Toward expanding the explanation, this is why I separated them. Leadership is neither sufficient or necessary for managers - as evidenced by the survival of every large organization. Management skill is neither sufficient or necessary for leadership, because leadership is less a thing than it is just the effect of being followed. I'm a big advocate of the necessity of charisma and inspiration, but crappy managers often think of themselves as leaders as a substitute and an excuse for failure, and leaders often don't accept responsibility for creating and managing the value feedback loop that sustains their teams - also as a substitute and an excuse for failure. I've reckoned with both, and they're hard to face, but well worth it. Somewhere between these poles is truth, and the art of managing and leading that I think you're referencing is technique applied to the more fundamental role differences I was implying.
I don't have much to add to the conversation here, but an upvote doesn't seem to suffice in order to indicate that your separation of leadership and management into two separate (and potentially overlapping) qualities feels like a really useful one, thank you.
