Leadership And Management
Globalization and the fast paced changes in technology have led to a need for more focused leadership within organizations In order to adapt to such dramatic change and this has led to a demand for more understanding of what makes a leader and how they differ from managers. Some theorists have tried to separate and define the different roles of management and leadership (Tamaki, cited in Armstrong, 2012; Cotter, 1990; Lundeberg, 2011). The term Leadership within a business context is often perceived as being associated with the most senior people In an organization.
The benefits of attempting to distinguish between the two roles are found in many areas of human resource management or human resource development, Including recruitment and election, talent planning and selection for training courses, for example, leadership training programmer. For these purposes, it is important to assess whether leadership capability is something one Is born with or whether It Is a characteristic that develops as one progresses through management, taking on more strategic roles and responsibilities.
If the former, then It Is essential to determine the characteristics that make a born leader in order to identify such people in the workplace or in the recruitment and selection process and
Need essay sample on "Leadership And Management"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
A review of the suitability of trait theory in relation to identifying leadership skills will lead than appraisal of the contingency theory of leadership and an analysis of accepted leadership styles. The paper will conclude by looking at some examples of how a multinational manufacturing organization Is identifying and developing leadership behavior and analyzing the theory behind the practice. In 1977, Galilean argued that managers and leaders are people with different characteristics and motivation, therefore it Is necessary to differentiate between the two roles to avoid personal conflict.
He believed that leadership behaviors (“visualizing behavior and generating value in work”, Galilean, 1977) in a competent manager would stagnate due to their tendency to need order and control. Cotter (1990) suggested that organizations need to differentiate between the role of manager and leader, rather than have people attempt to carry out both as most people will excel at one role and not the other. A separation of the roles and an awareness of one’s tendency towards either competency is necessary in order for an organization to build a successful team where management and leadership can complement each other.
Tamaki (2003, cited torso separate roles and that most people cannot be both. Both theorists have categorized the roles of manager and leader in an attempt to clarify the difference between them, essentially defining a leader as someone who develops strategies, communicates a vision, establishes a direction and produces dramatic change. In contrast, they argue that a manager’s role is principally to find a way to carry out this vision through planning, problem solving, allocating resources and producing order.
This view can be criticized on the basis that most leaders in any organization are likely to also be managers, with task and person responsibilities. They do not acknowledge an overlap between the two roles. Most leaders, even at the very top of an organization, also have management responsibility, so separating out the two roles could be seen as too simplistic and unhelpful in understanding how someone could make the transition from manager to leader. While leadership and management are complimentary to each other and both are valued, they are rarely two separate roles.
Lundeberg (2011) argued that most people will lean more one way than another on a continuum of behaviors, such as: Uses influence (Leader) / Uses Authority (Manager) or Looks Outward (Leader) / Looks inward (Manager). Although he separates the behaviors of manager and leader by pairs of attributes, he acknowledges that people are not purely at one end of the spectrum. By separating the roles, however, he supports Cotter’s (1990) view that the roles are different and argues that success n based on having effective management as well as leadership.
Most organizations would struggle to achieve its objectives without effective management and while it is accepted that leadership is increasingly important in today’s ever-changing world, good management is also required in order to carry out the leader’s vision. The earliest attempts to define leadership concentrated on personality types and traits. Trait theory can be seen as a scientific approach in that it attempts to make general laws about groups of people.
Where desirable trait clusters are identified in a errors, the theory implies that this person will be a successful leader. However, this is not a guaranteed outcome. It is difficult to apply scientific theory in this way, as individual behavior is impossible to predict. Furthermore, traits of successful leaders may differ from one culture to another and between men and women. Since these early theories, an increasing number of women have taken up management positions.
A more recent study of successful female leaders has identified that traditional female skills, such as communication and collaboration are more effective n the modern business climate than traditional male strengths such as toughness (Psychosis, 2007), therefore the generally accepted leadership traits as identified in the early studies may no longer be applicable. Adair (2003) acknowledged that while management and leadership are different, there is a considerable overlap between the two roles.
He supports the trait approach to identifying leaders within an organization, identifying seven generic leadership traits but also acknowledges that a leader’s style needs to fit the situation. In contrast to Tamaki, Cotter and Lundeberg, forever, Adair acknowledges that there is some crossover between management and leadership: “Managers become leaders when their personality and character, their knowledge and functional skills of leadership are recognized and accepted by the others involved. ” (Adair, 2003, p. 5). Trait theory enables an organization to organizational culture.
Where the culture of an organization is highly valued, employees who do not fit’ are unlikely to succeed in this organization. Trait identification is also used in psychometric testing, a method which claims to assess a arson’s character including personality, work style and values by having the candidate self-score on a series of questions about their preferences and interests. The trait theory of personality assumes that we are pre-disposed to certain behaviors. This would therefore imply that a leader will have a certain style which cannot be changed to fit the context, for example due to external changes or in a new organization.
If we agree that leaders are born with certain traits and have a style of leadership that stems from these traits, then it would be considered appropriate that hey would need to find a context that suits their leadership style in order to be successful. The context of any situation will consist of influences that are intrinsic to the organization, such as the culture, the nature of the tasks and the skills and characteristics of the employees, but it may also include extrinsic influences, such as a threat to the business from a competitor or an economic downturn.
This will impact on the effectiveness of the leadership style. Coleman (2000) identified six leadership styles which are used by effective leaders at different times, dependent n what is required by the situation or context. He suggested that in order to be effective, leaders need to be able to use several of these styles, ideally four or more, depending on the challenges the business faces and they will need to decide on the most suitable style to achieve the best results.
For example, an authoritative style will be more effective when communicating a vision that involves significant change, and seeking support for this vision, such as during a restructure. An authoritative leader will sell their vision, showing their followers the end result, but leaving them o decide how they will achieve it. In contrast, a coercive leader is demanding and controlling, which may run the risk of encountering barriers from the workforce, including reduced flexibility and task ownership. A coercive style would be more effective during a crisis, when a more decisive approach is needed. Truly adept leaders will know not only how to identify the context they’re working in at any given time, but also how to change their behavior and their decisions to match that context. ” (Snowmen & Boone, 2007, cited in Husking and Buchanan). This interagency theory of leadership requires not only a clear understanding of the current business requirements, strategy and direction, but also an acute awareness of any political, economic, legislative, social, technological and environmental changes that may threaten or benefit the organization and a great deal of self-awareness and emotional intelligence.
Coleman (1998) described emotional intelligence as “a deep awareness of ones emotions, strengths, weaknesses, needs and drives. ” He put forth the concept that a high degree of emotional intelligence is a significant factor evolving leadership skills, more so than ability or knowledge, and without emotional intelligence no amount of training will create a great leader. Understanding the effect your behavior has on others is key to influencing others and gaining their understanding, acceptance and execution off leader’s vision.
This theory certainly has merit, however expecting anyone to have all of the above skills and are be able to switch between a number of leadership styles to suit the context experienced leaders are able to fulfill this requirement. This paper has shown that although there are some similarities between managers and leaders, particularly regarding their roles and responsibilities, there are characteristics and behaviors that differentiate a leader from a manager and even elevate someone from a good leader to a great leader.
Although trait theory has its uses, leadership itself cannot be ascribed too series of personality traits exclusive to certain individuals. While it is helpful to identify the different roles undertaken by managers and leaders, it is very likely that most leaders also have management responsibilities, and managers can be trained in leadership skills. Effective leadership behavior can be taught and learnt and can even be adapted to suit the situation at hand. There are a number of ways of identifying leadership potential in the workforce, and this information can be used to develop their careers.
Conclusion – an analysis of leadership development at Moos Ata multi-national manufacturing organization in Teakettles, a leadership excellence programmer is currently underway with the objective of developing selected managers into the Moos way. The programmer, run by an external training organization, is clearly presenting a behaviorism approach to leadership placement, with a set of twenty Leadership Qualities being identified: a mix of traits and behaviors. The course literature acknowledges that most people will not hold all of the listed traits; however it aims to be used as an aspirations guide.
Delegates are encouraged to identify the traits or behaviors that they are lacking and to concentrate on developing them. Potential leaders have been selected onto the programmer partly on the basis of their current position in the company and the responsibilities that they hold, but also because they already display some of the sired traits and behaviors. They are all managers above a certain grade and have people management responsibility. Throughout the programmer, delegates are asked to focus on leadership in relation to Self, Team and Business.
This is linked to Adder’s action centered leadership model, which categories needs into Task, Team and Individual elements. 360 degree feedback is sought at the beginning of the course, which is then used to tailor the training for the individual. This element addresses the ‘Self aspect of development, increasing the delegate’s self-awareness, one of 5 mentions of emotional intelligence (Coleman, 1995), which enables them to better understand the results that will be gained by their particular style of leadership.
By acknowledging the three areas of leadership (Self, Team, Business) it is clear that success for the business at a cost to the individual, or a success for oneself at a cost to the team is undesirable and a holistic approach is required by the organization. This is mirrored in Adder’s model, where if one area (Task, Team or Individual) is neglected, there is a negative impact on the other two areas. A balanced approach is deed and will be achieved by an organization that values its individuals and teams as much as it does the business strategy and goals.
Finally, by developing future leaders in the organization into the Moos way, the impact of the departure of a leader will have a much lesser effect on the organization than the departure of a leader chosen for their charismatic approach. While the programmer may pro- actively develop a number of managers into successful and inspirational leaders, the negative effect of such a programmer is that they are all working towards displaying organization’s approach to tackling future, unidentified challenges. Word count: 2,258. References Adair, J. (2002).