DESIGN MANAGEMENT

Leadership vs. management: is there an actual difference?

Yes, but it’s not what you may think

If you scroll through any business-related social media feeds or chats, sooner or later, you’ll run into one of those pictures: an evil “manager” who exploits and imposes his delusional ideas on the team is contrasted with an inspiring “leader” who works alongside the team, demonstrating the miracles of empathy and visioneering.

I find such comparisons artificial and misleading (pun intended).

First of all, leadership and management aren’t contradictory or mutually exclusive. Contrasting them is like comparing apples to oranges.

Leadership is a phenomenon, a role that doesn’t require an official title. It’s no surprise we use terms like “informal leader” or “occasional leader” to describe someone who naturally earns the team’s trust and passionately champions a cause. Leadership is tied to a particular mindset that includes vision, influence, strategic thinking, the ability to inspire others, and a focus on innovation. To lead is to look beyond immediate tasks and consider long-term direction and impact.

Management is a profession, a type of job. Those tasked with day-to-day leadership are called managers. Management typically means a formal administrative position in an organization, with specific responsibilities and expectations tied to the role, such as achieving goals, directing efforts, planning, prioritizing, etc.

Leadership is a role and mindset.

Management is a job.

Now, the tricky part. Since leadership isn’t tied to an official title or specific expectations, we rarely hear the phrase “bad leader” — one either is a leader or is not. Managers, however, can be considered good or bad because they are required to meet professional standards; otherwise, they shouldn’t occupy such positions in the first place.

It reminds me of the difference between a savior and a rescuer.

• A savior is someone who has saved someone else’s life but doesn’t necessarily do so as a profession. A one-time savior might never repeat it again in their life.
• A rescuer, on the other hand, is trained to save lives, though they might not have actually saved anyone throughout their career.

You can observe similar logical relationships in other areas, for instance:

• doctor (degree) — professor (job),
• lieutenant (rank) — platoon commander (job),
• speaker (role) — lecturer (job),
• facilitator (role) — consultant (job).

If we apply this logic to leadership, it becomes apparent that anyone can lead. My professional area is design, and I know that designers often lead the innovation process, facilitate ideation sessions, and organize team collaboration without holding official managerial titles. Leading is a role exercised when needed and doesn’t necessarily imply managing other people. One can lead a topic or a process without having subordinates, which in turn means that not all people with leadership talents should always become managers.

Now, let’s turn back to managers.

Of course, everyone wants managers to also be naturally gifted and experienced leaders because many qualities of a true leader align with the conventional image of a great manager. Probably, all of us want our bosses to exercise a democratic management style, provide clarity and transparency, recognize successes, set a clear vision and direction, and offer support during tough times.

But won’t such an ideal manager require ideal subordinates? This is another oversimplification in those popular “manager vs. leader” comparisons. Idealized leadership checklists suggest there is only one best way to lead in any situation; however, this cannot be farther from reality. Let’s take, for example, coaching — a practice of structured conversations aimed at helping others grow professionally and enhance performance. Coaching is an amazing, powerful tool, and it’s often attributed to great managers. However, coaching only works with team members who are self-aware, open to feedback, and willing to move forward — in other words, not with everyone.

Sometimes, as a manager, you need to be more directive with certain team members or apply micromanagement in the right context. This approach is known as situational management. Your managerial style is not about personal preference or an ideal standard, but rather a pragmatic choice based on the situation: where you work, whom you work with, and what you need to achieve.

Here are several examples:

• An experienced team is facing a tight deadline. Instead of coaching, the best course of action is to delegate the project to them. They’ll figure out what to do themselves.
• A team is facing a crisis. In this case, using a directive style and providing clear, specific instructions is the most effective approach. It’s not a good time to delegate or coach.
• A team is comprised of highly skilled professionals with diverse expertise. Here, involving them in decision-making and leveraging their collective knowledge is likely the best strategy.

As you can see, the diversity of real-life effective management cannot be easily summed up in a simple “X vs. Y” picture.

But what I find the most ironic about this topic is that, despite my views, the words “management” and “leadership” are often used interchangeably. There are design managers as well as design team leaders and lead designers. They can be good at what they do as well as do their job poorly. It’s okay to differentiate between high-quality and low-quality work or modern versus outdated approaches, but “leadership” and “management,” in my opinion, don’t lie on opposite sides of the spectrum and should not be contrasted as “good” vs. “bad” things.

And what do you think?