A manager is responsible for seeing that the right people are in the right place doing the right things at the right times. A leader is responsible for seeing that they *want* to be in those places at those times doing those things. The two roles are often combined - it helps if the person who makes you want to do things is also the person who organises those things. But you can have several managers behind each leader. Armies are organised on this basis - one general (the leader) has several staff officers (the managers) to support him.

leader; a person in a position or office of authority, such as a President or a chairperson a person in a position or office associated with expertise, skill, or experience, such as a team leader, a ship's captain, a chief engineer, a chief, or a parent Manager: a manager is accountable for the performance of others. Instead of working alone, managers spend most of their time planning, staffing, directing and organizing the work of others. They focus on resource allocation, goal setting and performance appraisal. Managers may be responsible for the employees in a department or division, they may have direct reports, or they may lead a project or a cross-functional team with no direct reporting relationships.

A leader can get cooperation of people. He knows how to bring the best out of everyone instead of their negatives. Thus a team work spirited is fueled. Thus he drives everyone towards a common goal of the group. Management is more or less organizing and planning.

A leader and a manager both need to work together in order to have a good and supportive team - Most people go to the manager when problems occur and he/she works it out with the boss/leader -

Managers are task focused; leaders are vision focused. While managers may accomplish current tasks, leaders are addressing the next task. Managers are apt to burn bridges; leaders never burn bridges, and never leave the vanquished without dignity that will be required for future alliances.

No one wants to be managed but we all seek out leaders to help us on our path, whether it be work or play. Leaders have vision, inspire us and provide motivation. Managers control/direct staff or tasks.

leaders lead by example, managers delegate.

A leader is someone who provides purpose, direction, and motivation in the accomplishment of a task. The person who leads in a given group is not necessarily the person in charge. A manager is someone who is nominally in charge, but unless he or she has the qualities necessary to be a leader then their role is diminished greatly to that of figurehead. So, pretty much a manager should have the abilities of a leader, but that is quite often not the case.

In most companies, leaders are people who wish they were managers and have low level team supervision work. Managers sit in an office and distribute the work to the leaders.

To me the word leader implies a character trait. A manager is more of a job description.

A good leader will be a good manager, but a good manager is not necessarily a good leader. Both in essence are leaders and can have the same characteristics. I would contend that if you're bad at one, you will be bad in both. On the ligher side, it is the difference between the lead dog on the sled team and the driver.

"Manager" is a title. "Leader" is a destiny.

Paper work.

I think a leader is one who knows all and a manager thinks he/she does.

About $10,000 a year.... :-)

A manager can be effective buying into and managing the details of a another person's vision. A manager may be a leader, but is not necessarily a leader. A leader has a vision and casts that vision, communicating it, selling it, and helping other buy into it and make it their own. A leader may also be a manager or may not. administrative abilities are not necessary for a leader. They are for a manager. Visionary leadership along with the ability to see things that never were and dream new possibilities are not necessary for management, but a good manager will be able to see the vision when it is presented and help implement it. A leader envisions, communicates, and gathers capable managers. A manager sees and implements the vision. We need both.

A manager says 'go!' A leader says 'lets go!'

A manager doesn't need to have charisma, a manager needs only to make something work, it doesn't need to work well, it just needs to work. A leader has to be able to motivate people, has to be able to get the very best out of his or her workers.

Manager is a title, leadership is an art. You can be a (lousy) manager without being a leader, you can be a great leader without being a manager, or you can be a great manager if you're a leader.

• The best word for managers is balance; the best word for leaders is change. • Managers want to smooth things out; leaders want to shake things up. • Managers think about how to oversee the existing order of things; leaders think about how to shape the future. • Managers think about execution; leaders go for ideas. • Managers seek control; leaders seek out risk. • Managers seek stability and, therefore, prefer to act quickly to solve problems; leaders handle ambiguity well and can delay closure. • Managers focus on problem-solving and achieving the results to which the organization is committed; leaders incite people to think about what could be. • Managers view work as a process of compromises so that everyone can be a winner; leaders look for opportunities for large gains at the risk of failure. • Managers tend to be social but not as emotionally involved; leaders have high emotional intelligence and empathy. • Managers send “signals”; leaders send “messages.” • Managers focus on following the correct procedures to resolve an issue (the process); leaders focus on the substance of an issue.

A manager should be focused on systems, while a leader is focused on people.

Managers want results : Leaders want achievement Managers does the right things : Leaders know what is a right thing. Manager is reactive : Leader is proactive -Prakash

$50-$60,000/year.

Manager works IN the system. Leader works ON the system.

Great question. Stephen Covey told a simple anecdote that explains the difference between good producers, managers and leaders. He wrote in '7 Habits of Highly Effective People:' "You can quickly grasp the difference between the two [management and leadership] if you envision a group of producers cutting their way through the jungle with machetes. They're the producers, the problem solvers. They're cutting through the undergrowth, clearing it out. "The managers are behind them, sharpening their machetes, writing policy and procedure manuals, holding muscle development programs, bringing in improved technologies and setting up working schedules and compensation programs for machete wielders. "The leader is the one who climbs the tallest tree, surveys the entire situation, and yells, 'Wrong jungle.'" As Covey points out, management is about the most efficient way to climb the ladder. Leadership is about making sure the ladder is leaning on the right wall -- that it takes you toward your true goals.

"Over the years the terms management and leadership have been so closely related that individuals in general think of them as synonymous. However, this is not the case even considering that good managers have leadership skills and vice-versa. With this concept in mind, leadership can be viewed as: - centralized or decentralized - broad or focused - decision-oriented or morale-centred - intrinsic or derived from some authority Any of the bipolar labels traditionally ascribed to management style could also apply to leadership style. Hersey and Blanchard use this approach: they claim that management merely consists of leadership applied to business situations; or in other words management forms a subset of the broader leadership process. They say: "Leadership occurs any time one attempts to influence the behavior of an individual or group, regardless of the reason. Management is a kind of leadership in which the achievement of organizational goals is paramount." And according to Warren Bennis and Dan Goldsmith, A good manager does things right. A leader does the right things." However, a clear distinction between management and leadership may nevertheless prove useful. This would allow for a reciprocal relationship between leadership and management, implying that an effective manager should possess leadership skills, and an effective leader should demonstrate management skills. One clear distinction could provide the following definition: - Management involves power by position. - Leadership involves power by influence. Abraham Zaleznik (1977), for example, delineated differences between leadership and management. He saw leaders as inspiring visionaries concerned about substance while managers he views as planners who have concerns with process. Warren Bennis (1989) further explicated a dichotomy between managers and leaders. He drew twelve distinctions between the two groups: - Managers administer; leaders innovate. - Managers ask how and when; leaders ask what and why. - Managers focus on systems; leaders focus on people. - Managers do things right; leaders do the right things. - Managers maintain; leaders develop. - Managers rely on control; leaders inspire trust. - Managers have short-term perspective; leaders have long-term perspective. - Managers accept the status-quo; leaders challenge the status-quo. - Managers have an eye on the bottom line; leaders have an eye on the horizon. - Managers imitate; leaders originate. - Managers emulate the classic good soldier; leaders are their own person. - Managers copy; leaders show originality. Paul Birch (1999) also sees a distinction between leadership and management. He observed that, as a broad generalization, managers concerned themselves with tasks while leaders concerned themselves with people. Birch does not suggest that leaders do not focus on "the task." Indeed, the things that characterise a great leader include the fact that they achieve. Effective leaders create and sustain competitive advantage through the attainment of cost leadership, revenue leadership, time leadership, and market value leadership. Managers typically follow and realize a leader's vision. The difference lies in the leader realising that the achievement of the task comes about through the goodwill and support of others (influence), while the manager may not. This goodwill and support originates in the leader seeing people as people, not as another resource for deployment in support of "the task". The manager often has the role of organizing resources to get something done. People form one of these resources, and many of the worst managers treat people as just another interchangeable item. A leader has the role of causing others to follow a path he/she has laid out or a vision he/she has articulated in order to achieve a task. Often, people see the task as subordinate to the vision. For instance, an organization might have the overall task of generating profit, but a good leader may see profit as a by-product that flows from whatever aspect of their vision differentiates their company from the competition. Leadership does not only manifest itself as purely a business phenomenon. Many people can think of an inspiring leader they have encountered who has nothing whatever to do with business: a politician, an officer in the armed forces, a Scout or Guide leader, a teacher, etc. Similarly, management does not occur only as a purely business phenomenon. Again, we can think of examples of people that we have met who fill the management niche in non-business organisationsNon-business organizations should find it easier to articulate a non-money-driven inspiring vision that will support true leadership. However, often this does not occur. Patricia Pitcher (1994) has challenged the bifurcation into leaders and managers. She used a factor analysis (in marketing) technique on data collected over 8 years, and concluded that three types of leaders exist, each with very different psychological profiles: Artists (imaginative, inspiring, visionary, entrepreneurial, intuitive, daring, and emotional), Craftsmen (well-balanced, steady, reasonable, sensible, predictable, and trustworthy), Technocrats (cerebral, detail-oriented, fastidious, uncompromising, and hard-headed). She speculates that no one profile offers a preferred leadership style. She claims that if we want to build, we should find an "artist leader" if we want to solidify our position, we should find a "craftsman leader" and if we have an ugly job that needs to get done like downsizing, we should find a "technocratic leader". Pitcher also observed that a balanced leader exhibiting all three sets of traits occurs extremely rarely: she found none in her study. Bruce Lynn postulates a differentiation between 'Leadership' and ‘Management’ based on perspectives to risk. Specifically,"A Leader optimises upside opportunity; a Manager minimises downside risk." He argues that successful executives need to apply both disciplines in a balance appropriate to the enterprise and its context. Leadership without Management yields steps forward, but as many if not more steps backwards. Management without Leadership avoids any step backwards, but doesn’t move forward." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership#Leadership_versus_management

A manager copes with problems whereas a leader solves problems... permanently. A manager deals with the symptoms of a problem whereas a leader deals with the causes of a problem. A manager thinks of surviving whereas a leader thinks of prospering.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/articles/manager_leader.htm# A great explanation. ;)