Leadership and Management - The Group Leadership - Term Paper Example

? THE GROUP- LEADERSHIP The Group- Leadership Leadership and Management The terms leadership and management are interpreted by people in diverse ways. For some people, leadership and management are synonyms while others approach them as extreme opposites. In order to run an organization successfully, both leaders and managers are required. However, there are some obvious similarities between leaders and managers. For instance, both leaders and managers are involved in influencing people. On the other side, there are also some obvious differences between leadership and management. Managers are task oriented while leaders are visionary. In order to analyze differences and similarities between leadership and management, it is important to comprehend them differently (Rickett, ca.uky.edu). Leadership Leaders are those who influence a group of individuals with the purpose of achieving a goal. So, it can be said that leadership involves influence and goal attainment. Some of the most common qualities found in leaders include walking the talk i.e. consistency between words and actions, long term focus, creativity, visionary, self esteem, confidence, and others (Rickett, ca.uky.edu). Management Managers are different from leaders in terms of the fact that the responsibility of managers is to exercise administrative and supervisory directions. The responsibilities of managers are more task-oriented as compared to the responsibilities of leaders. In order to exercise effective management skills, managers need technical, human, and conceptual skills. Technical skills involve knowledge and proficiency of managers to carry out various tasks. Technical skills of managers include analytical skills as well as the abilities to use specialized tools and techniques. Managers should be adept at human skills. Human skills involve abilities of managers to work with people. These skills help managers assist their teams to accomplish goals (Rickett, ca.uky.edu). Leadership versus Management Whether a person can be a great leader and a great manager at the same time has become an important concern in the field of management. Undoubtedly, it is possible for a person to become a manager and a leader at the same time but each category requires specialized skills. Both management and leadership require diverse skills and competencies. Managers bring order and consistency in organizations while leaders bring change and innovation. The responsibilities of managers include planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, controlling and problem solving. Planning and budgeting involves establishing agendas, setting timetables, and allocating resources. Organizing and staffing involves establishing rules and procedures. Controlling and problem solving involves generating creative solutions and developing incentives (Rickett, ca.uky.edu). Leadership Traits Studies conducted on leadership have found that individual characteristics of leaders differ from leaders to leaders. In order to find individual characteristics, a large number of items have been examined including gender, appearance, energy, height, and other psychological traits. A gamut of psychological traits have also been examined including intelligence, need for achievement, authoritarianism, and need for power. According to researchers, there are only a few characteristics associated with leadership. Researchers therefore agreed that search for universal traits of leadership are futile. Since the early 1980s, a substantial progress in the development of leadership traits has been made. There are several universal traits which have been introduced in the last decade. In order to guide the research for leadership traits, there were little personality theories. Initially, very little information related to leadership traits was available. Trait studies conducted on leadership were solely based on studies on adolescents, lower level managers, and supervisors rather than on leaders on significant position. The revival of the leadership theory started in the early 1970s. Bern and Allen (1974), Mischel (1973), Schneider (1983), and House, Shane, and Herold (1996) have clarified how traits can explain individual behavior. In the year 1973, Michael made an important observation that characteristic are likely to be suppressed by strong situations and likely to be enacted in weak situations. Strong situations include situations with strong behavioral norms. Therefore organizations where rules and regulations are highly formalized provide employees with fewer opportunities to express their dispositions. The recent Trait perspectives of leadership include achievement motivation and social influence motivation (Aditya and House, 1997). The Leader Behavior Paradigm For almost a period of thirty years, studies were conducted to observe the behavior of leaders in field settings. Under this paradigm, studies were known as the behavioral school of leaderships. Behaviors under this study have been classified into leader oriented and task oriented behaviors. The assumptions of the behavioral paradigm were that there are some effective behaviors of leaders can be observed by observing them in action or in laboratory settings. Their behavior can also be observed by taking feedback from their immediate supervisors (Aditya and House, 1997). In order to resolve diverse leadership behaviors, various theories have been introduced. These theories include contingency theory, path goal theory, life cycle theory, cognitive resource theory, and decision process theory. All these contingency theories lead into the development of better theories. The advanced theories were supported in the field of managers. Eventually, the contingency theory of leadership led to the development of the Cognitive Resource Theory of Leadership. The Path Goal Theory led to the development of the Cognitive Resource Theory of Leadership. This theory has provided support to several theories in both laboratory and field settings. The theory is now referred as Value Based Leadership Theory. The original theory of Path Goal had described relationships between superiors and subordinates. The Path Goal theory has clarified boundary conditions for various hypotheses. The theory has specified various classes of leader behaviors and situational contingencies (Aditya and House, 1997). Aditya and House, 1997 have also discussed other theories including Leader Member Exchange Theory. This theory has discussed the development of dyadic relationship between superiors and subordinates (Aditya and House). There are several issues which have been ignored in all theories of leadership and management. Some scholars have argued that there are some differences between leadership and management. According to Bennis and Nanus, the distinction between managers and leaders is that managers do things right and leaders do the right things. According to interviews and focus group studies conducted in 38 countries by the GLOBE, it has been found that leadership and management involve different activities. It was found through these interpretive interviews and focus group discussions that leadership involves articulation of an organizational vision. It involves the introduction and promotion of major organizational changes. Leaders possess skills and capabilities to provide inspiration. They know how to deal effectively in difficult situations. Managers are those who actually implement ideas given by leaders. Managers possess skills and abilities to administer organizational infrastructures (Aditya and House, 1997). There are several problems associated with the current leadership study. The current theories have focused on superior-subordinate relation excessively. The theories exclude various functions performed by leaders and variables which are crucial to effective performance of leaders including organizational and environmental variables. Another problem associated with leadership theories is that, the traditional leadership literature and traditional management literature is not integrated. Historically, leadership theories were focused on general functions of leaders. However, these theories were deprived of specific manifestation of these functions. It is because of these settings that the comprehension of leadership is not operationalized in practical settings. Despite all these problems, it has been expected that the accumulation of knowledge of leadership and management will continue to evolve (Aditya and House, 1997). References Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ricketts, G. K. Leadership vs. Management. ca.uky.edu Aditya, N. R. and House, J. Robert. (1997). The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management, 23, pp 409-473. Read More