The Internet Article, Management that Leads , clearly addresses issues between leadership and management that are not often described in this manner. The co-dependency on both characteristics of leadership and management are discussed in a light that shows one quality works best with the presence of the other. Oftentimes, we try to express that one is a leader and not a manager, and vice-versa. However, when the two talents are merged we can begin to see how interdependent they really are. As a result, we are then more likely to improve the quality of our work at getting work done through others.

Leaders must learn to manage, and managers must learn to lead. When we see the two as interdependent we are more apt to improve at the work of getting work done through other people. When we see the two as totally separate we more easily excuse our deficiencies in one or the other and thereby deny ourselves the potential for learning.(Hendrix, 2001)

Some believe that to understand leadership, we must understand the differences between management and leadership. While leadership is more influencing other people to work together toward a set objective, management is more clearly defined as the process toward achieving those objectives. This is where the aspects of planning, directing, controlling and organizing come into play. The manager deals with more of the administrative functions of the work, while the leader deals with more of the interpersonal aspects of the project. However, we learn that leading is one of the functions of management, confirming the statements made in the internet article, that the two are intertwined. The level of management that a person is on could also influence the level of leadership versus some of the other skill sets that managers have. Oftentimes, the duties of the executive managers may lend more toward forecasting and setting goals, while middle managers translate those goals into specific projects.

Relating these concepts of leadership to the workplace is quite easy. With the multiple layers of management within many work environments, one will find almost a textbook structure of management. The skill sets at the different levels are very much in line with the traditional management skills of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. Depending on which layer one wants to examine, there will be a leaning more heavily in one characteristic of management that at another level.

A few years ago within this authors organization, an opening for a manager’s position came up. The leading contenders for the position had been in two different environments and would need to have a well rounded set of management skills in order to fill the shoes of the long time manager who was leaving. One prospective manager has great leadership qualities in the area of motivation. This person has great skills at getting people excited and hyped up about meeting the challenges of the day, or the goals set before them. However, the other applicant has a very stable background of successfully running teams of people that vary in numbers from eight to one hundred and twenty. He has also directed his teams of supervisors to consistently be the number one team in the country over the past year. This has been through organizing, planning, controlling and leading. Therefore, the recommendation should be to hire the person with the entire package of skills rather than one who is just highly skilled at leading through motivation techniques.

Being a leader in and of itself is an admirable trait, however, developing into a great leader will require management skills that go beyond the realm of motivation. Making good judgments is also a trait of skilled leadership. In order to improve the skills of good judgment in business, one must gain as much knowledge of the business as possible, and do so quickly. According to Gary Dessler, your knowledge of the business is probably the easiest trait to modify; immerse yourself in the details of your new job, and learn as much about the business as you can, as fast as you can.