Leadership v. Management

I serendipitously arrived at an essay by Jay Gary, a PhD candidate in the Regent University program in Organizational Leadership. One of the paragraphs jumped out at me:

Rost claims management is built around authority relationships, while leadership is built around influence relationships. Management concerns managers and subordinates, while leadership deals with leaders and followers. Management exists to produce and sell goods, while "leaders and followers intend real change that reflect their mutual purposes" (p. 102). While Rost is not universally accepted in the field, he helped me realize that leadership was about influence relationships, not merely positional power. Unlike command and control relationships, influence is non-coercive and multidirectional. Leaders and followers influence each other mutually. Leaders persuade followers. In turn, followers persuade leaders. Depending on the situation, they may change places. Teams may even practice self-organizing leadership.

So here’s my question for today: Is it possible to be a good (maybe great) leader and a bad (maybe awful) manager? When I think about some of the experiences I have had in leadership and management in the last 6-7 years and apply this paradigm, so much begins to make sense. Leaders "influence." Ah, yes that explains it. Managers "get the job done." Leaders are declaring: "Let’s move forward." Managers are organizing the parade.

The combination of great leader and great manager in one person, I think, is pretty rare.