Why We Need to Stop Equating Managers with Leaders

Many people, including leadership experts, use the terms leaders and managers interchangeably. They seem to do this even if they argue that leaders and managers are different things. I believe this has led to much confusion within the fields of leadership and followership.

The Confusion Between Leaders and Managers

Every day, I hear people refer to managers as leaders. This is puzzling because many of them also argue that leadership has nothing to do with exerting authority over others. Despite this, their actions suggest they assume business leaders are managers. Let me give you a few examples:

• Leadership training generally targets managers: Most programs designed to improve leadership skills are aimed at those in managerial roles.
• Limited focus on employee leadership: When training does include employees, it’s often labeled as “self-leadership,” which suggests that these programs are about leading oneself rather than leading others.
• Education efforts focus on managers: When organizations want to enhance leadership, they typically invest in training for managers instead of all employees.
• Managers identify as leaders: Many managers see themselves as leaders, while employees rarely view themselves as leaders of their managers.
• Followers are seen as subordinates: In most discussions about leadership or followership, followers are equated with subordinates, reinforcing the idea that leaders must hold a position of authority.

In other words, while many argue that decision-makers are not necessarily leaders, most assume that all leaders are decision-makers.

Explore Your Own Thoughts

Consider the following statements and see if you agree or not:

• Leaders are people of authority.
• Leaders have some form of decision-making rights over their followers (be it minor or absolute).
• The role of a leader is semi-permanent, meaning they hold their position long-term.
• Subordinates are followers because they report to someone else.
• Leaders choose their followers (for example, through recruitment).
• Leaders set the vision and/or goals for their followers.
• Leaders are responsible for the success of their group.

The Natural Approach

If you answered "no" to all the above questions, you’re less likely to assume leaders are managers. From a natural followership perspective, this is positive news. For one, as I’ve discussed before, we choose the leaders we naturally follow. We follow different leaders depending on what we want to achieve. Thus, the role of a leader is temporary and should be seen as a tool used by followers to achieve their objectives—not a position held by an authority figure.

Once this is clear to everyone in an organization, they can embrace aspects of natural followership by tapping into the innate human tendencies that have driven collective success throughout our species' history. This approach not only aligns with our social nature but also positions companies to adapt more effectively to the complex and rapidly changing business landscape of the 21st century.

Until next time – stay curious!