The systematic and academic study of leadership occupied much of the twentieth century and continues to remain a vital topic of discussion today. Theories abound about what makes a good leader, and despite the continuing efforts of many, there is no single working expression of what leadership means. In an attempt to address this issue, James Kotterman wrote: “Leadership vs Management: What's the Difference.” The following review will briefly summarize Kotterman's article and follow with conclusions based on this author's experiences. Kotterman begins by highlighting the different connotations often attributed to the terms management and leadership; the former is predominantly negative and the latter generally positive. From here it highlights the need to more clearly define these two terms and the means by which to do so. Kotterman uses the results of numerous management and leadership studies, most of the data being based on subordinate opinions of role and effectiveness, to draw his comparison and then define key terms. He juxtaposes management and leadership through a series of four processes. These processes are vision creation, human development and networking, vision execution, and vision outcomes (Kotterman, 2006). Following each of these processes, a set of descriptors for both management and leadership are offered from which Kotterman draws meaning. Kotterman concludes that the two roles vary conceptually but are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Management is essentially task-focused, concerned with physical process, production, budget, and structure. Leadership is primarily human-centered, focusing on motivation, inspiration and needs. (Kottermann, 2006). This conclusion… halfway through the article… the nature of power as it relates to the rise of individuals into such positions and Kotterman does so only in a limited way. Having expressed the need to broaden research regarding meaning, this work must conclude in much the same way as Kotterman's, accepting that the debate about the nature of management and leadership must continue. Going beyond the respective task and human-centered focuses, if one were to conduct a similar analysis focusing more on studies regarding leader identification across a broader spectrum, it is likely that the findings would be more significant. Rather than examining primarily subordinate responses to aid in classification, seek data from all levels of an organization regardless of position relationships and ask subjects to identify leaders and/or managers. By doing so we could get ever closer to a definitive meaning of leadership and management.