In most group activities, there’s always a person who would take the initiative, if not chosen, to be the head of the group. But how does he do his part at times like these? I’ve seen a certain photo about the difference between being a boss and being a leader on Facebook not so long ago which looks kind of like the one in here:
I don’t think what it’s trying to say is that every boss is an arrogant, self-righteous, self-seeking individual. I think it just wants to distinguish two kinds of people: one who’s like an autocrat and the other who’s like an egalitarian.
From my own observations, a group with a “leader” rather than a “boss” has a nicer atmosphere; the members are happy (except of course during crunch times and the like), people are nicer, and most of the time, the output is better. I’ve seen groups lead by “bosses,” and still manage to make good outputs. However, during the process of making those outputs, the members had to act like slaves (not in an “I own your lives” kind of slavery but more like a “Just do what I order you to do” kind). If you lead a group, would you like to be remembered as the “boss” who drove people around? Even if you say “well, good results are what matters,” still, I think it’s better if you would be nicer with the members of your group. Having a good relationship with everyone is, most of the time, better after all.
So are you a boss or a leader?