"Manager" and "leader" are distinct concepts, and they require distinct skillsets and personality characteristics. Probably the most concise distinction I can make is that a leader is the CEO (they set the vision for the organization), while a manager is the COO (they make the trains run on time). A leader is a change agent: their goal is to envision a better possible future and get people to buy into that future. A manager is a problem-solver: given a vision for the future, their job is to make that vision come true with a minimum of fuss and hiccups. Leaders need creativity, confidence, vision, persistence, and either really good technical skills (to build a demo and show people what's possible) or really good interpersonal & communication skills (to convince other people to build that demo). Managers need organizational skills, interpersonal skills, emotional intelligence, confidence, and really strong listening & communication skills.

It's fairly rare to find both skillsets combined into the same person. Steve Jobs was a great leader but a terrible manager; Tim Cook is a great manager but a terrible leader. Mark Zuckerburg is a leader; Sheryl Sandberg is a manager. Larry Page is a leader; Eric Schmidt is a manager. Steve Wozniak was a leader who had no pretenses for ever being a manager: one of the conditions for founding Apple was that he'd always stay at the bottom of the org chart. Jeff Dean is a leader; Sanjay Ghemawat is a manager (in a metaphorical sense, for both of them; they're both individual contributors).

Leadership often arises out of unexpected quarters: very often, it's strong-willed individuals at the bottom of the org chart who turn out to be the strongest leaders in times of crisis (and then they often rapidly rise through the org chart, at least as long as they find a good manager to partner with to make the trains run on time).

I appreciate the detailed response, I guess I've just been conditioned to equate "leader = manager" on account of their liberal and seemingly interchangeable use in job descriptions and roles (or perhaps that's my own misinterpretation). I do see the difference though, and think that I wouldn't mind being a leader as you describe it, and I believe I have most of the qualities you describe for it. I have thought of myself more as a silent leader (e.g. by example), or through peer coaching, but I am just wary of taking on a managerial role, and it sounds like for good reason: some of those qualities are my weaker points, and I plainly do not enjoy many of those things. Thanks again!

I don't think it says much about you at all. If your goal is to "be a leader" then I think you're a part of the problem. One should aspire to do something great. That may require fulfilling the role of leader at some point, but it should be a means to an end.

It's like a guy I know who wants to run a startup for its own sake. No particular ideas, not very technically minded, no aspirations to make the world better or even to just build something cool. It would simply make a good bullet point on his resume--priorities totally out of whack.

Someone who wants to be a leader as some kind of status symbol are the kinds of narcissists that cause so many problems in this world. The fact that you're not that person says nothing bad about you.

Thanks, that is sort of my thinking too: it's a role and title that's bestowed upon you because you've earned it and proven yourself worthy, as opposed to some formal role within an organization.

Some people have to take charge because it's too stressful for them if they aren't in control. Others want the power/status of managing people. Maybe you just you value other things like family, alone time or cheesecake.

Yes, that last part is definitely part of it -- I've witnessed management, and it scares the hell out of me. I value my off-time way too much, and I refuse to get involved the one-upsmanship game of time clocked at work.

Having done both (leading/managing) I can say that I often have days where I dream of just being the worker bee... if only I could get paid the same.

My friends that are in management have expressed the same desires, but I believe that is mainly because as technical engineers, making the switch to personnel and project management brings with it too many non-technical challenges that can't simply be solved by logic alone.