Leadership vs. Management

These two often are used interchangeably, but I've learned in grad school that they should be applied to two distinct, but important, qualities.  I've heard several ways to define the two, and all definitions point to dramatically different purposes and applications.  

One that has stuck with me is that Management is the ability to produce results, while Leadership is the ability to produce change.  Managers take the current situation and existing processes and get them to be the best they can be.  Managers are concerned with things like efficiency, continuous improvement, and other ongoing improvement initiatives.  By definition, they are not focused on, nor produce, chance because that interferes with the system's functioning.  Leaders look at the current situation or processes and, instead of asking "How can we make this better?", they ask "Should this be the way it is?"  Leaders take into account the external situation, including competitive drivers, cultural trends, and a variety of other factors.  When they analyze something, they are prepared to make changes that will benefit the system in the long term, but my cause problems in the short term.  

It is important to notice that the two seem like they are mutually exclusive.  Managers refine and preserve while Leaders change.  But they are both important skill sets for anyone who seeks to be the head of a team of any size.  Each person in charge should be able to get the most out of their reports and systems, but should also be aware of opportunities for improvement through drastic change.  So what school has given me is the ability to think both as a Manager and as a Leader.  I naturally think more as a leader, and have been spending my conscious effort on managerial topics.  I'm very excited to try them out.