From Managing to Leading

Man­agers have a posi­tion of author­ity vested in them by the com­pany, and their sub­or­di­nates work for them and largely do as they are told. Man­age­ment is trans­ac­tional, in that the man­ager tells the sub­or­di­nate what to do, and the sub­or­di­nate does this not because they are a blind robot, but because they have been promised a reward (at min­i­mum their salary) for doing so. [from Chang​ing​Minds​.org]

Lead­ers on the other hand do not have sub­or­di­nates — at least not when they are lead­ing. Many orga­ni­za­tional lead­ers do have sub­or­di­nates, but only because they are also man­agers. But when they want to lead, they have to give up for­mal author­i­tar­ian con­trol, because to lead is to have fol­low­ers, and fol­low­ing is always a vol­un­tary activ­ity.

The table below explains this in more detail:

Both are needed. And yet for com­pa­nies to thrive for the long term, for our coun­try to become great (again), we need more lead­ers. Many peo­ple, by the way, are both. They have man­age­ment jobs, but they real­ize that you can­not buy hearts, espe­cially to fol­low them down a dif­fi­cult path, and so they can­not but act as lead­ers too.