Leadership and Management - Literature review Example

Introduction to Management Introduction to Management Introduction Management, among many scholars, is the act of putting into practice already established procedures like staffing, planning, measuring performance, as well as budgeting, thus allowing a business to perform well. Leadership, on the other hand, is completely different, which involves taking a business to the future, driving them towards their objectives, as well as exploring and productively exploiting the opportunities that come up along the way. Leadership is all about having (1) the ability to empower others, (2) vision and most considerably (3) offering efficient change to an organisation (Witzel 2013, p. 1). The main distinction between managers and leaders are basically the relationship between the workers and leaders and managers, how managers and leaders solve problems, and the distinction in emotional intelligence between managers and leaders. This makes it important for organisations to have both leaders and managers who will push them towards their future objectives and also who will implement their daily procedures (Northouse 2012, p. 13). For this introduction we can judge that there might be a case for talking about management and leadership as two separate factors, as society has placed leaders and manages as two separate factors. The separation between management and leadership emerged in the 70s and 80s from scholars such as Warren Bennis and John Kotter, who tried to reach a better interpretation of what leadership and management is (Witzel 2013, p. 1). In doing so, these scholars defined leadership and management as two different sets of jobs. Keeping in line with this topic, this paper will evaluate the view that organisations need leaders as well as managers in order to prosper. It is important to go into detail about what these two groups present for an organisation in order to see the significance they bring to an organisation. Managers and leaders have a difference huge difference in emotional intelligence (Northouse 2012, p. 16). A leader is someone who carefully plans a visionary and most significantly is an individual who inspires people to success. So as for organisation to attain their goals, when leading, a leader has to share his or her vision with his or her staff in order to create a strategy or solve a problem. Leaders are meant to serve as role models others, inspire cooperation, motivate their staff and develop a community both outside and inside of the organisation. They mainly follow their instinct, which in a majority of cases, benefits the organisation and in other cases, it helps them in gaining followers who turn into loyal clients or advertisers to them, as well as the organisation (Armstrong 2012, p. 41). This is a clear contradiction to managers who follow the business’s policy to the letter, as well as perform their instructions by the book and, thus the staff might or might not be devoted to them (Witzel 2013, p. 1). Even when the notion of a exquisitely appointed leader triumphed, there existed an opposing view that the leader was, in fact, empowered by his followers. This is because, in a majority of cases, a leader is chosen to lead a selected group of people unlike a manager who is simply assigned a role. Another key difference between managers and leaders is how their roles together with relationships with the subjects vary. A leader normally creates and innovates, while a manager simply administer, implying that leaders come up with fresh ideas for move an entire organisation ahead towards greater profit, but a manager is working on what has already been set ignoring all other factors of innovation (Armstrong 2012, p. 42). A leader basically tries to come up with fresh methods and strategies through keeping his or her mind on the horizon, at all times. It is vital for him or her to stay up to date with contemporary trends and studies plus the new set of skills available in the market. Different from this, a manager only works to sustain a system or an order that is already in existence. It is a manager’s responsibility to control, maintain, as well as ensure that matters run smoothly and every staff member is aiding or contributing effectively and fully. One of the unique traits of a normal manager is how reliant he or she is on the events of a number of other people to carry out his job successfully (Witzel 2013, p. 1). He or she is rigid and not able to be creative in conducting his duties, thus excluding him from being regarded a business leader. According to Armstrong (2012, p. 43) one of the most intense cases of the difference between managers and leaders is how computers form vital changes in any business. The author demonstrates how information can travel from top to bottom efficiently devoid of the interference of managers anywhere, in between. This reveals how the disparity between managers and leaders which is that managers can easily be replaced and, in some situations, they are not needed at all, to some extent (Goetsch & Davis 2014, p. 76). Leaders stir greatness and success unlike managers who comparatively depend on control. Essentially, leadership is not what a leader does but, in reality, how the staff responds to him. If individuals do not decide to join your cause, then you cannot, in reality, be regarded as a leader because they have motivated no one. If your staff indeed joins your cause, then it would imply that you have motivated them, thus developing a relationship with them, as well as the organisation, which is very significant especially if the business or organisation is changing in a fast pace and requires workers who believe in it in order to endorse its objective (Witzel 2013, p. 1). Managers and leaders prepare for and deal with problems in different ways. A manager will prepare him/herself for turbulent periods and during such times, they will only ensure that the company survives and guarantee that it holds its structural strength and adapts fast in the change (Goetsch & Davis 2014, p. 76). Leaders, on the other hand, instill loyalty to his or her staff members, which a manager fails to due to his rigid ways and lack of impulsiveness (Goetsch & Davis 2014, p. 76). The main job of a manager is to control his or her entire staff through assisting them in developing their assets and realise their greatest capabilities. To facilitate this, they must know the staff labouring for them and comprehend their skills and interests. Northouse (2012, p. 54) explains how middle level managers model themselves into top managers in a hierarchical imitation form: what occurs is that the action inheritance persists and as it is channeled down deeper in the business, such behaviour starts to work negatively. Plus at lower manager levels, it gets muddied even more since it is being applied on people who do not comprehend it, are not interested by it, or are just opposed to it (Northouse 2012, p. 54). A leader centers on the factors that motivate certain decisions, but a manager thinks about how and at what period decisions are made. The latter opts to implement tactics accordingly and uphold the status quo devoid of deviating even when drawbacks arise (Witzel 2013, p. 1). If the organisation went though failures, then a leader would essentially learn from it and utilize it as a warning point so as to get better and evade losses in the near future. Armstrong (2012, p. 48) highlights a case of leadership changes and argues that proper human relation techniques can change people from only managing others to, more importantly, leading them. Humans can learn how to shift from competing to working together, from directing to guiding and from working under secrecy to one of sharing all information needed, from a passivity mode to a risk taking mode, from one of considering workers as an expense to one of seeing them as significant assets (Armstrong 2012, p. 48). Telling individuals what to do most of the times does not motivate them to see you as their leader. In order to motivate them, you have to fascinate them, showing how following you will make them realise hearts desire (Goetsch & Davis 2014, p. 79). They should want to follow you adequately in order to stop what they are doing and maybe walk into situations and danger that they would not usually consider taking. Leaders with a stronger charm find it much simpler to draw people to their course. As an element of their influence, they normally pledge transformational benefits, such that their staff will not just get extrinsic awards but will, in some way, become better individuals (Goetsch & Davis 2014, p. 79). Even though, many leaders have a captivating style to some level, this does not need a screaming personality. However, they are always excellent with their staff members and people, in general, and employ a quiet style, which grants credit to others are very efficient at establishing the loyalty, which great leaders prompt. Even though, leaders are good with their staff, this does not imply they are always friendly with them (Witzel 2013, p. 1). So as to keep the inscrutability of leadership, they normally retain a degree of aloofness and separation. This does not imply that they do not take notice to tasks – actually, they are frequently very success-focused. However, what they do know is the importance of motivating others to work towards their goals (Witzel 2013, p. 1). This places leaders at a higher position than managers meaning that they can serve an organisation better compared to managers. Conclusion Leadership and management are not essentially mutually exclusive. However, they are unique in that leadership includes inspiration and steering a company while management is simply controlling and delegating. Leadership and management are two different things, but leaders and managers should be one and the same individual. We need individuals who can not only control, but inspire, who not only have an eye for fine detail, but also vision, who not only look at long term goals, but also the short term; who can both breathe and think at the same time. However, today, thanks to the insidious separation of management and leadership, we have only a few people who can close the gap. This has been painfully clear during the 2008 crisis, as well as its aftermath, when managers were seen to struggle helpless whereas the lower ranks seat back, refusing to step up and take charge (Witzel 2013, p. 1). People in management discipline are the ones who created this mess and now they need to cleanse it. The initial step is to bridge the gap and teach people management and leadership as integrated subjects. Management educators and business schools need to persuade students to improve, to assume liability, to be ready for the rule of leadership. By teaching management and leadership together, they will help individuals become more efficient leaders and more accountable managers. It might not be the solution to every problem, but, at least, it is a positive start. References Armstrong, M 2012, Armstrongs handbook of management and leadership: developing effective people skills for better leadership and management, Kogan Page Publishers, London. Goetsch, D L & Davis, S B 2014, Quality management for organizational excellence, Pearson, London. Northouse, P G 2012, Leadership: theory and practice, Sage, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Witzel, M 2013, Leaders and managers should be one and the same, viewed 11th March, 2015, at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0f0eeee0-9891-11e2-867f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3UBgN53DG Read More