Manager and Leader at the Same Time
A Manager and a Leader
A manager is at times a leader, and a leader is at times a manager. The two are interchangeable in practice, but the underlying activities are different.
Buckingham (2005)
The core activities of a manager and a leader are simply different.
Kotter (1990)
Leadership is different from management, but if either is missing, success in today’s competitive environment will be elusive.
Leadership and management compared
- Leadership is about vision, strategy, and transformational change.
- Management is about planning, controlling, and monitoring.
- Both are needed in any organisation.
- The mix changes depending on what the moment demands.
A common debate inside school staffrooms: is our principal a leader or a manager? The question is often pointless. A good principal is both. The work of leading and the work of managing run on the same person at different moments of the same day, and the question worth asking is whether the right mix is being applied to the moment in front of her.
The two are different
The first thing to settle is that leadership and management are not the same activity, even though the same person often does both.
The core activities of a manager and a leader are simply different. (Buckingham, 2005)
A leader does the vision work: where are we going, why, what would the world look like if we got there, why should anyone follow us. A manager does the execution work: what is the plan, what are the resources, who does what, how do we track progress, where are we falling behind.
A school running on vision alone produces inspiring talk and shaky execution. A school running on management alone produces tidy operations and no direction. Neither is enough on its own.
Both are needed
Kotter put the practical point bluntly:
Leadership is different from management, but if either is missing, success in today’s competitive environment will be elusive.
The schools that produce strong results year on year have both kinds of work happening. Strong direction setting at the top. Strong execution discipline in the middle and the front line. A school that has one without the other under-performs in a specific way.
Two recognisable failure modes:
- All leadership, no management. The principal has a vision, talks about it often, inspires staff in meetings, and produces no measurable change in the classrooms. Parents lose confidence after a year or two.
- All management, no leadership. The principal runs tight meetings, tracks every metric, and the school stays exactly where it was when she arrived. Staff stop expecting anything to change.
Both produce the same result: stagnation. The labels look different but the outcome is the same.
How the work overlaps in practice
A school head spends her week shifting between leading and managing without naming the switch. Examples:
| Moment in the week | Mode |
|---|---|
| Setting the agenda for the year-end staff retreat | Leading |
| Reviewing weekly attendance and grade reports | Managing |
| Talking to a struggling new teacher | Could be either, depending on what is needed |
| Approving the textbook purchase budget | Managing |
| Speaking at the school assembly about the school’s purpose | Leading |
| Diagnosing why grade-5 results dropped | Managing |
| Convincing the board to invest in the new programme | Leading |
| Producing the term-end financial report | Managing |
The skill is knowing which mode the moment calls for. A new principal who tries to lead at moments that need management produces inspiring but unkept promises. A principal who tries to manage at moments that need leadership produces detailed plans that no one is motivated to follow.
The deeper question: can the same person do both
Some research argues that leadership and management require different temperaments and that few individuals do both well. The handout cites Buckingham. The practical answer in schools is more forgiving. Most school heads can do both at adequate level if they recognise the difference and deliberately practise both modes.
Two practical approaches:
- Solo development. A principal who is naturally strong in one mode works specifically to grow the other. A natural manager learns to write a vision and speak from it. A natural leader learns to track metrics and run weekly reviews.
- Team complementarity. A principal who is much stronger in one mode hires a deputy strong in the other. The principal who is a natural visionary hires a deputy who is a natural executor. The pair covers both modes well; the principal alone would not.
Neither approach denies that the two activities are different. Both accept the difference and design around it.
Inspiring talk and shaky execution.
A school with vision but no management discipline produces stirring assemblies, ambitious staff meetings, and no measurable change in classrooms. Plans are launched but not tracked. Resources are allocated based on enthusiasm. After a year or two, parents lose confidence. The mirror failure (management without leadership) produces tidy operations and no direction; the school stays exactly where it was. Both look different on the surface and produce the same stagnation.
A useful diagnostic
A principal can ask herself, at the end of any week, two questions.
- Where did I lead this week? Which conversations or decisions advanced the direction of the school?
- Where did I manage this week? Which conversations or decisions kept the school running properly?
A balanced week has both kinds of answers. A week with only leadership answers means execution was neglected. A week with only management answers means direction was neglected. Over a quarter, the balance should be roughly even, with the mix shifting based on what the school needs.
How was this article?