Leadership vs. Management
Submitted by: Shannon Meaney
Edited by: Clare Hanman
LIBR 282 Literature Synthesis
December 11, 2011
Instructor: Dr. Ken Haycock
San Jose State University, School of Information and Library Science
Executive Summary
Leaders manage and managers lead, but the two activities are not synonymous. Management functions can potentially provide leadership; leadership activities can contribute to managing. Nevertheless, some managers do not lead, and some leaders do not manage. (Stogdill, 1974)
A good manager focuses on doing things right, is efficient and a good leader focuses on doing the right things, has vision and innovation (Bennis & Goldsmith, Learning to Lead, 2003). Although, the words are sometimes interchanged and often times not differentiated there are distinct differences between the two roles in organizations.
Webster’s dictionary refers to “Management”, conducting or supervising of something and “Leadership”, the power or ability to lead other people. A leader is a person who plays a strategic role in an organization in decision making, setting a direction, and developing and communicating a vision, A manager is a person with critical roles and responsibilities on a tactical level helping the organization succeed in achieving its vision.
What is the difference between a manager and a leader? Why is there a difference? Are they synonymous with one another? Are they both necessary? This paper will answer those questions and introduce the reader to multiple definitions, characteristics, history, theories that are the basis of differences and similarities between leadership and management.
Introduction
When you are in a supervisory role within an organization do you ever stop and think, am I a manager or a leader? Leadership and management are considered by many to be synonymous functions currently used inorganizations .But are they? This paper will examine that issue by reviewing literature that defines leadership and management theories, presents historical significance and outlines the differences and similarities of both these terms.
What areLeadership and Management?
According to Bennis, the leader’s job is to inspire and motivate and a manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate (Bennis & Goldsmith, Learning to Lead, 2003), Steven Covey, author of the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, believes that you lead people and you manage things (Covey, 2004) and John Knotter of the Harvard Business School believes that management is about coping with complexity while leading is coping with change (Allman S. , 2009).
Gardner identified managers as those individuals who hold a directive post in an organization, a person who organizes functions, allocates resources, and makes the best use of people. He also noted that every time he encountered an effective manager that the manager possessed a lot of leadership abilities but the focus was different (Gardner, 1990).
With the emergence of complex organizations, leaders introduce the big ideas. They create and implement the big picture and its operations then hand it over to a manager to maintain its efficiency and processes, bringing order and consistency. Both are vital to for a successful workplace(Kotterman, 2006).
Leadership
Leadership is the function of knowing, yourself, having vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize their own leadership potential (Hernon & Rossiter, 2007). Leadership influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. Vision, direction and focus, clear goals, a team spirit, are leadership skills that successfully align people towards that common goal. Leadership is the single biggest factor that drives change and organizational improvement. A leader has a clear idea of what they want to do professionally and personally and the strength to persist in the face of setbacks and failures (Bennis, On Becoming A Leader, 2009).
A common description of leadership typesinclude; Autocratic, one who makes all the decisions, tells employees what to do, and micro manages their employees, Democratic, one who encourages employee participation, works with employees to determine what to do, and does not micro manage, and Laissez-Faire, one who allows employees to make decisions and decide what to do.
Historical Perspective of Leadership Theories
Great Man Theory 1840
The Great Man theory assumes that great leaders are born not made. They are destined at birth to be good leaders. Certain intrinsic qualities exist in some people that result in them being great leaders. Historian Thomas Carlyle (1888) had a major influence on this theory of leadership, at one point stating that, "The history of the world is but the biography of great men." According to Carlyle, effective leaders are those gifted with divine inspiration and the right characteristics(Carlyle, 1888).
Trait Theory 1930’s -1940’s
Trait Theory is based on the belief that certain people possess mental, physical, or social traits that result in them being great leaders. These traits can be those one is born with or obtain throughout life. Trait theories often identify particular personality or behavioral characteristics shared by leaders. Although over 4000 personality traits have been identified (Allport & Odbert, 1936)common traits found in recognized leaders were used as indicators of successful leaders. Stogdill (1974) identified the following critical traits of leaders; adaptable, alert, ambitious assertive, cooperative, decisive, dependable, dominant, energetic, persistent, self-confident, tolerant of stress, willing to assume responsibility. There was not total consensus among researchers on critical traits(Stogdill, 1974).
Behavioral Theories 1940’s-1950
Eventually trait theory was sidelined when it became apparent that what leaders actually did had significant impact on their ability to lead successfully. Behavioral Theories are base on the belief that leaders are made not born. In contrast to Trait Theories, Behavioral Theorists believe it is the behavior of leaders that make them great leaders. These behaviors are considered definable and learnable.
Early experiments on types of leadership style based on how leaders behaved, was researched by Kurt Lewin (1939). He identified three types of leadership, particularly around decision-making. The three styles Lewin described are:
Autocratic Leadership: In the autocratic style, the leader takes decisions without consulting with others. The decision is made without any form of consultation. In Lewin's experiments, he found that this caused the most level of discontent.
Democratic Leadership: In the democratic style, the leader involves the people in the decision-making, although the process for the final decision may vary from the leader having the final say to them facilitating consensus in the group.
Laissez-Faire: The laissez-faire style is to minimize the leader's involvement in decision-making, and hence allowing people to make their own decisions, although they may still be responsible for the outcome (Lewin, Llippit, & White, 1939).
In Lewin’s experiments, he discovered that the most effective style was Democratic. Excessive autocratic styles led to revolution, while under a Laissez-faire approach, people were not coherent in their work and did not put in the energy that they did when being actively led. The three approaches to decision making were generalized to apply to over all leadership styles and were highly influential for years (Changing Minds , 2011).
Other studies were carried out to identify successful leadership behaviors, including studies at Ohio State University and Michigan University. The first looked at the dimensions of consideration (friendship, trust, respect, warmth) and Initiating structure (roles, relationships, communication) and their relationship
to leadership. The conclusion of the Michigan studies was that an employee-oriented and general, instead of close, supervision yielded better results. The Ohio State study revealed that leadership behaviors related to both employee orientation (human relations) and production orientation (getting the work done) correlated to leadership effectiveness (Fleishman & Harris, 1962).
Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (1964) developed another theory called the Leadership Grid, focusing on production/relationship orientations uncovered in the Ohio State and Michigan University studies. They went a little further by creating a grid based on Leaders’ concern for people (relationships) and production (tasks). It suggests there is a best way to lead people the 9,9 way, refer to Figure. 1
Figure 1
(Blake & Mouton, 1964)
The Model
Impoverished: This leadership style features low production and low concern for people. This means that not much work is getting done and the workers are not provided with an environment that is motivating or rewarding.
Country Club Style: This leadership style features high concern for people and low concern for production. While the work environment may be enjoyable, production suffers as a result of the lack of leadership.
Authoritarian: This leadership style features high concern for production and low concern for people. In this work environment, the needs of the employees are always secondary to the bottom line. These managers are autocratic, with strict work rules, and they prefer to use punishment to control their employees.
Middle-of-the-Road: This leadership style features medium production and medium concern for people. Leaders who use this style are often satisfied with average production and might even believe this is the most that can be expected.
Team Leader: This type of leadership style features high production and high concern for people. Team style managers ensure employees understand and contribute to the direction of the company. This is an environment where people’s needs are met and production goals are reached (Mind Tools LTD, 2011).
Contingency Theories 1960’s-1980
These theories are based on the belief that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context of the work situation. The theory was developed by studying the styles of leaders in situations and whether they were effective (primarily in military organizations). Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) identified three forces that led to the leader's action: the forces in the situation, the forces in the follower and also forces in the leader. This recognizes that the leader's style is highly variable.
The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership was developed to describe the way that leaders encourage and support their followers in achieving the goals they have been set by making the path that they should take clear and easy.
In particular, leaders:
- Clarify the path so subordinates know which way to go.
- Remove roadblocks that are stopping them going there.
- Increasing the rewards along the route.
(Tannenbaum & Schmitt, How to choose a leadership pattern, 1958)
Leaders can take a strong or limited approach in these. In clarifying the path, they may be directive or give vague hints. In removing roadblocks, they may scour the path or help the follower move the bigger blocks. In increasing rewards, they may give occasional encouragement or pave the way with gold. This variation in approach will depend on the situation, including the follower's capability and motivation, as well as the difficulty of the job and other contextual factors (Changing Minds , 2011).
Fred Fiedler’s situational contingency theory holds that group effectiveness depends on an appropriate match between a leader’s style (essentially a trait measure) and the demands of the situation. Fiedler considers situational control, the extent to which a leader can determine what his or her group is going to do, to be the primary contingency factor in determining the effectiveness of leader behavior. Many scholars assumed that there was one best style of leadership. Fiedler’s contingency model postulates that the leader’s effectiveness is based on “situational contingency”, which is a result of interaction of two factors: leadership style and situational favorableness (later called situational control). Fiedler’s leadership style of the leader was fixed and measured by what he calls the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale. This is an instrument for measuring an individual’s leadership orientation. The calculation on the scale determined if the leader takes a human relations orientation or a task orientation in leading individuals or groups (Vector Study, 2008).
In Hersey and Blanchard’s (1988) Situational Leadership Model four different leadership styles could be drawn upon to successfully deal with the “readiness” (willingness, ability, and confidence) of the individuals or groups they lead, see Figure 2.
Figure 2
Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Model
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1988)
Transformational Leadership Theories 1970’s-
The term Transformational Leadership was first coined by Downton (1973), however, its emergence did not really come about until James Burn's classic, and Leadership (1978) was published. Burns (1978) noted that the majority of leadership models and practices were based on transactional processes that focused on exchanges between the leader and follow, such as promotions for excellent work or punishment for being late.
Burns defined transformational leadership as a process where leaders and followers engage in a mutual process of “raising one another to higher levels of morality and motivation.”
Transformational leaders raise the bar by appealing to higher ideals and values of followers. In doing so, they may model the values themselves and use charismatic methods to attract people to the values and to the leader.
Burns' view is that transformational leadership is more effective than transactional leadership, where the appeal is to more selfish concerns. An appeal to social values thus encourages people to collaborate, rather than working as individuals (and potentially competitively with one another). He also views transformational leadership as an ongoing process rather than the discrete exchanges of the transactional approach (Burns, 1978).
Bernard Bass (1997) has four interrelated components that he views as essential for leaders to move followers into the transformational style.First is idealized influence. He maintains that genuine trust must be built between leaders and followers. “If the leadership is truly transformational, its charisma or idealized influence is characterized by high moral and ethical standards.” Trust for both leader and follower is built on a solid moral and ethical foundation. The second component is inspirational motivation. Its [transformational leadership’s] inspirational motivation provides followers with challenges and meaning for engaging in shared goals and undertakings.The leader’s appeal to what is right and needs to be done provides the impetus for all to move forward. Next, is intellectual stimulation, intellectual stimulation helps followers to question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. The leader’s vision provides the framework for followers to see how they connect to the leader, the organization, each other, and the goal. Once they have this big picture view and are allowed freedom from convention they can creatively overcome any obstacles in the way of the mission. Lastly, is individual consideration, individual consideration treats each follower as an individual and provides coaching, mentoring and growth opportunities. This approach not only educates the next generation of leaders, but also fulfills the individuals need for self-actualization, self-fulfillment, and self-worth. It also naturally propels followers to further achievement and growth(Bass, 1997). Transformational Leadership fits into the higher levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, as it requires a high level of self-esteem and self-actualization tosuccessfully be an authentic transformational leader.
Historical Perspective of Management Theories
Management Theories
Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Charles Babbage (1792-1871) were considered early pioneers in management theory development. Owens studied the welfare of workers and other human resource issues while Babbage’s work centered on creating efficiencies of production. However, the first popularly accepted theory of management was the Scientific Management Theory of Frederick Taylor. Taylor (1856-1917) consistently sought to overthrow management “by rule of thumb” and replace it with actual timed observations leading to “the one best” practice. Taylor’s legacy was the concept of breaking a complex task down into a number of subtasks, and optimizing the performance of the subtasks; hence his stop- watch measured time trials. (Olum, 2004).
Classical Organizational Theory
The works of Max Weber’s (1864-1920) bureaucratic theory and Henri Fayol’s (1841-1925) administrative theory form the basis of this theory. Max Weber stressed that rational bureaucracies must be managed in accordance with carefully developed rules and principles that can be learned and applied. Only with such rules and principles can the activities of hundreds of managers at different levels in the organization be predicted and coordinated. He felt that if we cannot predict what others will do, then we cannot count on them.
These rules and principles included (1) functional specialization (2) clear lines of hierarchical authority, (3) expert training of managers, and (4) decision making based on rules and tactics developed to guarantee consistent and effective pursuit of organizational goals. Weber’s bureaucracy guidelines influenced organizational behavior for a long period (Borgatti, 2002).
Henri Fayol’s work focused on the personal duties of managers. He developed 14 principles of management that he considered to be universal truths of management. Many of his principles are still followed today. He was the first to identify specific management functions of planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling (Cutaja, 2010).
Behavioral Theories
At the turn of the 20th Century it was thought that Scientific Management and Classical Organizational Theory approaches were not being successful because they did not account for employee motivation and behavior. As a result the Behavior Management approached emerged in importance. The behavioral management theory is often called the human relations movement because it addresses the human dimension of work. Behavioral theorists believed that a better understanding of human behavior at work, such as motivation, conflict, expectations, and group dynamics, improved productivity. There were several important studies that contributed to the development of the Behavioral Theories.