In today's business world, there seems to be a halo affixed to the term "leader," while the label of "manager" has a more negative connotation. "Leader" brings to mind heroic figures rallying people together to give their all for a cause, while "manager" brings to mind less-charismatic individuals trying to make people into more efficient cogs in the corporate machine.
When one considers this definition of management, it becomes apparent that leadership is actually a sub-category of management. Management (from Old French ménagement, "the art of conducting, directing," from Latin "manu agere" or "to lead by the hand") characterizes the process of leading and directing all or part of an organization, often a business, through the deployment and manipulation of resources (human, financial, material, intellectual, or intangible).
People can manage their time, their budget, their fuel, and yes, their people, but one can only lead people (or to be more inclusive, one can only lead intelligent living things, since shepherds and dog trainers may object to a homo sapiens-centric definition).
Perhaps the perception of a cog-manipulating manager is rooted in this difference between animate and inanimate objects. When people feel used, manipulated, or led against their will by a person in authority, they feel as if they are being treated like inanimate objects. They say the person in authority is a "lousy manager. " But when the person in authority increases their autonomy, makes them feel at liberty to accept or reject his or her vision, and fills them with a real personal desire to bring this vision to life, they say he/she is a great leader.
Great leaders are often described as having charisma. Charisma is defined as a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others. Also, many great leaders have referent power, which is the ability to inspire their followers with a high level of identification with, admiration of, or respect for the powerholder/ leader.
When applying these concepts for "manager" and "leader" in a team setting, one finds interesting results. If there is a team leader that is perceived to be unconcerned with the team members' needs or has a personal agenda more important than the team's goals, then the leader is perceived to be more of a "manager" and becomes estranged from the team members. Conversely, the team leaders who are admired and followed loyally are those who show concern for the team members as individuals with real needs, and who put "the cause" of the team above their own persona agenda.
Realistically, most organizations do need leaders who sometimes look at their teams with cold, analytical eyes, evaluating inefficiencies and making unpopular choices. But it would be a mistake to think that one has to be an "estranged, unliked manager" in order to execute these responsibilities. If a team leader's tasks, such as efficiency analysis, were done hand-in-hand with sincerely seeking to know team members' individual needs, then the team leader would be perceived to have a genuine desire to make the team more successful. Additionally, ineffective leaders may hide an unwillingness to make tough decisions by faking the "touchy-feely" attitudes associated with great leaders with high emotional-intelligence.
Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may or may not have any formal authority. Scholars of leadership have produced theories involving traits, situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values, charisma, and intelligence, among others.
New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately re-establish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in researchers' use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.
Additionally, during the 1980s, statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. They found significant relationships between leadership and individual traits such as the following: