A while ago a colleague of mine asked me the question “Do you consider your self to be a leader or a manager?”. Initially I responded that I thought myself to be a manager as an important aspect of my role is managing expectations, ideas and developments of an internal CRM system. However, a debate ensued as my colleague believed me to be more a leader than a manager and now I am not so sure which one I am!

So what is the distinction between a leader and a manager? Will the definitions help?

Leader noun

• someone or something that leads or guides others.
• someone who organises or is in charge of a group.

Manager noun (abbreviation Mgr)

• someone who manages, especially someone in overall charge or control of a commercial enterprise, organisation, project, etc.

Does this help me…not yet!

Both a manager and a leader may know the business reasonably well, but the leader must know the business to a finer degree and from a different view point. They must grasp the underlying market forces that determine the past and present trends in the businesses niche, so that they can generate a vision and strategy to bring about its future development and growth. A crucial sign of a good leader is an honest attitude towards the facts and objective truth. Conversely, a subjective leader obscures the facts for the sake of narrow self-interest, partisan interest or prejudice.

Effective leaders continually probe all levels of the organisation for information, challenging their own perceptions and validating the facts. They talk to their constituents and employees to find out what is working and what is not. They keep an open mind to the knowledge they gain. An important source of information for a leader is the knowledge of the mistakes and failures that have been and are being made within their organisation.

Leaders conquer the context, the turbulent and ambiguous events that conspire to blur the facts, while managers surrender to the events in a reactionary manner.

Leaders investigate reality, taking the pertinent factors and analysing them carefully. On the basis they produce visions, concepts, plans and programs of change. Managers adopt the truth from others and implement it without regard to the facts.

There is a profound difference between leaders and managers. A good manager does things right whilst a good leader does the right thing. Doing the right thing implies a goal, a direction, an objective, a vision, a dream, a strategy, a path, a reach.

Many people spend their lives engrossed in the ‘rat-race’, attempting to climb the corporate management ladder in a vein attempt to beat mediocrity and make a difference. Unfortunately, many find themselves climbing the wrong ladder. Most companies and organisations become over-managed through this constant, unending, highly competitive race and under-led by those who lack vision. The managers accomplish nothing or the wrong things beautifully and efficiently. They climb the wrong ladder.

Managing is as much about efficiency as leadership is about effectiveness. Managing is about how things need to be done, leadership is about what things need to be done and why these things should be carried out. Management is about systems, controls, procedures, policies and structures whereas leadership is about, trust, vision and hum capital, people.

Leadership is about innovating concepts, inspiring others and initiating projects. Management is about carrying out these visions and managing the status quo. Leadership is creative, adaptive and agile. Leadership looks to the future whilst also being mindful of the bottom line.

Leaders base their vision, appeal and integrity on a careful estimation of the facts, trends and contradictions. They develop the means to re-define the status quo so that their vision can be realised, hopefully, successfully, whilst also enrolling others into the vision of the future. Without, other peoples buy in, a vision will stall and a period of transition will ensue. Leaders, therefore, have to empower others to accomplish the over-arching goal whilst also rewarding their achievements.

There is a profound difference between management and leadership, but both are important. To manage means “to bring about or succeed in accomplishing, sometimes despite difficulty or hardship“. To Lead means “to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, etc.” The distinction is important.

The most dramatic differences between leaders and managers are found at the extremes. Poor leaders are despots while poor managers are bureaucrats. Leadership is a human process and management is a resource allocation process. Both are important and in many instances managers need to also perform as leaders. Indeed first-class managers have significant leadership ability.

So where does this leave me? My opening gambit included the words “…an important aspect of my role is managing expectations, ideas and developments…” this must naturally lead me to a combination of both a leader and manager. Indeed, in my new role as a web development consultant, I have to set directions for developing concepts and applications whilst also planning, organising and promoting effective action of the task at hand. So I could say I am in a period of transition. In the past few years I have learnt much from those I consider mentors, whether they were aware or not. I have seen how things are managed and lead and from these experiences have built upon my own skill-set. I can neither categorically say I am a leader or a manager, or say what I would rather be; this is something that can only come with time.

Web 2.0 will alter the way that businesses develop and apply innovative ideas.

During the 1990s business leaders and venture capitalists grappled with how they would make money from the web. This was tipified by the two VCs, Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital, investing $25 million in Google in the late 1990s; they new the search engine created by Sergey Brin and Larry Page was a winning formula, even though the pair had not yet monetised search. Bricks and mortar compaines were deemed “old hat” as the dotcom bubble was expanding. Companies such as eBay, Amazon and Yahoo! were at the forefront of every investors’ chequebook. Every company needed a 21st Century “Blue Sky” web strategy; every company needed to do e-commerce. However, the bubble burst and everyone was brought down with a bang. Boo.com is a classic example of the fallout from the over speculation.

Today, the reality has shifted from solely bricks and mortar or dotcom, to a balance between the real world and cyberspace, of traditional business operations complemented by the unversality provided by web-based technologies. The web has given businesses a greater understanding of their customers. With Web 2.0 a new type of web is emerging, further enhancing the understanding of a user or customer through the creation of online communities, where information is shared and new ideas evolve.

There are numerous examples of web communities from the early FriendsReunited to MySpace and the more specific Islandoo for the Channel4 TV progamme Shipwrecked. Web 2.0 is all about collaborative networks tipified by Flickr, del.icio.us, Wikipedia and YouTube. However, Web 2.0 has primarily been used in the consumer arena, as identified by the examples, but the use of such technologies has far reaching implications based on understanding how people interact with the technologies and behave online. Linking people across countries, time-zones and company boundaries will enable people to work together without hierarchical boundaries, bringing people together as one team to collate the best input. This is emphasised with the concept of a wiki whereby any end-user can make changes to the shared resource without the need for specialist software and expensive training. This makes sharing knowledge extremely easy.

Other areas of Web 2.0 is the technology identified by the term “folksonomy”. Simply, a folksonomy is defined on Wikipedia as:

… an Internet-based information retrieval methodology consisting of collaboratively generated, open-ended labels that categorize content such as Web pages, online photographs, and Web links. A folksonomy is most notably contrasted from a taxonomy in that the authors of the labeling system are often the main users (and sometimes originators) of the content to which the labels are applied. The labels are commonly known as tags and the labeling process is called tagging.

While it takes time for an expert to create a taxonomy specific to a particular organisation in order to categorise or define data, folksonomies do not require fixed taxonomies. Instead, users define their own descriptions of the data to be described by applying tags to the data, whether it is a bookmark in terms of del.icio.us, an image on Flickr, a video on YouTube or a document in a company repository. Over time, these tags can be amended by other users resulting in a definition that is more specific. This enables users to find information with relative ease, without having to type the exact keyword.

Web 2.0 will bring a whole host of issues into the business arena. While there are clear benefits from establishing communities and social networks, people with different views, be it political or religious, can drive the agenda. Further complications arise through the necessity to audit changes to the data and ensuring the data is indeed accurate (Wikipedia has had cases where people have maliciously altered data to either enhance their own profile or devalue the significance of historical events).