Difference between Management and Leadership? 10

[winpop123]

O.K. heres the question. Whats the difference between Management and Leadership? Not a trick question and I'm not looking for the Webster’s definition but something more practical and tangible.

The reason I ask is because my company has chosen to change its organizational structure. The old "classic" structure is a "silo" structure where each employee reports up through the organization chart to there functional manager. As an example, a drafter may report to his supervisor who then reports to the Chief Engineer. Tasks are handed down from Chief Engineer to various supervisors who in turn have their people perform tasks.

The change will be to a "Project" based management structure whereby people from various disciplines (QA, Eng, Production, and Purchasing etc) are assigned to a team or multiple teams. Project management will be the lead and everyone on the team is in essence "under their direction".

Since I supervised 5 engineers/designers in the past but will now no longer have to do that, what in the world does my manger mean when he states I will be in a Leadership role??

I mean really? If I have no direct reports and everyone on a team is equal, right!? Sounds to me as if it’s just a "if someone on your old team does something they shouldn't have then why didn't you catch it?

Am I missing the point?

Thanks

 

[ivymike]

Nearyly every company I have worked for since graduating college has had a structure like a combination of the two you describe.
* There is a functional management structure, under which there are chief engineers who have technical managers who have engineers with specific functional responsibilities.
* There is a project management structure, with program managers who direct project managers who direct task leaders who direct engineers.

Technical managers and technical leaders are responsible for making sure that staffing levels in their department are appropriate for the workload (if things aren't getting done, they are to blame, and if people are idle, they are to blame). They are responsible for making sure that the work done in their department is technically correct. They make sure that they have people with the right skill sets in place to get their technical functions done. They lay out standard work practices and make sure that they're followed, and help coordinate audits within their department. They also do the day-to-day management activities, like timesheets, performance reviews, hiring, firing, etc.

Program management is responsible for delivering a particular scope of work on time and on budget. They line up the activities from various technical functions in a program plan, and they rely on the technical managers to meet their staffing needs. They are responsible for communicating program scope and deliverables to the technical teams, reporting performance shortfalls to technical managers, and for reporting program status to appropriate parties within the organization. Task leaders are usually engineers within a particular functional area, who guide the activities of designers, etc., to perform a specific portion of the technical work on a program/project.

 

[IRstuff]

You must not have been in the industry very long ;-) The battle between functional and project oriented organizations has been going on pretty much forever; probably started with Cain and Abel, if you think about it.

At a company level, both structure must exist. While a project-oriented structure is what pays the bills, the functional organization is what is needed to train and mentor engineers, get the right equipment, get the right software, do performance reviews, etc., particularly since project structure may not last more than a few months and you get assigned to another project, or you work multiple projects at the same time.

TTFN

 

[wes616]

Not really the answer, but try this thread.

thread765-133213



Wes C.
------------------------------
Light travels faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

 

[IRstuff]

Actually, I guess it's your company that's a newbie. They haven't done it enough to realize that a project structure has considerable shortcomings.

A more practical organization is one where both functional and project organizations exist.

TTFN

 

[SnTMan]

"Leadership" helps you get your job done, "management" places obstacles in your way and demands results.

My def.

Regards,

Mike

 

[winpop123]

Thanks for the quick replies folks. I have been in the industry for longer than I care to remember; those college cuties are only a distant memory now...hehe.

I understand the concept of the different types of management structures and have been involved in both before. The root of my question was more from a day to day activities perspective. since I will no longer have any direct reports, I can't say anymore that "you need to do a drawing this way because". Well I can say it but no one is required to listen.

Since I am being asked to give "leadership" now, I interpret it as having responsibilty with no authority.

The good news is the pays the same and the Bass Ale in my frig. is cold.

 

[monkeydog]

winpop123,

I was given a "leadership" roll with "no authority" about 20 years ago. When in a review, the VP asked my how I saw my roll, I told him that I felt "I had the responsability but not the authority". He then told me I had all the authority I needed, until someone like him stopped me.

It was a very small audience in this presentation, so I thought I would "call him on it".

I found out, that there are not a lot of people that are willing to challange the authority you presumed.

I say "give it a shot" if they stop you, call them on it.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

The biggest difference is the spelling. The second biggest is in the style of getting the work done.

A manager is given authority over subordinates, and they do as they are told because they know they have to.

A leader inherently has authority, or at least the impression of it, that's why he/she is elected to be a leader. Followers listen to their leader & want to be told what to do.

A good manager also leads his subordinates. A good leader is able to manage his followers. The end result is the same ... the task gets done ... but the morale of the "troops" is very different.

​

Helpful SW websites faq559-520​

How to find answers ... faq559-1091​

 

[TDAA]

CBL has it the way I see it. In my last job,I was a leader. People fould follow me, and wanted my insight. Not so with our manager. He could direct, people had to follow, but it was not by choice.

The leadership role is for a person who is respected. Take that respect to direct how you want things to go. Keep it your way until someone above tells you you can't.

 

[Foada]

Leadership is a skill. Management is a position someone is given quite often regardless of their leadership skills.

 

[Comcokid]

Everywhere I've worked, they've always had the title "manager". But, some of these were, in practice, "leaders". I've been fortunate to have two supervisors that I consider operated on a leadership basis.

A leader assigns a task on the Piccard example: "Make it so". A leader knows he is supervising smart people. He trusts their decisions. He is available if options needed to be discussed. If you don't have the resources, he will see that you get them. He won't stand around complaining about you or your work, but will see that you get positive opportunities to improve. Leaders are found in the entrepreneur phase of the life-cycle of companies - before they develop "Competence Inversion". A leaders purpose is to make you more effective.

The term "manager" implies a clueless moron. A manger is only effective when supervising people who are dumber than himself. He assigns tasks based on getting the task done the way he wants (macromanager) or will interrupt and endlessly oversee the details of task (micromanager). A true manager is the perfect example of the second part of Archibald Putts First Law "Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand". A manager's purpose is for you to make him more effective.

 

[Ron]

Leadership is the ability to have people want to follow you out of respect.

Management is the ability to force people to follow against their will because they can.

Which would you rather work for?

 

[Ashereng]

I think they are pretty much interchangeable.

We have discipline leads, squad leads, team leaders, etc. They are pretty much in a management role. They are responsible for the team/group.

We also have area managers, project managers, group managers. They are pretty much in a leadership role. They are responsible for the team/group.

I think in a lot of cases, it is just semantic preferance.

A good leader has good management skills. A good manager has good leadership skills.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[quark]

We all had the same question when we recently went through a leadership development program. Upon collecting and sifting the thoughts we came up with a collective definition that a good leader never anticipates people to follow him but to go hand in hand. Secondly, a good leader is willing to develop leaders, further. This idea may be subjective.

I opine that leadership skills are not restricted to your positional profile. They are helpful even when you deal with family matters, your friends or collegues. Kenneth Blanchard's work on situational leadership can give you good pointers.

Servant leadership model is in vogue now a days but I didn't hear about any servant management with the exception of hotel industry

 

[DaveVikingPE]

"Managers do things right, leaders do the right things."

As I see it, the manager is responsible for executing the leader's plan. The leader is the person who knows when to execute the manager...

I work for a "Team Leader" and a "Manager." These are two different people. The Team Leader is the "old man" structural who knows everything because he's done it before. He also is a brilliant engineer who mentors me, checks (not supervises) my work. We also consult, brainstorm, etc. on how to do things. My Manager makes sure I have the money, time and toys to do my work. He also makes sure I get paid on time. Both positions have "leadership" facets though they aren't "project manager" positions.

The more I think of it, the more I realize that I have, as an adult, worked for four people I would really consider "leaders." Three of them were military at the time and were so good at anticipating what had to be done (Dave, just keep in mind that we're on a 'glide path'...") that I was able to get done what I was doing and get it built. The other one was probably the best person I've ever worked for. Technically he was "good enough" - that is, a P.E. civil with lots of design and construction experience in his youth, but having switched to management for the last 15 or so years - as an engineer, but really shined in getting the lot of us to produce work good enough such that we were finally recognized by the rest of the firm.

Hmmm... Maybe a leader that I'd like to work for has a "management vision" whatever that means.

 

[TheTick]

I've been fired by managers. I've never been fired by a leader.

 

[ajack1]

So leaders hand the firing down to managers?

 

[ivymike]

...or do you just have a negative impression of everyone who has ever fired you?

 

[BelspringKen]

I feel a manager can be just someone with a couple checklists, but a leader knows the process and can look ahead to see possible problems on the horizon.

The leader gets people involved in the process and helps them develop, while a manager assigns work.