What is the difference between a leader and master? These are two different terms which imply two different types of relationships that exist between human beings, and they are often misunderstood.
The key element that separates these two types of people is the element of force; masters will use force and intimidation on others so their commands will be obeyed, while leaders will naturally gain admiration from their peers for contributions that they have made to the community. Leaders have no interest in obedience and have no time to bark out orders; they are too busy hacking through the vines in the jungle, clearing a path for the rest of us to follow.
Leaders are chosen voluntarily by people who are inspired by their acts, while masters are imposed on many different people who have no choice in the matter and would most likely prefer to be left alone if they were given the opportunity. Leaders may be exceptional in many ways but they are still on equal ground with their peers, while masters always require the upper hand and will typically have privileges that they deny to those around them.
There are some who are deceived into admiring their masters, and they end up mistaking these masters for leaders, but that doesn’t change the nature of the relationship between these two people. The fact that a slave may trust and admire his master does not magically turn that “master” into a “leader”. If the interactions between these two parties are involuntary and involve force, then you can be assured that you are dealing with a master/slave relationship, not a leader/learner relationship.
Likewise having a choice between various masters does not change any of them into a leader, because the nature of the interactions that they will have with others once they are in power will still be those of a master, not a leader. Being the best or most popular master does not make you a leader, leading peacefully and by example is what makes you a leader.
True leaders set a positive example for others to follow by partaking in voluntary interactions with their peers and showing the community how to live more meaningful and peaceful lives. These people may be artists, philosophers, inventors, builders, entrepreneurs or skilled workers that are involved in win-win scenarios with their fellow human beings. In other words, people who create some sort of value for the community, even if that value is just a good imagination or personality. With that being the case, if someone spends their time barking out orders, committing acts of violence and meddling in the lives of their peers, does it make any sense at all for us to call that person a “leader”?
The majority of the people living on this earth are unknowingly involved in a forced association with someone who acts as their master, yet ironically so many of these people habitually refer to their masters as “leaders”. While this may be an innocent and unintentional misunderstanding, it is important for us to consider that people who demand obedience from others may not deserve to have the title of “leader”.
more here: http://intellihub.com/2013/03/29/the-difference-between-a-leader-and-a-master/