There is a big difference between management and leadership. In my opinion management is a very huge term; covering many aspects, while leadership may be considered as a part of management. Management refers to the art of directing, controlling, and supervising a group of people or employees with the help of many management tools, which can also include leadership, while leadership can be said as the process of leading a group of certain people. (4)

Management can be properly defined as "the art of managing people and the person is called manger who utilizes human resource, finances, technology, and natural resources to get certain results in the favor of the organization. Leadership is a part of management and it is the inborn capability of the individual which makes him a successful leader. It is very necessary for a leader that his subordinates should be purely his followers, otherwise the leader might not be considered as a good leader.

Many scholars have agreed on this theory that management process includes leading the management, organizing the complete management, planning how to handle the management, controlling all the factors and besides these all the problems faced is a part of management. So in my opinion the difference between management and leadership exist because of the vastness in terminologies. Management is a vast term which covers the term leadership and thus making it a part of management.

In fact a person who wants to be a real manager has to pass through three levels to achieve it's aim. While both managers and leaders play important organizational roles, only a real manager can not only to inspire his team, but to achieve high results.

When people are first appointed to the manager role, they tend to behave like overseers and become task focused. We can call this Level 1. They are just trying to figure it all out. "What are we trying to do here? How do we get it done?" They are basically focused on the work and achieving on-time and on-budget delivery.

Once leaders understand what it takes to be successful in the work, they then begin to realize that they can be more effective if their people are more effective. When that happens, they make the leap to Level 2. They go from being an overseer to a coach, from being task-focused to people-focused.

Level 2 leaders direct their energies toward understanding their people's skills, maximizing their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. Level 2 leaders focus on communicating the overall picture of what they are trying to accomplish. They delegate, they groom, and they spend a lot of time ensuring that everyone is clear about the goals. They understand that to be successful, their people have to understand the leader's objectives and the key principles for decision-making.

If your people do not understand your principles of operation, they will make decisions based on their own principles - which may or may not match yours!

When you are in the presence of a Level 2 leader, you know it because the difference is like night and day. Level 1 leaders talk about the tasks, the deliverables and the factors related to accomplishing them. Level 2 leaders, however, tend to be focused on people. They realize that they can be more successful if their people are more successful.

But while the difference between Level 1 and Level 2 leaders is significant, the difference between Level 2 and Level 3 leaders is even more so. While Level 1 leaders focus on task, and Level 2 leaders focus on people, Level 3 leaders focus on the future. They are constantly forward focused. We call Level 3 the visionary level.

Level 3 leaders want to know how decisions today will impact the future. They consistently ask themselves, "Where is the business going? How do we align our efforts with the business objectives? What do our customers want? What is coming down the pike that we need to be preparing for today? What do we need to be doing today to better prepare our business for the future?"

No, the three levels are not positions in an organization. They are levels of development for a leader. Tragically, you can have the CEO of an organization operating at Level 1. You can also have someone in a position like receptionist acting at Level 3. For example, while a Level 1 receptionist is just trying to get all the phone calls answered while greeting people who walk through the door, a Level 3 receptionist would be constantly looking for ways to improve how the phone and greeting processes could better support the business. To move from Level 1 to Level 2, you have to understand what it takes to be successful in the job. You don't have to know how to do the job, just what it takes to be successful so you can recruit, coach, groom and evaluate others. Until you are clear on what it takes to be successful, we recommend focusing your energies on Level 1 activities.

Level 2 is called coach. Therefore to have the luxury of focusing your energies on Level 3, you have to have people in place who know what it takes to be successful and who can coach other people. If you do not have people who can coach others, you will be kept at Level 2 because you will be the one coaching. To move from Level 2 to Level 3, you have to have people who know what they are doing, but those people must also know how to develop other people.

The Level 3 model is intended to encourage striving for a higher vision for leadership. However if we only reward people who get things done on time and under budget, our leaders will be encouraged to focus on Level 1. We must have rewards and incentives for building leadership skills in others, anticipating customer needs, and creating and implementing higher visions.

2.1 Differences between management and leadership