As with most things, I find it is often a balance of both and it not as clear cut as it may seem. Management provides structure to a project and is often the backbone of the quality and compliance aspects of a project. Good management practices ensure that quality is being maintained, project deadlines are being met, and that GDP and SOPs are being followed. Leadership on the other hand encompasses the more human elements of the project and focuses on boosting morale and inspiring a team to create the best device possible. In doing so, good leadership inspires innovation, and allows teams to cultivate a culture in which they care about the projects progress and feel safe to take accountability for project progress and product quality.   I believe it is not controversial to say that a good leader cannot deliver a compliant product and meet deadlines without management skills, and a manager without leadership skills may be able to meet deadlines and product compliance, but will inhibit innovation and burn out their team leading to a less motivated and inspired team. The best outcome for a team is a leader who can integrate both of these skill sets to empower and motivate their team while also ensuring project scope and deadlines are met. With that said, what phases of a project do you believe require a more robust management structure, and which phases benefit the most from motivational leadership, and why?

Mohammad, you provided great definitions for introducing both concepts. I’ll add to your points by explaining how these concepts really pan out in a real-world context.

During my first job in the field, I worked within a smaller company. My direct report was an old-fashioned type who was well regarded, despite having very conservative views towards employee treatment (i.e., disabilities, industry experience or knowledge, skillsets, etc.). Hence, while most projects were rolled out with little difficulty, he was particular about how those projects were completed and what the employees gained from them. I was a thorn on his side because of the latter; I tended to seek a more nuanced, broken-down approach towards the processes of my tasks, but he would almost always disagree with me. He saw his views as paramount fundamentals and that they should not be questioned because the company had never failed under him. All the while, my coworkers were also of little help, taking his word as gospel and refusing to assist me in applying my ideas to the project workflow. I felt stunted and left that company not long after I began there. The place had great management, but lacked severely in leadership.

Not long after, I began my term at GAF (that I've spoken about at length in other replies). There, I witnessed a completely different culture. My direct report was very open-minded and task-driven, always reminding all of the team members that they were free to bring up any concerns, questions, or fresh ideas to enhance the department’s workflow. From the get-go, I was encouraged to not just follow my training, but to think outside the box and get creative with any solution I might have. Further, the company fostered a culture of example-setting and supporting those around you, no matter which team or department they worked in. With this mindset, I was able to complete not just the tasks that I needed to complete, but also add value to the organization with the freedom to find new solutions to the same problem(s). 

Thus, a mixture of strong management and leadership creates an environment that not just guarantees the company can deliver on time and effectively, but also fosters a culture that incentivizes employees to grow and become even more valuable and well-rounded.

I agree with what was mentioned before me and to add on I think that it is important to have a balanced environment where there is a lot of structure, but also where creativity is allowed. However, I think that it is for the benefit of the employees when the manager guides them into thinking of creative solutions because it is helpful to have a clear structure for how things should be done, but that strongly stunts any growth that people may have. At my current coop, my boss creates an environment that is mixed, but he does give me a little bit more freedom in how I can approach to solve the problems because these new ideas can help to solve issues that were previously ignored. It is quite difficult to have a perfect method that has no issues, so giving the team a bit more freedom to create can lead to innovative ideas that can tremendously increase efficiency. Even if a team has more structure that is not an issue, but there should be an open communication where members are allowed to try to update the current setup. Making sure that deliverables are out in a timely manner should be the most important, but if there are times when the manager is available to listen to ideas, they should take the opportunity. I also prefer environments where there are growth and more learning experiences because that means there is a lot more overlap between departments that can help to improve productivity. A team member that has a good understanding of various concepts can create a product that is a lot more refined in the early stages instead of needing multiple design reviews. 

In medical device development, both leadership and management play critical roles, but leadership often drives better team performance by inspiring purpose and fostering innovation. Effective leaders motivate teams to think beyond tasks and embrace a shared vision, which is essential when navigating complex regulatory and technical challenges. Management, on the other hand, ensures structure, organization, and compliance by coordinating resources, timelines, and documentation. While strong management keeps projects on track, leadership empowers individuals to contribute creatively and collaboratively, especially during problem-solving and risk-mitigation phases. Medical device teams thrive when leaders encourage open communication and trust, enabling experts from engineering, quality, and clinical fields to align their efforts. Without solid management, even the best leadership cannot sustain progress, but without leadership, management alone may limit innovation. Therefore, the most successful teams integrate strong leadership with effective management to achieve safe, efficient, and high-quality device development.

In a realistic scenario, you would want a management team that is filled with great leaders. People you can look up to, learn from, go to for advice/help, speak to in a friendly and professional manner depending on the situation, and someone who does give you guidelines/orders but in a way that allows you to provide feedback or suggestions where needed. These are just some qualities of a manager who should also be a leader. For someone to be an effective individual especially in higher levels of management, they need to be a good leader. Nobody will be able to follow a high-level manager who is not a good leader, nor will they really be able to get work done especially in larger groups/departments. In the same way, a good leader in a company setting, especially working with medical device development, cannot produce effective work or complete projects in the same manner if they are not good at managing a team. These traits go hand and hand, and I would not necessarily consider them separate. However, there can be leaders who are not in positions of management. There might be leaders within individual teams, and this can also apply but generally, the better or I would say more experienced leaders are usually in higher levels of management. In general, a structured management would consist of great leaders to effectively complete projects.

I think the discussion perfectly highlights why separating management from leadership is crucial, especially in a regulated field like medical devices. Personally, I believe the best team outcomes arise from a powerful synergy where the two are integrated, not separated. Structured management is non-negotiable; it provides the discipline, control, and process adherence necessary framework to meet stringent regulatory deadlines and avoid catastrophic compliance failures. However, that structure only delivers competent results; leadership is the engine that drives innovation and real accountability by creating a culture of psychological safety, inspiring engineers to solve complex problems and take ownership of the quality of the final product. Therefore, the ideal scenario requires a manager who can lead and a leader who can manage, because stability without motivation leads to stagnation, and motivation without structure leads to chaos.

When answering this question, it is important to look at the type of work the team is actually accomplishing. In a medical device development, teams are not always working on a uniform task or accomplishing everything simultaneously, rather, they can shift back and forth between phases that require control or they might require creativity. The best answer I would like to give is that it really depends on the needs of the team. The best outcome would be when the team needs management and when it needs inspiration (like from a leader); for example, in the early stages of development and conceptualization, people might benefit more from a leader to provide that psychological safety, especially when bringing up concerns and challenging assumptions. When a team enters the verification or regulatory processes, then strong management would then become essentially. Also training to combine the two would also be great. Management could learn leadership skills and become small unit/team leaders that can provide both avenues. With that said, if I had no other choice and I had to pick, I might pick the leader. A good leader understands what needs to be done and what needs to be properly managed, coupling that with motivation can really boost the mental fortitude of the team around them.

I think the best team outcomes in medical device development come from leadership that prioritizes motivation and culture. Strong management keeps timelines stable, but it does not guarantee creativity, problem solving, or accountability. In a field where safety, precision, and innovation all matter, teams need more than direction. They need a sense of purpose, trust in one another, and the confidence to speak up when something seems off. That type of environment comes from leadership rather than strict management. A manager can assign tasks and maintain schedules, but a leader creates the conditions where people care about the work and feel responsible for the outcome. When teams feel heard and supported, they are more likely to raise concerns early, share new ideas, and push through difficult phases of development. This is especially important in medical device projects because the stakes are high and the challenges are complex. Teams must be willing to challenge assumptions, think creatively, and rely on one another. A culture built by strong leadership makes that possible. Do you guys think a team can innovate if deadlines come first, or does true innovation only grow when leaders prioritize curiosity?

Another important factor is the extent to which the team's members influence whether leadership or management works better. Different personalities respond to different styles. Some engineers thrive under clear structure, checklists, and predictable expectations because it helps them stay focused and reduces stress. Others get their best ideas when they’re given freedom, trust, and space to explore. So even with the same project and the same deadline pressure, two people might need very different kinds of guidance to perform at their best.

Because of that, I don’t think the best outcome always comes from choosing leadership or management, it comes from managers who know their team well enough to adjust their style. A newer engineer might need more structure in the beginning, while someone more experienced might shut down if things get too rigid. And during stressful phases (like verification or audits), even the most creative team members may temporarily need stronger management just to keep everything controlled.

So for me, the real skill is being flexible: knowing when to step in with structure and when to step back and let people take ownership. Teams usually do their best work when individuals feel supported in the way they personally need, not just in the way the project plan says they should be managed.

I believe the determining factor to this discussion is the size of the company and how many projects are going on at once. In my experience, I have been both part of a larger corporation, and a smaller company and I found each one having similar levels of teamwork despite being entirely different in organizational structure. 
The larger company I mention had thousands of employees worldwide and found that management was the optimal route for structuring their company. While I found it annoying, I think having a tight management is ultimately  what led them to be so successful in so many projects at once. There at this company, there was a lot less room to learn and develop, but a lot of projects or improvements to be made that helped this structure be so effective.
The smaller company has about 40 people total in 1 primary location and 5 more assisting in the installation and upkeep of their sold products. What made this company so special was their unique leadership based organization. There were only ever one major project and 2-3 minor projects going on at once, and what allowed them to thrive is that they encouraged others to learn about how to contribute to the design of the project or even suggest new innovative approaches to the leadership team. Because there were a lot less moving pieces in terms of company size, they were able to allocate less resources to time efficiency and more resources into the development of their product.