Leadership vs Management - Essay Example

Leadership vs Management Grade (March 24, Leadership vs Management The question of what really is the difference between leadership and management has been asked many times, and also answered in different ways. However, the actual difference between leadership and management can simply be traced in the way the two motivates their subordinates which in turn affects many other aspects of the organization (Bertocci, 2009). The effective operation of an organization requires that both leadership and management are applied. The management aspect of the organization offers for the managers to assign different organizational tasks and processes to different workers. On the other hand, the leadership aspect requires the actual definition of the purpose of the tasks and processes, and the direct involvement of the managers in guiding the workers to have the tasks at hand accomplished accordingly (Rost, 1991). Therefore, both leadership and management must go hand in hand to ensure that an organization succeeds in its vision. The combination of both leadership and management requires that the managers must organize the workers, not only to achieve efficiency, but also get directly involved with the workers to nurture, to inspire and also to develop talents (Bertocci, 2009). This way, the workers are motivated to be able to achieve the desired results in their respective areas of responsibility, not merely as a sense of duty but due to the fact that they have been sufficiently motivated. Simply put therefore, leadership and management are not the same, but they are complementary of each other, such that through the involvement of both, success in an organization can be easily achieved (Rost, 1991). The effort to separate management and leadership can create more conflict than it solves. This is a lesson I learnt firsthand while working in the previous organization, where the management did not involve directly with the workers, but simply issued policies, directives and regulations from the office. The floor manager in the organization was not a’ people person’ at all, and for that reason did not like getting involved with the workers at their different work stations. The only way through which the workers would have their issues addressed by the manager was to go to the manager’s office and present the issues of concern. There is no doubt that when the issues were presented to the manager at his office, the manager would act swiftly in trying to seek a solution to the issues raised. However, even then, the manager would not present the solution in person, but would rather require the supervisors at the workstations to implement the decisions the manager arrived at. While we as the workers were happy that the manager reacted swiftly to address issues once they were presented to him, we still felt disconnected to the manager. This is because; the manager neither engaged with the problems facing the workers in their stations directly, nor engaged the workers in creating the solution. Therefore, most of the solutions recommended by the manager did not work to the satisfaction of the aggrieved workers, while in certain cases they even aggravated the situation in the course of being implemented. Thus, one day, when a vacancy for the floor supervisor opened, the manager did not know who to promote to that position, since the previous supervisor left without notice. The manager was forced to come to the different work stations and try to know the workers and evaluate who would be best suited to take up the position. Owing to the fact that the position of the floor supervisor was the most important position for organizing the working shifts and ensuring that the desired production for each day was attained, the position required to be filled-in immediately. The manager did not know how to go about it, so he decided to select one worker, just at random from the workers records, to take up the position of the supervisor at an acting capacity, while a permanent solution would be sought. The major problem with the manager’s choice was that the appointed worker had been with the organization for hardly three months, and thus lacked the full understanding of the operations and organization of the tasks at the floor. The attempt to inform the manager regarding the shortcoming with his selection also did not bear any fruit, because the manager’s word was final. His selection of the supervisor’s replacement was not based on consideration of the work experience of the appointee or the leadership skills, but merely based on the fact that the selected worker had good academic credentials, and thus had recently joined the organization to be groomed for technical operations, but momentarily attached to the production floor just to get a glimpse of the daily operations. Since the appointed acting supervisor was unable to organize the shifts and ensure the daily production targets were met, the production floor became disorganized, confused and chaotic, resulting in a go-slow that put the entire two-days production at a halt. The problem was only resoled when the workers were allowed the opportunity to hold an election and elect a new supervisor. This personal experience underlines the role of both personality traits and leadership attributes in enhancing the success of an organization. The floor manager clearly lacked the desired personality traits desired for effective leadership. Interpersonal communication skills represent a very fundamental personal trait for a leader and manager within an organization, since it allows the manager/leader to interact freely and directly with the subordinates, and understand their needs fully (Bertocci, 2009). In addition, the interpersonal communication personality traits enable a leader to engage the appropriate conflict resolution mechanisms, such as consultation, dialogue and negotiations to resolve a potentially aggravating situation (Rost, 1991). The other leadership trait that was lacking in the floor manager was the hands-on experience of the daily tasks and processes that run the department which the manager was responsible for heading. The direct involvement of a leader in the routine tasks and processes of the organization or department he/she heads is important, since it enables the leader to understand both the needs and the mode of operation of the workers, thus being able to apply effective change management strategies to make the organization or department more efficient and productive (Rost, 1991). Change management is especially a vital skill for a leader, since it allows the leader or manager to introduce new systems, processes or tasks that can be disruptive to the status quo, in a way that the affected workers will buy-in the new changes and continue to work with minimal conflicts (Bertocci, 2009). These are some of the skills that our floor manager lacked owing to the fact that the introduction of the change in the position of the supervisor was done in a manner that accelerated, instead of resolving the conflict of shift and production organization facing the production floor, after the previous supervisor left. The other major short-coming associated with the leadership traits of the floor manager was the power vs. influence imbalance, which resulted in aggravated conflict in the production floor. The power vs. influence imbalance results from the misuse of the powers associated with a position, to influence the desired outcome (Bertocci, 2009). Thus, while the floor manager clearly possessed the power to make the final determination over the supervisor’s replacement, the manager still had an opportunity to use positive influence by allowing the production floor workers to contribute their inputs on who should replace the supervisor, as opposed to forcing on them a replacement that was inexperience and incompetent in the position. Thus, through this personal experience, it can be clearly observed that ineffective management can result into a leadership dilemma, such as the one the floor manager experienced with the production floor leadership change management. References Bertocci, D. I. (2009). Leadership in organizations: There is a difference between leaders and managers. Lanham, Md: University Press of America. Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger. Read More