Leadership and Management

A Comparison and Contrast

By Dennis C. Bradford, PhD

Article published on: March 1, 2026 in the March 2026 E-Edition of the Army Civilian Journal

Read Time: < 29 mins

Statue of the ancient Greek historian Xenophon in front of the Austrian Parliament Building in Vienna (Photo by MrPanyGoff; image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

The concepts of leading and managing have intrigued humankind for centuries, and Greek literature offers historical insight into the study of leadership. Christopher Kolenda cites “Xenophon, a pupil of Socrates who led the retreat of the ten thousand from Persia to Greece in 400 BC, as the first to record a definition of leadership in the western world.”1 As one would imagine, Xenophon’s writings reflect the mentality in his day, where life was rugged at best, and survival demanded a zeal unmatched in modern times. Likewise, Wood Neal mentions Xenophon, who describes the earliest view of leadership by writing: “[I]t is highly indicative of a good leader when people obey without coercion even during times of danger.”2 Here, Xenophon conveys even hardship will not deter loyalty for a leader when members follow of their free will.3 Kolenda appears to agree when he addresses Xenophon’s remarks that “the ability to persuade others to risk their lives voluntarily rests implicitly on the trust they have in the leader’s character and ability to win.”4 All of these examples point to a leader’s ability to influence as they interact with followers.

This article will explore the shared and divergent attributes of leadership and management found in scholarly literature. It concludes with my contention that leadership and management are best viewed as different and distinct functions needed within the same organization, where a single capable individual can employ these tools or skills to establish and accomplish organizational goals.

What Is Leadership?

In the dynamic environment of the Department of the Army, civilian and military personnel are a unified force, mutually focused on the execution of our Nation’s most critical missions. Success in this synergistic environment demands more than just technical expertise; it requires a sophisticated understanding of how to optimize human and material resources. The ability to discern when to lead people versus when to manage tasks is not merely advantageous—it is an indispensable competency for achieving organizational excellence.

Gaining a nuanced understanding of leadership and management is essential for Army civilians serious about maximizing their contribution to the Army’s mission. This article serves as a tool to facilitate this understanding, empowering you to transition from a valuable contributor to an indispensable partner in our Nation’s defense.

The terms “leadership” and “management” are often treated interchangeably, referring to functions or titles held by organizational decision makers. For instance, it is common to hear “leader” and “manager” used to describe the same individual within an organization. The distinction becomes even more complicated in military organizations with uniform and civilian personnel holding similar staff positions. Across the Army Enterprise—Regular Army, Reserve Components, and DA Civilians—Army professionals take an oath of office that subordinates them to national laws as well as to elected and appointed officials. This creates a distinct civil-military relationship emphasizing civilian authority over senior military leaders.5 And within scholarly literature, the concept of leading and managing crisscrosses numerous schools of thought, with writings spanning centuries.

Scholarly literature on leadership and management spans various academic disciplines, as noted by Mauro Guillen.6 And it often uses slightly different terms depending on the field. But this article will consider leadership and management across three aspects of the public and independent sector: Public Administration, Nonprofit Governance, and National Defense. My professional journey in national defense, combined with scholarly reading in these fields, has strengthened my understanding of management and leadership, and I believe sharing insights from these domains will be valuable to my fellow civilian colleagues.

Nonprofit Governance

According to Robert Greenleaf, “institutions need two kinds of leaders: those who are inside (the organization) focused on daily responsibilities, and those who stand outside but are intimately concerned with the organization’s success, and who, with the benefit of some detachment, oversee the active leaders.”7 These external leaders are called trustees, officers, board of directors, etc. According to Andringa and Engstrom, expecting an organization’s chief executive and staff to answer to two or more bosses is the most abused governance principle.8 Ideally, the full board sets policy, not individuals or clicks within the board. Board members are encouraged to refrain from directing employees. Therefore, it is critically important that both the board and staff stick to this principle to avoid confusion and conflict. Unfortunately, this principle is also violated by various organizations, not just nonprofits. However, if more nonprofits employed something like the Army’s unity of command and used formal lines of communication, they could avoid critical failure.

According to Hughes et al., setting direction, ensuring resources, offering oversight, and evaluating the executive director’s performance are chief affairs of a nonprofit board.9 Likewise, Carver appears to agree by emphasizing that the board “defines, delegates, and monitors.”10 When the board focuses on governance, the staff is free to direct the organization’s daily operations. Likewise, Andringa and Engstrom argue that “the Governance hat is to be worn only when the full board is properly notified and has a quorum.”11 Schimmer brings this full circle by addressing the unity needed within nonprofit boards by stating “the assembling of board trustees must be legally constituted so that they vote on motions, draft policies, establish goals, and plan for future events. It is paramount that the board speaks with one voice outside the boardroom.”12 Just as with a good marriage or a disciplined military unit, key leaders can disagree behind closed doors, but in public, in front of the children, or in front of the troops, they present a united front. Schimmer’s view of nonprofit boards focusing on policies, establishing goals, and planning for the future is consistent with the leadership characteristics found throughout this article.

National Defense

ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession, combines the leadership and management concepts found in scholarly literature and assigns them to the Army leader and to Army leadership. The Army leader is expected to influence, motivate, and direct others. The Army leader engages in planning, controlling, and coordinating human and material resources. Likewise, management is viewed as a complement to leadership as it applies to maintaining order, achieving efficiency, and complying with laws and policies. Army professionals comprised of both military and DA Civilians manage things including processes, resources, and systems. Although Army professionals are tasked with managing personnel as an important resource, it is best understood that they lead people as individuals and groups to accomplish missions. Within the Army, management is also viewed as a skill to be developed over time as responsibilities increase. Emphasis is often placed on understanding how policy, regulations, and procedures impact organizational functions. Across the Army enterprise, there are shared or combined management and leadership attributes and competencies that Army professionals cultivate over a successful career.13

A career in the armed forces is unique, because military and DA Civilians (to a lesser degree) cultivate and select future leaders from among their own. Likewise, “to ensure the quality of future leaders, all Army Soldiers and DA Civilians have a responsibility to develop themselves and their subordinates.” 14 Army professionals, whether soldier or DA Civilian, depending on the context, navigate between the roles of leader and follower. Each, regardless of rank or position, reports to someone higher in the chain of command. Likewise, “the principles of mission command outlined in ADP 60 inform the level of control leaders employ in a particular situation.”15

Consider the writings of Irish Army Commandant Gavin Egerton in his article on mission command where he analyzed several leadership theories, including trait theory (Francis Galton, 1870); behavioral theory (Bernard M. Bass, 1949); situational theory (Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, 1969); and transformational theory (James MacGregor Burns, 1978), as they support the philosophy underpinning mission command. However, he favors one leadership theory over the others. The study of transformational theory is likely to have the greatest return on investment for those keen to employ mission command more successfully. Many aspects of transformational leadership, such as building trust, empowering followers, articulating and pursuing a vision, mirror the principles of mission command; the idea of aligning followers toward a shared vision, for example, echoes the successful communication of a commander’s intent. Transformational leaders coach and mentor their followers to develop their own leadership ability and work toward the shared vision, building mutual trust in the process. Furthermore, commanders develop their subordinates to work to achieve higher levels of professional competence (maturity) and thus become more likely to be empowered with delegated decision-making authority—the core of mission command.16

In short, mission command is the Army’s approach to command and control, which are key components of management. It encourages delegating most decisions to lower echelons so the higher echelons can focus on critical decisions only they can make.17 Instrumental to mission command are the concepts of mutual trust and shared understanding among superiors and subordinates. Mission command “empowers subordinate decision making and decentralized execution appropriate to the situation.”18 Also key to the success of mission command is the incorporation of commanders’ intent, which is a form of shared cognition or shared understanding. Although military literature blends management and leadership characteristics, both are essential to success on the battlefield and within the garrison.

Although definitions differ, many scholars view management as the process of directing others in the accomplishment of organizational goals, while leadership is understood as more innovative and associated with casting a vision of the future.19 This raises a critical question: What are the differences between leadership and management, and where might these roles overlap?

What Is Management?

The role of management historically is attributed to organizational life. This is where managers are viewed as supervisors and coordinators of an organization’s human and material resources and who focus on goal achievement. Even a manager’s specific leadership style will affect others’ perception of them. Their leadership style often shapes the manager’s influence over staff, and impacts his/her manner of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling, which are considered key responsibilities held by managers within organizations.20

Across scholarly literature, management is comprised of a minimum of four functions: “planning, organizing, leading, and controlling” of human and other resources to achieve organizational goals efficiently and effectively.21 During planning, managers establish goals or objectives and develop supporting courses of action. Managers develop this process by (1) selecting goals to be pursued; (2) establishing and developing courses of action to accomplish those goals; and (3) allocating and prioritizing organizational resources that support the accomplishment of the various courses of action. When organizing, managers arrange work responsibilities and relationships to facilitate goal achievement. This requires managers to give thought to individual responsibilities and the overarching departmental roles and functions. In leading, managers champion the organization’s vision and equip staff at various levels to accomplish goals. Finally, with controlling, managers evaluate past performance considering goal achievement, making on-the-spot or midcourse corrections where needed to improve overall performance.22

Organizational success is determined by how efficiently and effectively managers employ resources to meet customer needs while achieving organizational goals. The judicious expenditure of assets on goal achievement is what affects efficiency. 23 The suitability of goals and the extent to which they are achieved determines the organization’s effectiveness. Achieving efficiency and effectiveness in executing the four managerial tasks of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling requires managers to consider hierarchy and skillset. The three hierarchal levels traditionally employed across most organizations are first-line, middle, and top management. However, some organizations use functional departments designed according to skillset or expertise which often vary by industry. Technical and interpersonal skillsets are usually deemed most important by top management when establishing departments and distinguishing positional hierarchy.24 The military also has three organizational or hierarchy echelons described as direct, organizational, and strategic.

Instead of using the term “controlling,” Army literature uses “direction,” where Army professionals “communicate a desired end state, prioritize tasks, assign responsibility, and supervise and ensure subordinates perform to standard. When subordinates have clear direction, they are equipped to adapt when circumstances change and show initiative in ways consistent with the commander’s intent.”25 Another term, command, is also unique to the military and includes the “authority that a commander (military officer) in the armed forces lawfully exercises over subordinates by virtue of rank or assignment.”26 Furthermore, Army regulations and doctrine give commanders the responsibility for planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and controlling military forces in the accomplishment of assigned missions.27 These five commander responsibilities are often viewed as management functions as addressed earlier in this article. Army professionals can gain a more holistic understanding of management and leadership when viewed through multiple lenses. As mentioned earlier, various academic disciplines have researched the topics of management and leadership. Another profession that employes these skills in the execution of their duties is the public administrator.

Army Values poster (image courtesy of DVIDS)

Public Administration

The term “administrator” appears predominantly in nonprofit, governmental, and sacred literature. Administrative management, shaped by the writings of German professor Max Weber and French manager Henri Fayol, focused on a highly efficient and effective organizational structure and control system designed to feature predictability and mitigate or decrease risk to acceptable levels. 28 Weber also advanced the bureaucratic model on which he based five principles: (1) attributing a manager’s formal authority to his/her position within the organization; (2) associating organizational position to performance and not social standing or personal contacts; (3) documenting and communicating position, formal authority, and task responsibilities; (4) transparent hierarchical lines of command, control, and communication, (not to be confused with auftragstaktik or the Army’s mission command; see Army Doctrine Publication [ADP] 6-0); and (5) well-defined rules, standard operating procedures, and behavioral norms.29

In Christian literature, the Apostle Paul explains the gift of administration by using the Greek word kubernesis, which means “to steer or guide a ship,” symbolizing the person placed in charge of the ship’s crew and cargo.30 Other compatible terms, according to Kenneth Coley, include captain, helmsman, or ship’s pilot. Additionally, Coley explains the Latin root of the word “administrator” with a focus on the English infinitive “to serve,” where he describes the modern concepts of the public servant and ministry servant.31 In so doing, he suggests the image originally presented by Greenleaf in servant-leadership, where a servant-leader is one who holds a “desire to serve;” and “the willingness to be a servant first.”32

In considering the task or role of an administrator, Henri Fayol, who also contributed significantly to the “scientific approach of administration,” identified “five functions of administrative conduct.”33 These include (1) studying the future to plan operations; (2) acquiring and organizing both human and material resources; (3) commanding or making the workforce perform its job; (4) coordinating or merging and connecting all activities; and (5) using control to ensure everything is done in accordance with rules and procedures. 34 Additionally, Coley refers to “theorist … Luther Gulick who cataloged seven administrative practices under the acronym POSDCoRB: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting.”35 It is important to note that both Fayol’s five functions of administrative conduct and Gulick’s seven administrative practices are similar to the key responsibilities of managers identified by Jones and George above in the first paragraph of this article under the subhead “What Is Management.”

How Are They Similar?

There is significant overlap in both role and function of leaders and managers, whether they are serving on a nonprofit board, an enterprise, a governmental agency, or in ministry. All managers face challenges requiring prompt decisions based on past experiences or insight gained from readings or observation.36 Mary Genis argues that nonprofit chief executives stagnate when they reside exclusively in the management environment; however, progress is more likely when they consistently project themselves into the leadership realm.37 For organizations with the resources to support them, this creates an argument for a deputy or assistant director who can focus on the day-to-day (managerial) operations, while the chief executive is free to focus on internal and external relationships and securing the organization’s future.

Research indicates that managers require three types of skills: technical, human, and conceptual or job-specific skills.38 Technical skills are specific to one’s job or area of expertise. Managers often need a range of technical skills to succeed, regardless of their position within the organization.39 Human skills allow one to understand and influence the behavior of others. This ability to sway others and build productive teams will help distinguish exceptional managers from mediocre ones.40 The conceptual skills allow one to analyze and diagnose conditions, distinguishing both cause and effect. Top managers depend heavily on conceptual skills in planning and organizing.41 Michael Fullan argues that he “has never been fond of distinguishing between leadership and management: they overlap, and you need both qualities. But one difference is important to highlight: leadership is needed for problems that do not have easy answers.”42

Gary Yukl argues that “leadership is both similar to, and different from, management. They both involve influencing people. They both require working with people. And both are concerned with the achievement of common goals.”43 He supports his argument by considering scholars who compare and contrast leadership and management, where some consider practical application while others hold a more philosophical approach. In other words, he argues there is a management-to-leadership continuum, which can be understood using the following analogy: Consider a color spectrum where shades slowly shift, blending into the next until the distinction between the two are quite blurred. This is how some view leadership and management.

Researchers Ibarra, Snook, and Ramo suggest that while leadership and management appear to be separate and distinct functions, a closer look reveals that they are both critical areas of responsibility within the same establishment. In other words, management and leadership should be viewed as tools or skills used to accomplish organizational goals. These authors highlight individuals who can successfully hold these paradigms in tandem. They are simultaneously areas of responsibility and tools which are skillfully employed to perform daily activities. Ibarra et al., continue by defining “leadership as a type of work or activity rather than a formal position or the exercise of formal authority. It generates a departure from routine and current practice, creating instead new learning, innovation and patterns of behavior.”44

In similar fashion, Army doctrine presents leadership and management as complementary concepts essential for organizational success. According to ADP 6-22, leadership is the activity of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization. Army professionals lead people and employ the skill of management in the process of controlling and coordinating resources, processes, and systems to maintain order and achieve efficiency. While leaders are tasked with managing personnel as an important resource, it is understood that their primary role is to lead individuals and groups. The Army views management as a critical skillset that leaders develop throughout their careers, particularly as their responsibilities increase at the organizational and strategic levels where policy and regulations heavily influence functions. This skillset provides the structure and order that complements the leader’s role in inspiring and motivating their followers.45

How Are They Different?

An early proponent contrasting management and leadership was Abraham Zaleznik of Harvard Business School, who argued that managers and leaders are different types of people.46 Managers seek to mitigate risk as they efficiently and effectively engage in day-to-day problem solving. Leaders are risk takers who resemble artists or innovators that imagine the future and inspire others to follow their intrapreneurial or entrepreneurial pursuits.

But Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson argue that leadership incorporates the skill or tool of management, which is a special kind of leadership focused primarily on goal achievement. They argue management can be understood as a talent, method, and activity employed by leaders to attain goals, reducing management to the leaders’ activity. However, when managers choose to focus on personal goals instead of accomplishing organizational objectives, they continue to lead but cease managing.47 Therefore, organizational goal achievement is linked to successful management when the manager yields to the organization’s vision, mission, and core values. This understanding of leadership and management is also held by the Army.

To better understand core values, consider them through the lens of the Army profession. According to ADP 6-22, “The Army Profession is a trusted vocation of Soldiers and Army civilians whose collective expertise is the ethical design, generation, support, and application of landpower; serving under civilian authority; and entrusted to defend the Constitution and the rights and interest of the American people.”48 The logic map displayed in ADP 6-22 declares the profession of arms and Army civilian corps together share an identity as trusted Army professional. Consisting of honorable servants in defense of the nation. They are experts in the performance of duty. And responsible stewards of the Army profession. Together they are guided by The Army ethic, a set of enduring moral principles, values, beliefs, and applicable laws embedded within the Army culture of trust that motivates and guides the Army professional in the conduct of the mission, performance of duty, and all aspects of life.49

Also instrumental are the Army Values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage, in addition to the characteristics of the Army professional: Trust, Honorable Service, Military Expertise, Stewardship, and Esprit de Corps. Together the Army profession, ethic, values, and professional characteristics make up our core values.50

The Army expects all members, soldiers, and DA Civilians to live the Army Values and embrace leader attributes and competencies. However, when Army professionals fail to do so, counterproductive leadership follows. “Counterproductive leadership is the demonstration of leader behaviors that violate one or more of the Army’s core leader competencies or Army Values, preventing a climate conducive to mission accomplishment.”51 The Army’s use of the term “counterproductive leadership” is also understood as toxic leadership and is incompatible with Army leadership doctrine and Army Values.

Continuing with the distinction between leadership and management. Nanus and Dobbs argue that managers are entrusted with running an organization and ensuring it delivers goods and services to patrons and society efficiently and effectively, and that leaders concentrate on the organization’s future direction.52 Leaders have an eye toward the future, especially regarding the organization’s vision and mission, and leadership is indelibly guided by a set of core values. Vision and mission drive what a team does, while core values communicate who the team is. It points to team identity or how team members see themselves. Core values are so important that they should not change without significant trauma and hardship.

However, Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson portray more of a partnership with leaders acting as vision casters and managers diligently working to realize those visionary goals.53 Here, managers need a road map to follow to achieve their purposes, and leaders are the creators of that vision and road map. This dualism can be observed in successful organizations throughout the world. However, other scholars draw a sharper distinction between management and leadership.

In leading, one exerts influence over others to inspire deliberate action toward accomplishing goals.54 Similarly, Army doctrine holds that Army professionals “influence by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.”55 Daily, leaders are bombarded with decision-making opportunities and requests for guidance. However, long-term organizational success hinges on group commitment to a clear and compelling mission and vision statement, which are understood and embraced at all levels.

Furthermore, a set of core values informs the vision and mission statements, which ground organizational culture and convey organizational identity. 56 “[Organizational] culture consists of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterize the larger institution over time. The Army’s culture is deeply rooted in tradition.”57 The vision should be short, succinct, inspiring, and future-oriented. 58 Once an organization embraces a clear set of vision, mission, and core values, the next step is developing and committing to a strategic (longterm) plan to accomplish the stated objectives. The mission characterizes and brands the organization. The core values guide behavior and decision-making while setting a course for casting or recasting the vision. Next, the strategic planning process completes the cycle by establishing an implementation plan for achieving the mission and vision.59

According to Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson, leading or influencing requires three capabilities: (1) Diagnosing—gaining insight into a situation you are trying to effect; (2) Adapting—altering your behavior, plans, or opinion to respond to a dynamic situation; and (3) “Communicating— interacting with others understandably and acceptably.”60

What Can We Learn?

Leadership includes exerting one’s influence over others and establishing organizational vision, mission, and goals, while management involves the efficient and effective use of human and material resources, planning, organizing, directing, and controlling, to achieve organizational goals. Both leadership and management can easily be understood in their distinct roles and functions, even when exhibited by a single individual. A leader’s role in developing a compelling mission, vision, and core values statement and the manager’s task of accomplishing the supportive goals are essential in large and small organizations alike. Some enterprises are vast enough to require separate individuals fulfilling the roles of executive and deputy, while other organizations benefit from a single gifted person skilled enough to hold the two paradigms in tandem. Leadership and management are both different and distinct functions within the same organization, and one person can employ these tools or skills in accomplishing the organization’s mission.

Notes