership if they are to be effective. Management in conjunction with leadership can help achieve planned, orderly change, and leadership in conjunction with management can keep the institution properly aligned with its environment. An educational institution could be effective if its’ manager is also a leader.