# Managing Groups and Teams/A balance between management and leadership

In the business world of today, there seems to be a halo afixed to the
term *Leader*, while the term *Manager* is seen to have something of a
stigma. \"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 effecient
cogs in the corporate machine.\'\'

When one considers this definition of Management (from Wikipedia) one
can see that Leadership is actually a sub-catergory of Management:
\"*Management* (from Old French ménagement \"the art of conducting,
directing\", from Latin *manu agere* \"to lead by the hand\")
characterises 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).\"

One can manage their time, their budget, their fuel, and yes, their
people, but one can only lead people (or to be more inclusive, we should
say one can only lead intelligent living things, since shepards and
dog-trainers would object to a homo sapiens-centric definition).

Then perhaps the perception of a cog-manipulating manager is rooted in
this difference between animate and inanimate objects. It is when we
feel used, manipulated, or led against our will by a person in authority
over us, we feel as if we are being treated like an inanimate object. We
say the person in authority is a lousy manager. But when the person in
authority increases our own autonomy, makes us feel at liberty to accept
or reject his/her vision, and fills us with a real personal desire to
bring this vision to life, we say he/she is a great leader.

When applying these concepts for \"manager\" and \"leader\" in the
setting of a team, we find 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 most admired and
loyally followed are those who show concern for the team members as
individuals with real needs, and are those 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.

It is my opinion that effective leadership is a uniquely human
institution, and there isn\'t a team that couldn\'t profit through
better \"leaders\" rather than better \"managers\" --using the titles as
metaphors, of course. One can still balance all the practical demands of
a \"manager\" with the beneficial traits of an inspiring \"leader.\"

