The precise difference between managers and leaders has been a topic of discussion in the leadership community for many decades, and the conversations often reveal a clear preference for the seemingly sexier task of leadership over the bean-counting that so often encompasses managerial administration.

It’s a societal bias that is reflected across society according to new research from Cornell University, which shows that leaders tend to be more loved than managers.

Overvaluing leadership

The researchers point to an almost romanticization of leadership which puts society at risk of overvaluing it in comparison to seemingly more mundane managers.

Across a number of experiments, the researchers asked volunteers to picture a hypothetical company that has a number of strong products and high market potential.  Despite this, the imaginary company is unprofitable because it’s badly run and has ineffective processes.  It’s a scenario designed to illustrate the need for better management expertise.

Despite this, however, the participants tended to say that they would hire a chief executive not with strong managerial skills, but rather strengths more commonly associated with prototypical leadership.

“A ‘love for leadership’ seems to influence a lot of decisions that don’t match situational needs,” the researchers say. “The bias for leadership is among those to which people and organizations should apply deliberative thinking to make better decisions.”

Leader worship

The researchers argue that our popular infatuation with leadership began in the 1970s and can be seen not just in organizations but across the media and even in academia.  Whereas previous business schools would focus on management-related words, now there is a strong emphasis on leadership development.

They go on to say that the use of “managers” by the Wall Street Journal has been trending downwards since 1989, with the use of “leaders” going in the opposite direction.  Similarly, a search of Google Scholar reveals academic references to things like “charismatic” or “transformational” leadership skyrocketing since 2004.

The researchers hope that their findings will prompt selection committees to be more aware of the potential leadership bias in their processes and ensure that the strengths of the candidates best match the real needs of the organization.  There should also be a rethink of leadership development programs so that managerial skills are subjugated to more prototypical leadership skills.

“Beyond seeming to confirm this love of leadership,” the researchers conclude, “our findings highlight that this preference may come at the high cost of failing to appreciate the value of management in many situations.”