Leader and leader: common and differences. Leader and Leader - Common and Key Differences

IN concise dictionary According to sociology, “A leader is an authoritative member of an organization or small group whose personal influence allows him to play a major role in social processes, situations. The authority and day-to-day influence of the leader are informal, spontaneous, and supported by informal means of group control.

(Concise Dictionary of Sociology(M., 1988))

In the psychological dictionary, the following definition of the concept of "leader" is given: "The leader is a person who is officially entrusted with the functions of managing a team and organizing its activities. The head is legally responsible for the functioning of the group (team) to the authority that appointed (elected, approved) him and has strictly defined possibilities for sanctioning - punishing and encouraging subordinates in order to influence their production (scientific, creative, etc.) activity.

(Psychology: Dictionary(M., 1990))

Management and leadership are part of management, in which various management issues are resolved by influencing subordinates.

Management is the process of directing actions aimed at achieving the set goals.

Leadership is intellectual and physical activity for the purpose of performance by subordinates of the actions prescribed by them and the solution of certain tasks.

Leadership is a process by which one person influences another person or group. (Managerial psychology)

Leadership and leadership are considered in social psychology as group processes associated with social power in the group. Power carries the right and ability to dispose of something, anyone, to subordinate to the will of one person. The leader and leader have a leading influence on the affairs of the group.

Any social group in one way or another is connected with the problems of leadership or leadership. Despite the difference between the concepts of "manager" and "leader", most studies on management problems are carried out in the context of general leadership theories, where a leader and a leader are understood as a person who has a leading influence on a group, and the leader is in the system of informal relations, and the leader is in system of formal relations. In a socio-psychological sense, leadership and leadership are the mechanisms of group integration that unite the actions of a group around an individual who performs the function of a leader or leader. The phenomena of leadership and management are close in their psychological essence, but they do not completely coincide, since the leader most often focuses on the task joint activities, and the leader - on group interests. At the same time, two aspects of power are distinguished - formal and psychological, depending on the orientation of leaders and leaders.

The formal or instrumental aspect of power is associated with legal powers leader, and the psychological is determined by the personal capabilities of the leader to influence the members of the group. The manual thus always contains legal basis as opposed to leadership. An instrumental leader is a task-oriented leader, while a psychological leader is people-oriented and their interests. It is quite understandable that most managers combine both in their activities.

The difference between leadership and management.

Despite the fact that the processes of leadership and leadership are identical in their psychological essence, there are differences between the leader and the leader, which are traditionally distinguished in social psychology (Parygin B.D. Fundamentals of socio-psychological theory. - M., 1971).

First, the leader regulates interpersonal relationships, and the head - formal. In addition, the leader is associated only with intra-group relations, while the leader is obliged to ensure a certain level relations of their group in the microstructure of the organization (institution), i.e. outside the group.

Secondly, the leader is a representative of his group, a member of it. It acts as an element of the microenvironment. While the leader enters the macro environment, representing the group for more high level social relations.

Thirdly, leadership is a spontaneous process, unlike management. No one can guarantee planned leadership, because many of the conditions for its emergence depend on group processes that are not always predictable. Leadership is a purposeful and planned process. It does not depend on group moods, group dynamics, and is implemented at the level of formal relations. Leadership is always carried out under the control of various elements social structure. Thus, leadership appears as a more stable phenomenon than leadership.

Fourth, the leader in the process of influencing subordinates has significantly more sanctions than the leader. He can use formal (negative and positive) and informal (negative and positive) sanctions. The leader has the ability to use only informal sanctions.

Fifth, the difference between a leader and a manager is related to the decision-making process, a mandatory managerial function. For its implementation, the manager uses a large amount of information, both external and internal. The leader owns only the information that exists within the group. Thus, decision-making by the leader is carried out directly, and by the leader - indirectly. Finally, the scope of the leader's activity is wider, since for the leader it is limited to the framework of this group. (Andrienko)

The concepts of "leadership" and "leadership" are different. R.S. Filonovich gives the following list distinctive features leader from leader:

Table 7

Depending on the official position in the organization, the existence of rights and obligations, the concepts of "manager" and "leader" differ in the following parameters:

Table 8

The parameters of the manager and leader in relation to each other are determined by A.A. Romanov and A.A. Khodyrev:

Table 9

The manager must have leadership influence for effective leadership.

Management and leadership have and common features:

complete subordination to the goals adopted in the organization;

constant communication with people united in groups;

impact on group members to achieve goals;

positive staff motivation;

· realization of social influence on working groups. (managerial psychology)

In some sources, the phenomena of leadership and management are considered as completely identical. So, D. Myers believes that leadership is a process by which certain members of the group motivate and lead the group (see: Myers D. Social psychology. - St. Petersburg, 1997). In this case, the leader can be officially appointed or elected, but can also be nominated in the process of group interactions. Such a view is fully justified, since the socio-psychological essence of leadership and leadership coincide. In this regard, many management theories hold true for both leadership and management.

In his new book, the well-known social technologist and the best Russian business coach (according to SEReputation) Vladimir Tarasov gives the reader practical tools and technologies for effective management activity of a group of people in a formal or informal organization. Using a socio-technological approach to leadership and relying on his own original research and development, Vladimir Tarasov shows what steps everyone who wants to develop leadership qualities need to take, what tools, techniques and specific managerial mechanisms a leader should use in order to successfully lead others people, maintaining influence and power in various circumstances and situations, including situations of conflict and power struggles.

The difference between a leader and a manager

I have highlighted the main differences between a leader and a leader (as well as from a boss, manager or supervisor). Of course, there are more of these differences, but even those that are highlighted are enough to catch the fundamental difference between a leader and a leader.

✓ The leader differs from the leader in that he does not have an employment contract (neither written nor oral) with the followers, and the state does not regulate relations between them.

✓ Therefore, the leader cannot:

Order,

require fulfillment,

Use other punishments, except for moral and image ones,

Do not answer follower questions.

✓ The difference is that in leadership such a factor as shared values ​​plays a much greater role than in formal subordination relations. Because of this, the followers are far from being indifferent to the extent to which the leader confirms the values ​​​​declared by him and often discuss this among themselves.

✓ If a leader makes mistakes or injustices, then subordinates perceive them approximately the same way. As for the mistakes and injustices of the leader, the followers often perceive them as conscious manipulation, hypocrisy or a double game of the leader.

The reason for such suspicion is an overestimation of the capabilities and skills of a leader. This is a very dangerous mechanism for him, and he encourages the leader to justify himself directly or indirectly to his followers so as not to lose their confidence.

What is forgiven to the leader is not forgiven to the leader!

✓ The leader can regulate the work and behavior of subordinates with organizational and administrative documentation, while the leader carries out such regulation only orally.

✓ The manager plans individual activities in terms of content and timing, and then distributes the work necessary for this among subordinates, guided by their job responsibilities. The manager determines how much working time one or another subordinate must devote to a particular task.

The leader, on the other hand, usually plans activities for the content, and predicts (rather than plans) the timing of their implementation, since he cannot be sure how much time this or that follower can devote to common work.

Or vice versa: the leader plans the term for the implementation of the event, but predicts (rather than plans) its content, since he cannot be sure to what extent this event will be able to be implemented. Here we are dealing with an "uncertainty ratio", that is, the leader's plans differ either in desirable but indefinite terms, or in desirable but indefinite amounts of work, or (which is also often the case), in the uncertainty of both.

✓ The manager can take responsibility for the performance of work by labor collective to third parties, but the leader often cannot take such obligations, but can only reassure: “We will try, and then - how it will turn out!”

✓ When distributing work, the manager may or may not take into account the desire or unwillingness of the subordinate to accept this or that work for execution. The leader must take this into account.

✓ The manager may demand from subordinates a written report on the work done or explanatory notes about misconduct or failures that have occurred. The leader cannot demand any written reports or explanations from the followers and is forced to be satisfied only with oral ones.

✓ The manager can control the performance and quality of the work of the subordinate both personally and by entrusting such control to a third party, and the subordinate is obliged to assist in this control. The leader, wishing to control the performance and quality of the work of the follower, is forced to confine himself to tactful questioning of the follower and take his word for it.

✓ The manager can and often notifies subordinates in advance of the rewards and punishments he introduces. The leader does not inform his subordinates about this in advance, since they are not explicitly provided for, and the followers learn about the rewards and punishments introduced by the leader after the fact. At the same time, the leader often speaks positively or negatively about the follower behind his back, thereby raising or lowering his status in the group.

✓ The manager, when hiring a new employee, allows him to work with a certain one-time action, so it is usually clear whether this person to work or not. The leader allows the novice-follower to work "indistinctly": at first, the novice may be present during conversations about work, then provide occasional minor assistance, and only after the fact it can be understood that he has already joined the group of followers, which is why this group has very blurred borders.

However, the differences between the leader and the leader are to a certain extent erased if the “leader-follower” relationship exists for a sufficiently long time, becomes more businesslike, routinized and the right of custom develops, in which there are unspoken mutual obligations close to “ employment contract', although not stated as such. Then the leader can already entrust tasks to the follower, load him with obligations and take promises from him to fulfill them, as well as demand the fulfillment of the promised.

At first glance, it may seem that the concepts of leadership and management are quite similar, but when detailed study The question turns out that they have quite a few differences.

It is very rare to find a truly ideal leader. Only a few manage to competently combine the qualities of a leader and manager and maintain a balance between them, but it is the combination and balance of these qualities that gives the world the best leaders.

Let's try to highlight the main differences between the leader and the leader.

Differences between leadership and management

If you are borrowing leadership position, then, naturally, you have advantages in gaining a leadership position in the team, but this does not make you a real leader.

• Direction.

  The leader is the person who sets the direction of the work of others and is responsible for the results of this work. He also brings order and consistency to the actions of subordinates, and builds his interaction with them on the basis of facts and within the framework of established goals.
  The leader, on the other hand, inspires and inspires enthusiasm in the workers, conveying to them his vision of a sure bright future.

• Goals.

  Leaders often take a passive stance on goals. Most often they are guided by goals already set by someone. Leaders, on the other hand, always set goals themselves and use them to change people's attitudes.

• Order.

  Managers are prone to order in interaction with subordinates. They build their relationships with them according to roles and hierarchies. they prefer to select people who share their views and ideas, and also tend to use emotions and intuition. They do not associate themselves and their role with a particular organization, unlike leaders.

• Control.

  Managers ensure the achievement of goals by subordinates by controlling their behavior. Leaders, on the other hand, motivate and inspire their team by putting trust at the core of teamwork.

• Experience.

  Managers tend to make decisions based on their own past experience and resolve all emerging problems in the same way. Leaders are always inventing new, out-of-the-box solutions, and besides that, after solving one problem, they deliberately look for another one in order to come up with a solution for it as well. Leaders try to avoid and prevent problems in every possible way.

The difference between a leader and a manager: we draw conclusions

It is customary to distinguish between the concepts of a leader and a leader as, respectively, an informal and a formal leader.

If the process of influencing people occurs through abilities, skills and other resources, then we are dealing with informal leadership. In this case, influence comes from the recognition by others of leadership qualities and personal superiority. If the influence comes from the position of the position held and the official position in the company, then this leadership is formal.

The formal leader usually acts in the space allotted to him. professional area and is backed by official credentials. The informal leader moves forward due to his ability to influence other people and his personal and business qualities.

In life, as a rule, it is very rare to meet the ideal observance of these two types of leadership in management. Research results show that most good leaders have leadership qualities, while the reverse relationship is extremely rare.

There are two types of managers, whose functions at first glance are similar, but in fact they have a huge difference. It's about about a born leader and an ordinary boss. It's like asking, what's the difference between an orange and a tangerine? Only in the case of managers the difference is more than obvious. Now let's try to figure out why many people believe that there is no difference between these positions.

Many office workers are so accustomed to the corporate hierarchy that they look up to the manager and by default give the boss the status of leader. The head of the department is just additional powers and a certain amount of power over other employees. After all, we will not deny that any ordinary office worker, located at the very bottom of the corporate hierarchy, may have leadership inclinations, but at the same time not have authority.

The qualities of a good leader, which we will discuss below, can be useful outside the office and can be successfully applied in the family, in social group or interacting with friends.

If you have already become the head of a department in your company, then it will be interesting for you to familiarize yourself with the key points that will help you become a good leader in the future.

A leader aligns daily work with big goals

IN large companies office workers sometimes feel like a cog in a huge mechanism. People perform the same type of work, hand it over by a certain date, without even suspecting what the return is and what the result is. This is where the first difference between a leader and an ordinary manager appears. The head of the department relies on the fact that his subordinates do the work well and deliver it on time. The ordinary manager is convinced that his job is to properly regulate the elements of the mechanism, by which we mean ordinary employees. Therefore, he concentrates only on current tasks.

A true leader always keeps the main goal in sight. He knows that all boring and monotonous work is created in order to eventually achieve a good result. The leader makes sure that each of the employees knows about his own contribution to the common cause.

Leader sees employees as people

The head of the department has a place in his organization, he is convinced that a clear hierarchy is created in order for there to be movement along career ladder. A small boss will always dream of taking a larger department under his wing. That is why the manager considers all his employees and subordinates solely from the point of view of the position.

The leader is inclined to discard all conventions in communication with subordinates, seeing in ordinary employees, first of all, people. He is interested in the affairs of employees, their dreams and aspirations, and builds his communication on trust. Such easy communication helps the leader to get to know his subordinates well in order to more successfully use the strengths and weak sides workers.

The leader does not take credit for the accomplishments of others.

The manager is the same employee in the company, he has his own goals and motives. Similarly, he comes to his boss with a progress report. And if one of the ordinary workers has achieved a good result or come up with a brilliant idea, the temptation is great to appropriate authorship. If the entire department has performed well, the manager will take the opportunity to once again show what a brilliant boss he is.

The leader will always find kind words for each of his employees and emphasize that achieving the goal is, first of all, a collective success. He revels in the success of his subordinates with pleasure, because he knows that the more successful people around, the better for the team.

Leader takes responsibility

It is extremely important to be able to take responsibility for failure, even if ordinary employees made mistakes. The leader will never blame any of the members of his team. After all, he understands that it was he who needed to teach a subordinate to do his job right. The leader perceives the mistakes of one of the group members as a problem with the functioning of the system, and, as you know, the master is in demand for debugging the system.

An ordinary boss finds the source of the error and punishes the person who made the mistake.

A leader cares about the process, not the result

What is more important, the process or the result? An ordinary manager will immediately say that nothing but the result matters. That is why the manager is so scrupulous when it comes to timing or the exact execution of instructions.

However, if we look at the picture of the process in more depth, the importance of a thorough fundamental work. Therefore, the leader always looks deeper, he understands that the result is only a manifestation of diligence and diligence.

Leader motivates and inspires

It is tempting to exercise power over a subordinate when they fail to meet deadlines. Yes, and authority will not hurt if you need to achieve a result from the team. But the leader, above all, has passion and dedication, he literally “burns” at work, inspiring his entire team.

The leader supports his team

Exists a big difference between handing out tasks and wanting to help your team when needed. Remember that great leaders themselves brilliantly cope with all the tasks that they hand out to their subordinates. And if the need arises, a great leader will not sit idly by, he will do the work himself, thereby supporting his team.