Leaders and Managers

One of the classes I'm taking this semester is Leadership. I'm very interested in the topic, but I'm also a little frustrated. It seems to me that leadership, and leaders, are being looked at too narrowly.

What is a leader? What is leadership?

The focus of the class is in how leaders and leadership relate to a business environment. But business is not the only, or even the first, area where leaders and leadership first appeared. Why only look at one slice of the pie? Shouldn't we look at all of it?

At present, no one can truly, definitively, say what a leader is, or what leadership is. The studies continue, the theories are argued, but conclusive decisions have no really been made. Can a leader be made? Or is someone born with the qualities necessary? Can the traits be taught? Is everyone a leader, in the right situation?

And what about managers?

I posted this question on my Facebook account a few days ago, and the folks that responded fell in line with the generally accepted business perspective. I wasn't happy with that. I want to know, do people look beyond business these days to other parts of life where leaders and managers can make a difference?

Outside of the business environment, what are leaders? What are managers? What's the difference between the two?

Here's what I think. Leaders inspire others to do more than they would be naturally inclined to do. Managers organize, oversee, and ensure what needs doing gets done - and since they don't inspire others, they often end up doing it on their own.

Leaders are charismatic. They are extroverted. They know how to connect with people. Managers are intelligent. They are hard workers. They are persistent. Well, good leaders and managers are. Good being 'good at what they do' and not 'good at their heart.' Leaders and managers are not automatically good people; they can be just as evil as the next person.

Can everyone learn to be a leader? Probably - but not a skilled one. Leadership is an inborn characteristic. The desire to be a leader must be there, part of a person's basic nature. Even then, they may not be a good leader, but they'll have the desire to be. The same with a manager. You can learn the technical aspects of the role, but does that really make you a manager?

When I first started this semester and told my friends that I was taking a class on Leadership, they're general response was, "Oh, you'll do good there! You're a great leader! You've been doing that for years!" It was flattering to hear, but it also made me stop and think. AM I a leader? Or am I a manager? Which do I want to be, and which do I think am?

I'm not a leader. I'm a manager. I'd like to be a leader, but I don't know if I have the inborn qualities necessary for it. I don't inspire others, you see, regardless of how I try. I can't persuade anyone to do something other than what they want to do, no matter what's at stake. I don't inspire loyalty in others. But, oh, I can manager! I can admin like crazy, get the job done, keep things organized, moving, and on target.

So. Should I be happy with being a manager, and not a leader? Or should I try to make myself a leader? And would making myself a leader mean I'd have to pare and trim my personality, my essential self, down to the quick, then assume and apply characteristics that aren't native to me? Is the sacrifice of self worth a change in description? And what purpose would it ultimately serve when most of the world can't differentiate between a leader and a manager?

And why is one preferable over the other, when the world needs both? Why is either better than being a follower/supporter, when the world needs all of us?