As the BJP leadership crisis enters its penultimate hour and the heated debate on the rise of managers in the “party with a difference” still manages to hit newspaper headlines, it becomes vital to understand what separates a manager from a leader. BJP since its inception was known to be a party of leaders and not managers like the erstwhile Congress, but the 90s saw the rise of managers in the BJP as well. It was this which led to the coining of a new term by political analysts - “Congressization of the BJP.” The term sounds trendy but larger and deeper questions remain to be addressed, the biggest of them being – the difference between a Leader and a Manager.
For many, a good leader is the one who successfully manages an election campaign and comes out winning the election. But then the question arises, if this person is the leader then who is the manager? Playing Devil’s advocate will help us to realize that the one whom we had been considering as leaders weren’t actually leaders but managers, who just have a short term objective which in this case was to win the elections. For an ideal leader, the vision replaces the objective making it broader and larger not for the benefit of the individual but for the benefit of the country, for the benefit of people and lastly for the benefit of the party and that too beyond electoral success.
Today, both the terms are interchangeably used without understanding the significance of the either, and more importantly what these two different terms stand for. The definition that clears the air is “Managers are concerned with doing things right, but Leaders are the one who do the Right things.” Also, further in understanding the difference between the two, another major point which one should realize is that the leader is the “problem maker.” Well not in the literal sense of course, but in the sense that it is the leader who actually identifies something wrong and recognizes a problem. This might as well lead us to say, “if it wasn’t for the leaders, there would not have been any problems” as even if there were inconsistencies present they would not have got noticed by managers as managers are the ones maintaining a status quo. In sharp contrast, a leader is the one whose highest desire is to bring about change. Leaders are also the ones who actually believe in empowering people through decentralization of power unlike a manager who would prefer to concentrate power. This leads to managers ending up demanding respect whereas leaders command respect.
Leaders are risk takers as well, who go against the tide whereas managers are the risk minimizers who see to it that minimal damage is suffered like seen in the Karnataka BJP crisis wherein the managers from the party reduced the risk of the Government collapsing rather than taking a risk of challenging the Reddy brothers. A leader is the one who gives the ship a direction while a manager steers the ship towards it. The Ramjanmabhoomi Movement is a perfect example of it where the Charioteer, Mr. LK. Advani was the leader whereas the Sarthi, Mr. Pramod Mahajan was his manager. This also vaguely leads us to derive that in today’s competitive politics, the idealism of a Leader in itself isn’t enough to come to power and hence, it becomes important for the leaders to take the help of boardroom strategists (read managers) to win the race for achieving power. And it doesn’t end here, even as the leaders capture power i.e. their means of serving the people; they still need the help of managers in the form of bureaucrats to fulfill their dream, their vision. Last but not least, a leader’s concern is with “What is Right” whereas a manager’s is being Right. Thus, unlike a manager, leadership is not a permanent role but more of an act which is need based.
As someone aptly put it, “Managers are necessary, but Leaders are Essential”
Posts
