Leadership Versus Management
Galilean (1998) asserts, as does Cotter (1 9901 that although leadership and management may be similar in a few ways, they have many very distinct differences. It is unusual for one person to have the skills to serve as both an inspiring leader and a professional manager. In large, complex organizations, these two distinct roles are even more difficult to assimilate in one person, and the tendency is to set leadership skills aside in favor of managing the workplace. Understanding the differences between leadership and management can ensure that employees know when and how to apply each set of characteristics for given processes.
Links: Linking Service. Check for full text via Journal Finder Full text: Headphone Personal perspectives to stimulate thinking, change,… And even controversy Is there a real difference between leadership and management, or are they Just deferent styles? Whereas leaders are seen as charismatic and often are admired and held in high esteem, managers frequently are thought of as the organization’s taskmasters Is there really a difference between these two terms, or are the perceived differences simply a matter of style? Even if there Is a difference, does that difference truly affect the day-to-day workplace?
Is It important to differentiate
Need essay sample on "Leadership Versus Management"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
Measurement Framework Conceptualizing and defining leadership and management have always been difficult. The two terms often are used interchangeably in the workplace, creating confusion. Many leadership theorists have noted that there are nearly as many definitions for leadership as attempts to characterize it (Bass, 1990; Cotter, 1990, 1999; Terry, 1993; Galilean, 1998). In order to make useful comparisons, a reliable measurement system is necessary. In this case, which was associated with a dissertation program, the original intention was to correlate workplace leadership performance with leaders’ personality traits.
It quickly became apparent that research on leadership and management performance was fraught with problems. Ultimately, it was determined that measurement should be in terms of effectiveness, as rated by subordinates. This decision was based on historical empirical research that indicated subordinates often were identified as the determinant success factor in leadership and management success (Bass, 1990; Eden and Levitate, 1975; Gordon and Yuk, 2004; Yuk, 1989; Zacchary and Horn, 2003), so this measurement approach seemed reasonable. Historical Perspective Management is a fairly new phenomenon.
The emergence of large, complex organizations in the last century generated the need for a system to regulate work ND deal with authority and control issues. This resulted in the modern workplace manager who was expected to reduce the internal chaos of those more complicated organizations. Managers brought order and consistency to the multitude of workplace processes. Since that time, the duties of workplace management and its associated processes have been researched, refined, and improved significantly in the past century (Cotter, 1990, 1995).
On the other hand, leadership is one of the world’s oldest preoccupations, serving as both a hot topic and an important driver of innovation for thousands of years (Bass, 1990). Effective leadership remains one of the most misunderstood human phenomenon and comprises one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition (Wren, 1995). Why do the experts believe it is important to differentiate between leadership and management? Fundamentally, if you can’t define leadership or management, you can’t measure, test, make assessments, or consistently hire or promote for them.
Yet, they are both important to a successful workplace. The ongoing debate as to whether or not a clear distinction exists between leadership and management generally remains unresolved (Gardner, 1990; Gordon and Yuk, 2004). Research Barriers Theories of workplace leadership and management continue to emerge and be refined, but lack of a parsimonious taxonomy and a unifying theory of leadership have made progress slow and fraught with conflicting empirical results (Gordon and Yuk, 2004; Humphreys and Einstein, 2004; Yuk, Gordon, and Tabor, 2002).
Transformational leadership, as originally theorized by James McGregor Burns (Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978/1995) and later researched by Bass (1990), has become increasingly popular; however, it has not achieved the status of a unified leadership Hereford, the definition or construct theory used to define its characteristics varies significantly for each study and can make a huge difference in the results. Fortunately, however, some commonality about the aggregate functions of leadership and management are beginning to emerge.
Another barrier in leadership and management research is the fundamental disparities between academic research and empirical research. Academic research, which is also called basic, fundamental, or pure research, focuses on the advancement of knowledge and the theoretical understanding of the relations among variables. It attempts to structure and identify new problems or develop new solutions to problems. Empirical or applied research, however, bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality, evaluating the feasibility of an existing solution too problem (Wisped, 2006).
Two of the reasons for this disparity are differences between the research methodologies and theory constructs used. Additionally, there may be a lack of research rigor on the part of practitioners, a lack of empirical rigor on the part of academics, and differences in the research goals (Gordon and Yuk, 2004). Unfortunately, a diverse array of conceptualizations and understandings concerning management and leadership exist within academia, empirical research, and in the workplace; thus, it has been very difficult to add collectively to the overall knowledge on this subject.
A review of leadership and management performance literature reveals a wide array of definitions, usages, and results. Although most leadership theorists believe there are distinct differences, the two terms are so often used interchangeably in the workplace that the differences become blurred (Cotter, 1990, 1999; Terry, 1993; Galilean, 1998). Participants in research studies have shown many inconsistencies concerning workplace leadership and management understanding.
It is common to hear leadership terms co-mingled with workplace management terms and frequently in a manner that contradicts the way researchers use them (Bass, 1990; Gardner, 1990, 1995). Bass (1990) believes that the legitimacy of a leader depends upon the acceptance of his/her subordinates. Eden and Levitate (1975) concluded that leadership is in the mind of the follower. Yuk (1989) points out that leadership is very often defined in ways that include followers’ perceptions.
Since workplace subordinates play such an important role in the leadership/management equation, their understanding of these terms and their conceptualization of leadership and management is vitally important to research outcomes. Contemporary research literature does little to clarify what criteria subordinates use to rate their leaders’ performance. Research suggests followers may rate superiors based on one or more leadership attributes or on perceived management ability.
Additionally, ratings may result from Just one or more salient situations, the supervisor’s outward behavior, his r her personality traits, or some uniquely subjective combination (Bass, 1990; Lord, 2000; Yuk et al. , 2002). To understand and define leadership and management from the perspective of subordinates, it is, therefore, important to conduct further research using better definitions, constructs, controls, and preparation of participants (Barbour, 2000; Yuk and Fable, 1993).
All this confusion of terms undoubtedly has created a significant level of factor confounding, which has certainly reduced the accuracy and precision of leadership and management research effective workplace management is some combination of leadership and management, the approach used by effective managers to accomplish objectives may be much different from that of ineffective managers. Both will certainly have profound and important affects on those they manage (Madder, 2001; Balalaikas and Kumara, 1997; Farm, Carnivals and Strop, 2005).
Research Findings Galilean (1998) asserts, as does Cotter (1990), that although leadership and Both leaders and managers may have involvement in establishing direction, aligning resources, and motivating people. Managers, however, plan and budget while leaders establish direction. Managers have a narrow purpose and try to maintain order, debilitate work, and organize resources. Leaders seek to develop new goals and align organizations (Cotter, 1990; Galilean, 1998). Managers control and problem solve while leaders motivate and inspire. Finally, managers produce standards, consistency, predictability, and order.
Leaders produce the potential for dramatic change, chaos, and even failure (Cotter, 1990). Gardner (1990) wrote that the term manager often suggests an individual who holds a directive post in an organization, a person who organizes functions, allocates resources, and makes the best use of people. Unfortunately, when compared to a leader, the workplace manager is often generalized as an “unimaginative clod. ” Gardner (1990) noted that every time he had encountered a first-class manager, the manager turned out to possess a lot of leadership ability. The difference was that the manager’s focus was different from that of the leader.
For Gardner, the differences between a workplace leader and a workplace manager are not as distinct as they are for Cotter and Galilean (Bass, 1990; Cotter, 1990; Galilean, 1998). Gardner contrasts between what he calls the leader- manager and the routine manager. The leader-manager is concerned with thinking longer term, developing an organizational vision, reaching longer-term goals and values, and motivating others. The routine manager is more strongly associated with the organizational structure; he/she thinks and acts in the shorter term, accepting and maintaining the status quo (Bass, 1990; Gardner, 1990).
An abundance of taxonomies have been developed to identify and differentiate the role differences between leaders and managers. The conclusion reached by Bass (1990) is that the vast amount of research into leadership versus management indicates that moieties leaders manage and sometimes managers lead. The research resulting from diaries, observations, interviews, questionnaires, and surveys suggests that both leadership and management exhibit considerable variation but little co-variation, where the hypothesized cause must correlate with the observed effect.
In other words, the demands of each vary considerably, exhibit some overlap, but they are much more different than they are the same. Enabler and Datum (2002) suggest that management is continually planning, organizing, supervising, and controlling resources to achieve organizational goals. Planning is associated with providing what the customer wants and developing a way to provide it. Organizing and supervising involves developing an organizational structure, reward systems, and a performance management system.
Controlling involves measuring processes and product characteristics, sustaining production processes, reducing variation, providing responsibility for those processes and are constantly seeking to improve them. Leaders, on the other hand, are looking into the future from 50,000 feet in anticipation of the organization’s global needs and long-term future. There is obviously more to leadership than managing and more to managing than Just planning, controlling, and supervising. Leaders and managers may be differentiated by competencies, attitudes, and values, but that’s not all.
Leaders and managers who occupy the same position in the same organization may differ in the models and techniques they use to perform the requirements of the position and in the styles they use (Bass, 1990). Terry (1993) noted that when voted on at leadership panel discussions, nonwhite of the group usually voted in favor of distinct differences and two-thirds in favor of an overlap. Terry believes Cotter (1990) persuasively argues for distinct differences, but even Cotter (1990) states that when the two are compared side by side they clearly exhibit many similarities.
To this end, Cotter (1990) developed a management versus leadership summary illustrating how leaders and managers differ. Cleanliness (1998) developed a similar list of leader versus manager differences. Figure 1 presents a blending of how Cotter (1990) and Cleanliness (1998) view leadership versus management functions. There is a general acceptance that the functions of leaders and managers are conceptually different, but no universal acceptance of what those functional differences are is apparent.
Gordon and Yuk (2004) along with Zacchary and Horn (2003) believe one common misconception that divides academics from practitioners is that workplace leadership and management are mutually exclusive, when, in fact, they are complementary. For his research, Yuk (1989) prefers not to separate management from leadership and uses the term managerial leadership. Cotter (1990, 1995, 1999) and Cleanliness (1998), however, see the two functions as occasionally blended, complementary, but definitely as two different functions. Cotter (1995) sees management as dealing with procedures, practices, and complexity and leadership as dealing with change.
In a nutshell, management is tactical and all about coping with the here and now while leadership is strategic and primarily about coping with the future. Conclusions skills aside in favor of managing the workplace. Too often, senior managers believe they are leading when in fact they are managing. Cotter (1995) points out that most U. S. Corporations are typically over-managed and under-led. Although organizations must have a mix of leaders and managers to succeed, there is little understanding of preferences between the two roles and what is their optimal ratio.
Since management and leadership are so misunderstood, most companies believe they need many leaders when in fact what they really need is a few great leaders and many first-class managers. In reality, managers in most organizations are rarely in a position to lead. Companies often hire expensive leadership consultants to teach leadership development classes and develop leadership assessments. When the newly trained leaders attempt to lead, they quickly discover they aren’t allowed to do so; they actually are expected to manage. This creates frustration, apathy, and discontent.
In organizations, too many leaders will spoil their effectiveness. Multiple leaders with different visions not only can confuse but also can decrease subordinates’ motivation. Additionally, if everyone is focused on leading, then no one is managing the processes or doing the work. This does not mean that managers cannot demonstrate leadership qualities. Managers may lead by example or lead a project or team, but they still end up performing the functions of management. Successful management is a really tough, challenging, and very important Job. It should be given its due respect.
Real leadership is tough, too, but it should not be confused with management. Agreeing to a relatively simple taxonomy of what a leader is and what a manager does may save corporations some resources, improve both leadership and management performance, and help academics and practitioners come to a consensuses that could benefit everyone. In the final analysis, it appears that the debate will continue in academic circles, corporations will continue to ask for leaders but need managers, and consultants will continue to supply leadership development and assessment. For practical purposes in the workplace, managers supervise nearly everything.
Rarely will a plant manager, production manager, quality manager, or training manager actually lead. He/she will manage the processes and the people to produce the status quo or an improved version of the status quo. That, however, is a good thing because the status quo is what companies make and what they sell. A deviation from the status quo is usually called nonconforming material; it can produce unhappy customers and create lost revenue. On the other hand, virtually every employee has the opportunity to show leadership at some point. When given the opportunity to lead, it is essential to lead well.