The Differences between Leadership and Management, Using Organizational Theories - Coursework Example

RUNNINGHEAD: Organisational behaviour Organisational behaviour of Outline Introduction 2. Analysis and Discussion 2.1 Some perceived differences between management and leadership 2.1.1 A leader and a manager differ in term of motivation. 2.2 Personality differences between managers and leaders 2.3 Differences in Conception of Work between managers and leaders 2.5 Illustration of the noted differences between the two 2.4 Reconciling the differences of the two concepts 3. Conclusion 1. Introduction This paper seeks to explain the differences between leadership and management, using organizational theories including motivation, behaviour and personality. The paper will illustrate the differences of the concepts using real or hypothetical examples of leadership and management in action. 2. Analysis and Discussion 2.1 Some perceived differences between management and leadership It is believed by many that leadership should be necessarily associated with the role of a manager. That it is argued that manager should be able to lead his or her subordinates in accomplishing the organizational goals. On other hand, some argue that a good manager should be able to lead his people beyond his or her formal authority in the organization. To be able to do this, the manager should be able to move his or her people by instilling the needed inspiration. A leader should not simply attain organizational objectives he or she must be able to transcend his or her functions as manager. However, there are some who makes a distinction between leaders and managers which would appear to show that the two are not of equal position (Leiding, 2004). Their differrences could be found in terms of behaviors and activities, their orientation toward goals, interpersonal style and even self-perceptions (Leiding, 2004) In terms of behaviors, it is argued that leaders are observed to dramatic and unpredictable in style while managers in contrast are less dramatic and predictable in style. Thus, leaders are associated to creating an atmosphere of change or even chaos while managers are more calculating in preparing to accomplish previously set goals in a more predictable manner. Since leaders are believed to often be infatuated by their ideas, this makes them to be called visionaries. For the latter it would be normal accordingly to excite, arouse and energize others to work hard by creating reality out of fantasy. This could the reason why managers exist to do things right, while leaders are present to do the right thing (Bennits and Nanus, 1985). On the other hand, managers influence their subordinates, although not lacking creativity has more or less defined works to be done by the use of the budget where every use of resource is tied with an activity that most of the time be done if earlier set objectives would have to be attained. Managers can be seen be typically hardworking, accepting, methodical, and fair-minded (Leiding, 2004). Because of their strong sense of belonging to the organization, they can take great pride in perpetuating and improving the status quo. It is possible that a manager may not necessarily be a team leader. While a manager of team plans, organizes and controls activities (Plunkett and Attner, 1985, Massie, 1987) in an organization, he or she may be influenced by the real leader, who happens to be one of his or her subordinates (Leiding, 2004). Another view would point that leadership is just one aspect what a manager does. It can be noted that managers do fulfill four functions that planning, organizing, controlling, and leading. The last management function of leading has its normal association with influencing subordinates as the organization achieves defined objectives and goals (Leiding, 2004 citing Vecchio, Hearn and Southey, 1988). Leadership thus connotes more than a mere administrative responsibility under formal authority of manager. It should be able to influence people in a manner that accompanies legitimacy of supervision as manager. This makes leadership as the incremental influence that a manager has beyond his/her formal authority. If a subordinate who lacks formal authority is the one who has actual and substantial incremental influence, he or she would be properly called as an informal leader (Leiding, 2004). 2.1.1 A leader and a manager differ in term of motivation. From their respective orientations it would appear that they would differ on what would make each person feel stirred or encourages toward something. A leader would most likely be driven by his or her vision for the group and his or her follower could support him or her in such direction because the latter could identify with him or her. It would mean that that the followers must be convinced or trusting about the vision set by the leader. A manager would on the other hand be motivated by accomplishment of a more defined target say objectives rather than a vision. His or her motivation is also gravitated towards that objective. These of course are referring to the internal factors governing motivation particularly the need based theories (Kreitner, R and A. Kinicki, 2003). Leaders and managers could be distinguished by their needs to govern their motivation. Motivation as an organizational behaviour theory assumes that one who is motivated to do something would most likely succeed than one who is not motivated. According to the needs theory of motivation, humans are motivated because of their changing needs. Using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, leaders and managers could really be found different from each other (Kreitner, R and A. Kinicki, 2003). Since a leader is not necessarily working under a fixed structure, he would most likely be motivated by his need to have his or her vision translated into reality. Unlike a manager who works for the company for the next planning period, a leader would be behaving most in a more unpredictable environment as he sees possibilities for the company or organization in the horizon. 2.2 Personality differences between managers and leaders There are significant differences in personality styles between managers and leaders. Managers emphasize rationality and control. This makes them good problem solver since the job would need them to focus on organizational structures, resources, goals and people. For them to be persistent, tough minded, intelligent, analytical and hardworking should indeed be expected from them if they are to solve problems with complexity. For them to ask what problems to be solved and the best ways to achieving result results would therefore match the need of the job as managers (Leiding, 2004). Leaders on the other hand, normally see in advance by visualizing a purpose and thereby generate value in work. This would therefore normally require them to be readiness to embark on bold new ventures, nonconforming, passionate, risk-takers and they often need to achieve control of their own selves as a requirement before they could actually try to control others (Leiding, 2004). Their attitudes towards goals also vary. Managers as the need to achieve the best results normally are impersonal. This makes them almost passive in their attitudes towards goals and their decision upon goals would be based on necessity instead of desire. This should therefore easily identify managers attitude toward the organizations culture. For them to be reactive is easier to believe since their focus is on current information rather than the future (Leiding, 2004). Leaders in contrast tend to active rather than reactive since their focus in more future oriented. With their envisioning the future, they promote their ideas by shaping them. This would therefore cause them to have personal orientation in relation to their goals. This is the one that normally makes them change the way their followers or other people think regarding what is possible, desirable and necessary (Leiding, 2004). 2.3 Differences in Conception of Work between managers and leaders Managers like to combine people and ideas. This they will do by viewing work as an enabling process for which they must establish strategies and make decisions (Pearson, 1999). Thus they need to have continuity in coordinating and balancing the opposing view of their subordinates. This would in turn make them good in negotiation to reach for compromises and mediating conflicts that divide opposing perspectives and values to cause them to act by limiting choices in reaching a compromise (Leiding, 2004). Leaders on the other hand would rather opt for new approaches to problems that have been long-standing. This would cause them to be open to new options and which they can do because of their vision that could actually excite their followers. Because of the more focus on people as compared to managers, the shared ideas from their people may help bring up expectations in preparation for working under high-risk situations as mundane work has to be strongly disliked by said leaders as a result (Leiding, 2004). 2.4 Illustration of the noted differences between the two As illustration, a marketing manager of say Marks & Spencer Group plc (or MKS) must be able to see future and set broad aims for the department or the organization and he must communicate the same to those who will have in having his plans realized in order to be an effective leader. As a leader he must see the forest rather than the trees. When he gets down into implementation his marketing plan in relation to the long-term vision or organization to which he and the Chief Executive Officer have set, he will have to see the trees rather than the forest this time. The said marketing executive will have to behave like a manager and be ready to know the trees or the details including how he will make his advertising plans effective and bringing the products in such a way that would keep his customers coming back to the organization as the latter have been satisfied and surprised. Notice that the personality required to create a vision would be more unpredictable as this has to consider the broader external factors when acting as leader. Notice also the motivation the leader in having a vision and the manager in having the objective to have marketing plans implemented. Their conception of work is also different as the leader would have to balance his vision with how his followers would include as inputs in a continuous decision making process while as manager just getting detail of things implemented would indeed become an accomplishment and satisfaction to the said manager. 2.5 Reconciling the differences of the two concepts Leadership and management as topic of debates have been discussed nearly a century (Kotter, 1990) and it would seem some authors would always find a way to distinguish the two. An attempt to reconcile the seeming difference may however appear possible and this is the role of this subsection. While it can be argued that management is coping with complexity while leadership is coping with promoting change (FutureVisions, n.d.), it can be seen as a similarity which as could be appreciated in terms of not looking at one the opposite of the other. To cope with complexity does not necessarily argue that manager cannot cope and promote change as result. While again it could be claimed that planning and budgeting is the lot of management while setting the direction is for leaders (FutureVisions, n.d.), it cannot be argued that the leader is acting as a manager when he or she plans and budgets for the period which is actually to support a direct that he or she has set in the first place. In terms of motivation, it can be safe to assume that both leaders and managers can have intrinsic motivation or the desire to accomplish outcomes (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2003; Jones, 2004) It is also argued that a manager is into organizing and staffing while a leader is into aligning people (FutureVisions, n.d.). It cannot be argued that a manager will not have to consider the capabilities of his or her people when he or she organizes and puts staff to certain work place. Cannot the managers be called aligning the interests and personalities of workers to their jobs so as to make them productive? On the other hand, it would be very impractical to merely align people without having some structure in order to organize or put them where they could of most productive use and effective contribution to the organization. There may be so many opinions and authors and researchers which were are trying to distinguish managers and leaders. Both management and leadership have different characteristics which are influencing their opinions. Division of their distinctions may be categorized into those focusing on personal characteristics and the process of leadership, those who concentrated on the leader follower situation, and those who related leadership and management styles to the overall organization contexts and climate (Burnes, 2004). In can be deduced however that there is no clear distinction between management and leadership since their characteristics and organizational roles are overlapping. They are sharing a lot of similarities in attaining some target (Hansen, 2006; Gold, 2003) but it was just called by other under different dimensions or names They both deal with people, although some distinguished the latter as followers or subordinates which both are influenced by them. Additionally both of them have objectives/visions and need to use plans and specific techniques to achieve them. The case of President Obama could be used to illustrate the point. Undoubtedly he is a leader with his vision of better life for Americans in the future and which enabled him to win an unprecedented election as the first black president. At the same time to ensure his success, he also needs to act as manager in many of his functions as President of the United States. The latter he does with visions translated into measurable objectives in terms annually prepared budgets and actually achieving these objectives. Most of the time because of the complexity of a job of a manager he has to delegate many of his functions as manager or administrator to his cabinet secretaries and down the bureaucracy. If leaders are associated with people to inspire to action interpersonal, informational and decisional roles are also required for managers (Mintzberg, 1975). These would reconcile the differences of two by viewing as the situation as both to be performing complementary roles, even if each of them has its own characteristics and organizational functions. There is therefore also basis to consider the distinction between them as just a matter of academic view since management and leadership perceived differences possess no significance for practical actions or situations at all (Hales, 2001). When Simon Caulkin called leaders as "managers on steroids" (Eilers, 2010), he was saying that leaders are also managers under the influence of better energy with their capacity to visualize and inspire others. Leadership, has its roots from the term “laed”, under Old North European languages and with the meaning of “path", in the course journey in the sea (Eilers, 2010). Thus leadership amounts to guiding and accompanying people to their port of destination while holding them as group together towards the right direction (Eilers, 2010 citing Mc Caffery 2004). From a business or organizational context, it would mean a leading guiding employees, with encouragement and providing the needed advice as circumstances call for the same. 3. Conclusion Although leaders and manager may differ in motivation, personality and conception of work, it can be concluded that leadership and managements are just two different terms but they could be one and the same if the requirements of both concepts are in the same person. A manager and a leader attain his or her objectives or goals using two different approaches. In a deeper sense however, the differences disappear. As found, there are opinions that that leadership is just one of facets of management and indeed said opinion could be sustained on the basis of the need to attain a target. A leader on the other hand as told by Simon Caulkin (Eilers, 2010) is just a manager on steroids which makes him or her to be achieving much sometimes compared to an ordinary manager. Managers of course could have their excellence at times and that could in terms of leadership, which can vary depending on given variables. References: Bennis and Nanus (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Eilers, Helge-Christian (2010). "Leaders lead and managers manage": Differences and Similarities. GRIN Verlag FutureVisions (n.d.). Leader vs Manager. Retrieved 3 Aug 2011 from Gold, M. (2003). Banking on Enterprise E-Learning: Part 5 in This Series Tells How PNC Bank Made the Most of Its Learning Management System to Up-Skill Employees through a Competence Manager Application. T&D, Vol. 57 Hales, C (2001). Does it Matter What Managers Do?, in Business Strategy Review, Vol. 12. No 2, pp. 55-58 Hansen, L. (2006). What Safety Excellence Managers Do: One of the Most Commonly Cited Reasons (Excuses) for Underperformance in Safety Is Lack of Management Commitment. Occupational Hazards, Vol. 68, May 2006 Jones, G. (2004). Organizational Theory, Design, and Change: Text and Cases. Prentice-Hall Kotter, JP (1990). What leader Really Do, in: Harvard Business Review on Leadership, Boston: Harvard Business Review School Publishing, pp. 37-60 Kreitner, R and A. Kinicki (2003).Organizational Behavior. The McGraw-Hill Companies Leiding, D. (2004). Managers make the difference: managing vs. leading in our schools. R&L Education Massie, J. (1987). Essentials of Management. UK. Prentice-Hall International Mc Caffery, P (2004). The higher education managers handbook; effective leadership management. New York: Routledge, p. 55 Mintzberg (1975). The managers JOb, in: Harvard Business Review on Leadership, Boston, Harvard Business School Publishing, pp. 1-36 Pearson, G. (1999). Strategy in Action. Prentice Hall Financial Times Plunkett and Attner (1985). Introduction to Management. Boston, Massachusetts: PWS-Kent Publishing Company Vecchio, Hearn and Southey (1988). Organizational Behavior: Life at Work in Australia. Sydney: Hardcourt Brace Read More