Key Takeaways
This isn't Reddit, there is no TLDR. Read or don't read. Grow or don't grow. Try or don't try. Lead or don't lead. You clicked through for a reason - so keep reading until you no longer see an acceptable return of value relative to the time you're investing here reading words on a screen.
Your takeaways are yours to determine.
Introduction
What if the way that we've defined, described, and characterized a manager and a leader has been wrong all along? What if we've been a little irresponsible or over-zealous for how we characterize executives or supervisors that fail to live up to our own individual or collective standards?
What if we look at this hot topic in a slightly different way. One in which manager doesn't automatically mean bad supervisor, and leader doesn't automatically mean beloved executive.
What if we started the manager vs. leader decision tree with a single question instead of a series of if-then assessments?
One key difference between a manager and leader
There are countless factors to consider when deciding whether to label yourself or others as a manager or leader. Many of which are likely more subjective than objective - which further complicates the growing debate around the difference between the two identities.
The typical talk track
It's fairly common these days to see the differences between a manager and a leader revolve around how they speak to people, how they make people feel, and how people perceive them. It's the way we naturally think. I'm not here to say if that's right or wrong, but I do wonder if we truly need to brand one as good and one as bad, or if there might be a less yin-yang way to evaluate each.
A new way to think about these two identities
What if we acknowledge that there a good leaders and bad leaders, good managers and bad managers? A leader isn't a leader because they're inherently good and a manager isn't a manager because they're bad or inferior. One doesn't have to be put down to build the other up.
I like to think that the defining difference between a leader and a manager is not found solely or exclusively in any specific decision they've made or make in the future. It's not determined by how they speak to others, nor how they make others feel. It's not dictated by whether or not they make those around them better. These are convenient ways to describe someone, but convenient doesn't automatically mean it's correct and we're not trying to describe a person - we're trying to characterize the way they approach situations.
Let's consider the possibility that the core difference between a manager and a leader is found in their point of view and what they see when they look at or evaluate a situation. It's about the way they look at and see the mission in front of them, and the consistency with which they view the mission-at-hand in that way... not the way they speak, or the way they treat people.
Managers are not inferior
I'm immensely guilty of this way of thinking in the past. I've always labelled rude, abrasive, and ineffective executives or supervisors as managers and elevated their peers who are polar opposites immediately to the stature of "leader".
A manager is not someone who is inferior or necessarily less effective than someone we might define as or think of as a leader. A manager is simply someone who has a different view of a given situation than a leader. Not a worse view, or bad view - just a different view.
They stand in the grass and very clearly see a tree in front of them. They recognize the tree for what it provides and what it needs. They've been told that the tree is important and needs to grow and they plan on doing exactly that. They've been told that their performance evaluation depends on the health of that tree.
They will keep that tree alive, healthy, and it may even grow to be far taller than anyone expected it to be.
Leaders see differently
A leader is not someone who is is far more successful or effective than a manager. It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. A leader will excitedly acknowledge that every day brings a fresh opportunity to expand their view of the organization they represent, and in doing so - be better positioned to see and connect dots that a manager may not dwell on.
A leader stands in the same grass as the manager, observes the same tree directly in front of them. They come to the same conclusion about what the tree provides and needs that the manager did. They've been given the same instructions, and their performance evaluation also depends on the health of that tree.
The only material difference between the manager and the leader? The leader has learned to identify a variety of paths to victory. They have become comfortable and adept at using their expansive view to see how they can maximize the positive impact they have in any given situation. They look to connect the dots they've been given to other dots that matter to those beyond the individual that set their annual goals.
They've learned to look beyond the tree and see what else is present. They see that there's a forest of other trees behind the one tree they were told to take care of. Each additional tree they see is an opportunity to secure a more favorable and impactful aggregate outcome with the actions they take. If need be, they will even consider focusing their effort to save 10 other trees in the forest at the expense of the 1 and only tree they're being evaluated on - if they have a high level of confidence that they can save 10 trees at a cost of only 1 tree.
It's all about the Point of View (POV)
The difference between a manager and a leader is the number of circles in the venn diagram that they draw when evaluating any given situation.
A manager is more prone to work off of the circles that have been explicitly shared, or instinctively drawn. Their diagram is focused and highly targeted. Their approach helps them secure the exact outcome that's been requested.
A leader is more likely to identify additional circles that are related to what's been given to them or shared, and use them to secure an outcome that has the greatest aggregate impact. They maximize their aggregate impact by identifying more ways to create value with the opportunity they've been given.
Recall the tree and forest example - the manager sees a tree and acts to preserve, protect, and nurture the tree. The leader sees a forest around the tree and acts to maintain the overall health of the forest, not fixating on any one tree to the detriment of the larger ecosystem.
The Manager's Point of View
When the manager looks at the situation in front of them, they instinctively and consistently see two parties that they are primarily responsible to. They see themselves and the goals they've been given, and they see the organization that employs them and their need for results and growth.
A manager's venn diagram has two overlapping circles, giving them 3 distinct ways to deliver value to those they represent.
Secure an outcome that creates value for both the org and themselves
Secure an outcome that creates value for for the org
Secure an outcome that creates value for for themselves
The individual nature, style, or priorities of a manager will dictate how they rank-order those 3 potential successful outcomes in a given situation. There is no objective right or wrong. There is just preference and style.
The Leader's Point of View
When the leader looks at the situation in front of them, they will see not two, but three parties that they are responsible to. Like the manager, they see both themselves and their annual goals as well as the organization that employs them.
The difference between the the leader and the manager's point of view lies in their identification and acknowledgment of a third party (or more beyond that) that they are responsible to or have an opportunity to impact with their decisions and actions.
With the addition of a "team" circle, a leader's venn diagram has three overlapping circles, giving them 7 distinct ways to deliver value to those they represent.
Secure an outcome that creates value for the org, themselves, and team
Secure an outcome that creates value for the org and themselves
Secure an outcome that creates value for the org and their team
Secure an outcome that creates value for themselves and their team
Secure an outcome that creates value for their team
Secure an outcome that creates value for their org
Secure an outcome that creates value for themselves
Just as a manager's management style can vary wildly between individuals due to their personal experiences, priorities and philosophies, the same goes for the leader. The rank-order of the 7 paths to value can vary leader-to-leader, and even situation-to-situation... it's not about the order, it's the acknowledgement of 7 ways to create value, an ability to balance their approach to not become fixated on any one way to create value, and an understanding that they will need to prioritize, constantly.
Scaling this concept
I've painted with broadstrokes and oversimplified here in an attempt to create a simple, but scalable foundation to build off of. The complex nature of our modern-day professional lives and responsibilities inevitably can lead us to the conclusion that both a leader and manager have more than 2-3 groups in their venn diagram.
If the premise here is that the distinction between a manager and leader is their point of view, or how they view the field of play in front of them - then it's important to note that the nuances of an individual's role and responsibilities would influence what their venn diagram could look like.
Consider a CEO
Beyond the organization, themselves, and their team (the three groups we illustrated previously) - don't they also have a means and responsibility to look for ways to create value for shareholders? How about their collective colleague base? Maybe even throw in a circle for their Board of Directors.
How about a Venture Capitalist?
Don't they also have a means and responsibility to not just deliver value and favorable outcomes to their organization, themselves, and their team - but also to the businesses that they fund, the entrepreneurs leading those businesses, and the customers who depend on those businesses?
There is no hard and fast rule about how many circles you have or should have. The sole distinction here lies in the premise that a manager is focused on creating value for the explicitly defined circles, whereas a leader is more focused on or motivated to identify as many circles as possible - to target an outcome that yields maximum positive impact across the group of circles.
Conclusion
A manager will see the tree in front of them and make a decision relative to that tree, because they've been told clearly that they will be evaluated based on the condition of that single tree. Their decisions are purposeful and focused. They will declare a win or loss based on whether or not that tree grows and stays healthy.
A leader will notice that there's a forest around and beyond the tree, and in doing so - find a way to maximize the impact of their actions, words, and decisions to the benefit of as many of the trees in the forest as possible. Their decisions are calculated and measured. They will declare a win or loss based on whether they were able to create a net positive outcome after considering the needs of all the circles they see in their diagram.
The manager is insatiable in their pursuit of the results asked of or expected of them. The leader has learned that they can maximize their impact by looking beyond what is expected of them, and identify what else they can impact positively along the way.
