*The position or office of a leader: ascended to the leadership of the party.
*Capacity or ability to lead: showed strong leadership during her first term in office.
*A group of leaders: met with the leadership of the nation's top unions.
*Guidance; direction: The business prospered under the leadership of the new president.
*The act, manner, or practice of managing; handling, supervision, or control: management of a crisis; management of factory workers.
*The person or persons who control or direct a business or other enterprise.
*Skill in managing; executive ability.
In a nutshell, management
is the who, what, when & where and leadership
is the how and why. A lot of people mistake leadership and management for being one and the same, but they are not. They share nothing more than a tangential relationship. I am not passing judgement, not declaring either more valuable than the other. In fact, I think they are both extremely important to the fluid functioning of a team.
In years past, more so than today, I have tried to provide leadership and
management for the Hurricanes. And in these dual roles I would employ lieutenants to help me achieve certain goals. Sometimes a person would act as a lieutenant in the realm of leadership, sometimes in that of management, sometimes both and sometimes in the highly important and highly rarified field of "Jeff Management" (because Jeff is, as most of the guys on the team will tell you, a temperamental, highly excitable, volatile, often prissy, egomaniacal and sometimes unnecessarily draconian *****).
For instance, Zack Ducharme was a Jeff Management resource. Zack kept me from flipping out on other people (large because I'd flip out on him). Chris Wedge was a management resource who would help me get things done that needed getting done. Matt Falbe was a leadership resource, who would help provide strategic direction for the team. Mike Hood did a little of all three. Emily did a lot of Jeff and Strategy.
I am not trying to thank everyone I owe thanks to, so if you are not on the list above, I apologize. I'm just giving a short list of examples.
In my experience, a lot of team captains/managers do not fully understand the difference between management and leadership and consequently confuse the edicts of one as those of the other. Furthermore, many neophyte (hell, many veteran) captains try too hard to hold all the reigns themselves, mistaking control over the details as control over the direction. I used to be that way (I think a lot of the guys on the team would say I still am).
I have found over the years that sharing not just responsibility but authority strengthens the team. Players with say have more interest. There are those who just want to be told when and where to show up, but many others want to know the details and have an opportunity to voice an opinion. And while listening to other people's opinions takes up time and effort, it tends to prevent larger problems down the line.
Sharing authority strengthens it. And in my many years of running the team, I have never had to worry about a coup removing me from office. If a team captain is worried about that, he should quit the team himself immediately. Leaders lead, and they do it looking forward. If you are looking back, you are doing a poor job. Recognize that yourself before your players do and save yourself the embarassment.
Recognize, too, that while authority is shared, it is still, at the bottom line, contained. Players are allowed
to make decisions, that does not mean its their right.
And finally, recognize that while you share authority, you do not share blame. If I tell a player he can organize a practice and he screws the pooch and it goes sideways, its my fault. Doesn't matter if I had nothing to do with the process. The buck stops, always stops, with the boss.