The Singapore Commentator

An article in the Recruit section of The Straits Times today entitled “Leader or manager?” compared the differences between the two leadership/management styles and suggested the following:

Managing and leading are two different ways of organising people. A manager uses a formal and rational method to rule over workers while a leader uses passion and emotions to motivate them.

“Rule” over workers? How about rephrasing the paragraph this way:

Managing and leading are two different ways of organising people. A manager uses a formal and rational method to incentivise workers while a leader uses passion and emotions to manipulate them.

Okay, I’m being mischievous here. Anyway, the writer was trying to lead readers to the conclusion that leaders are superior to managers. To this end, the careful placement of emotionally-laden words can help bias the article in the desired direction.

Leadership means different things to different people. One common feature that most people see in those they perceive as leaders — as opposed to managers — is the ability to inspire others to achieve a desired goal.

Inspiration, however, influences people to varying degrees. Intuitive personality types tend to be influenced by it more. In positions of authority, they also tend to use it more.

Fact-oriented pragmatists tend to be relatively indifferent to emotion-based inspiration. In positions of authority, they tend to be managers rather than leaders and as subordinates, may even resist attempts at inspiring them with anything other than facts.

The bottom line is that the right style should be used in the right setting. One style is not necessarily superior to the other.