What is It That Makes a Leader?

Managing and leading are different functions and require distinct skills. Consequently, there are some key differences between being a leader and being a manager. Managers are not necessarily good leaders. While the main role of managers is to maintain stability and order in an organization, leaders do more than that. In this 1977 essay, psychoanalyst and scholar Abraham Zaleznik explores in depth what he finds to be the main differences between managers and leaders. Not only from a practical standpoint but also as far as the psychological traits and attitudes that are characteristic of leaders and managers are concerned. In the essay, leaders and managers are viewed as archetypal representations of being. A depiction that goes deeper than the mere functions leaders and managers have in organizations.

Managers conserve and strive to maintain order in an organization, abiding by the rules. Leaders invent creatively. They have a higher purpose and value individuality and authentic relationships. Particularly, Zaleznik reckons that leaders are mostly born so. There are, therefore, inherent psychological and physiological characteristics that are unique to leaders, especially when compared to managers. The analysis of leaders and managers made by Zaleznik does not look at the concept of "leader" as the authoritative figure of a group. The leader is a personality and behavioral archetype.

Zaleznik identifies five main dimensions based on which to compare managers and leaders. First, he digs into personality differences. Personality traits are by definition fixed, and on this part of the article, Zaleznik focuses therefore on inherent differences between managers and leaders. He then proceeds to analyze the attitude toward goals of managers versus leaders. Thirdly, he presents some differences concerning the conception of work, to then expand into relationships and sense of self. The essay is concluded with an explanation of how leadership is developed and passed through generations.