Continuing the theme of leadership of my last two posts, I thought it would be good to touch on the differences between management and leadership. Although this distinction is constantly debated in books and papers elsewhere, I think it is relevant here because it leads on from last time’s discussion about recognition of authentic leadership.

At the outset, we need to be careful not to ‘overwork’ the contrast between management and leadership. Anyone in a position of seniority – and that includes anyone with some direct responsibility for the work of others – needs to be both a manager and a leader at different times. My point in making a distinction is more around choices and intent than position descriptions.

To separate the concepts of leadership and management in our work, we often draw on a number of phrases derived from the work of American consultant and author Jon Katzenbach. He looks at the two roles in terms of their processes: leadership processes set direction and cope with change; management processes create order and predictability.

Leadership is generally associated with looking forward: creating a compelling view of the future, aligning people’s focus and energy toward that future, motivating and inspiring, influencing and coaching, empowering, building trust. In short, leadership is about enabling others.

By contrast, management tends to be associated with getting things done: shorter term planning, budgeting, organising, staffing, controlling resources, troubleshooting, ‘fire-fighting’. In short, management is about organising others.

Looking at these lists one might think the differences between leadership and management are fairly stark, but in practice they are often less clear. There is a deeper distinction that reaches to emotional health levels and the intent of the leader or manager.

A lot of what is presented to us as leadership could be seen as management masquerading as leadership. When everything one chooses to say or do is carefully crafted – ‘spun’ – with the single aim of controlling a situation or presenting a certain face, we see this as management, rather than leadership.

The extent to which this happens depends on the leader’s development (his or her ability to lead), their intent (self interest versus the greater good), and their emotional health level.

Assuming reasonable capability and positive intent, a leader with moderate emotional health will keep his eyes on the future, and on the wellbeing of his team, when things are going along well. But when the pressure is on, he will often default back to management – to doing whatever is necessary to restore order and predictability, and to protect his own position. (This is the leadership equivalent of honking the horn after being cut off in traffic.)

A skilled leader with high emotional health will find ways to inspire and engage others to be the best they can be – rather than focus on herself or her need to control a situation. At all times, she will maintain a big picture, forward looking perspective. In tough times she will always be thinking, “What do I need to do to enable my team to come through this, and to benefit from it in the longer term?” She will rarely, if ever, put her own interests first.

This is where leadership really stands separate from management: when it can be maintained no matter the circumstances. Management has its place, of course, but it shouldn’t be the fallback position for a leader under pressure.