Differences between Managers and Leaders - Literature review Example

Student: ID: Tutor: Course title: Course code: Institutional affiliation: Date of submission: Table of Contents Differences between managers and leaders 3 1 Introduction 3 2 Definition of management and leadership in business context 3 3 Differences in goal orientation and problem solving 4 4 Differences between leaders’ and managers’ working styles 7 5 Development of Leadership 9 6 Conclusion 10 References 11 Differences between managers and leaders 1 Introduction According to Zaleznic (1992) managers and leaders are to entirely different people when it comes to running of business organizations. Zaleznic (1992) feels that managers lack the capability to inspire imagination and enthusiasm in people to work towards a desired goal. To zaleznik then, leaders are indeed people that can inspire, give vision and instill passion in people towards the success of an organization a contention also held by Morrison (2000). A manager desires order, control and task orientation towards resolution of problems and achievement of targets (Zaleznik, 1992). From this simple analysis, it is fair then to conclude that managers are task oriented individuals while leaders are people oriented when it comes to running of organizations. In light of this argument by Zeleznic in his 1992 Journal article, this paper seeks to exhaustively analyze the contention that managers and leaders are different. The paper will achieve this by challenging vague assumptions and bolstering evidential arguments for the case. This will be done under appropriate subheadings. 2 Definition of management and leadership in business context Leadership according to de Jong & Hartog (2007) can be defined as the ability to influence others towards the achievement of goals that contribute to a worthwhile purpose. In the context of business a leader is then somebody who is able to influence employees, partners or shareholders or any other stakeholder involved towards the achievement of the business objectives which may be financial or other objectives of strategic value. Kotter (2008) argued that leaders employ different ways of identifying a vision that they go ahead to direct their followers towards. The leader is well aware of obstacles along the way and energizes his followers to overcome them through motivation. In the context of business, a manger may be viewed as a person who coordinates people’s efforts towards the accomplishment of goals and set objectives (Schroeder, 2012). To do this, a manager needs to plan, direct and control the organization in an orderly manner so that the outcome of his/her effort maybe predictable (Zaleznik, 1992). The fundamental difference that occurs here is that managers manage people’s effort while leaders manage the people. The two have a single objective of achieving success but they approach it differently. It is easy to pick one and leave out the other when deciding which the best approach is, but Zaleznic (1992) argues that organizations need both of them to achieve synergy and dynamic growth and progression towards set objectives. 3 Differences in goal orientation and problem solving Zaleznic (1992) argues that management is all about hard work, persistence, intelligence and analytical ability; he goes further to claim that being a manager is neither a matter of heroism or genius but a result of hard work on the side of the manager. A manager then is buy nature a problem solver who is keen enough to notice the source of a problem and devise a strategy towards solving the problem. Zaleznic feels that a leader is by contrast a person who will not approach a problem directly but rather help people to solve a problem. Going by this argument then one can assume that leaders are more hands off in their approach to problem solving. This is a misleading assumption as a good leader is the one who leads by example; he has to show people how it is done so that they can also follow the example of the leader (Iqbal, 2011). The argument that leaders just show the way may also holds water since leaders have been defined as people who empower others to believe in their abilities and solve problems. Perhaps one of the greatest attribute of leaders is the ability to motivate people to believe in their potential as noted by de Jong & Hartog (2007). By doing so a leader brings out the best out of a person to help them go beyond what they thought they could achieve. Essentially then a leader does not solve problems directly but rather rallies people accordion to their abilities to solve a problem (Stine, 2000). It further strengthens Zaleznic argument that leaders focus their attention on people while managers focus on the task at hand. Managers are known to be detached figures of the organization who rarely sustain personalized relations with their teams. Managers focus more on the task at hand and the goals to be achieved. As such managers will always be pushing people towards successful completion of the tasks allocated to them regardless of whether they believe in the final result of the task which is linked with the goals and objectives of the organization. A leader seeks to motivate people differently; he endeavors to inspire the individual by making him/her believe in the goals of the organization first and unify the individual’s ambition with the goals of the organization. This way the individual feels he/she has an obligation towards helping the organization succeed because in so doing him also as an individual succeeds (Zaleznik, 1992). Focusing on people involvement is therefore a critical factor in motivating people when it comes to leaders as opposed to managers who almost certainly focus on tasks to be accomplished as the motivation. The assumption should not however generalize since management has evolved overtime to include different forms of management. One phenomenon that has emerged strongly in the 21st century is behavioral management where managers focus more on what motivates individuals to work rather than putting up systems that achieve efficiency and organizational effectiveness (Owen, 2009). This then according to Zaleznic argument makes managers leaders which is not the case. Managers are using people management skills such as job design, people development programs and team building activities to achieve the primary task of managers which is to get the job done (Stine, 2000). As such the argument should not narrowly generalize the contention that managers and leaders motivate in entirely different ways. Managers according to Zeleznic take a rather impersonal outlook towards goals. By this he meant they don’t take the goals as tied to their own success as individuals. Leaders on the other hand are emotional and take a personal outlook towards goals. A leader is portrayed by Zeleznic as somebody who shapes ideas rather than waits for ideas to present themselves and respond to them (Zaleznik, 1992). the simple understanding of this assumption is that managers imply don’t feel as sense of ownership of the ideas they adopt in their quest towards goals but rather adopt what it is the organization has set before the manager came in. a leader on the other hand always wants to give the ideas being implemented a personal touch and emotional attachment by either fully adopting the ideas already existing or coming up with new ideas. Leaders are a people driven by great passion to achieve goals and it is the passion they evoke that makes the people around them believe in the ideas and the goals (Mabey & Lees, 2007). In a way then, it is logical to agree with Zeleznic’s argument about this but 4 Differences between leaders’ and managers’ working styles The traditional manager as depicted by Zeleznic has a well laid down plan of how work should be done. He is the kind of person who likes working in predictable environments (Zaleznik, 1992). The managers prefer a functioning system where everybody has their work well cut out for them (Schroeder, 2012). They prefer working in systems that have a hierarchy that is to be respected by everybody. In most cases the systems are rigid and react slowly to changes. However as the business world becomes more and morel competitive managers have had to devise different ways of making the system work even though problems are approached through defined ways in order to stay true to a policy framework or an organization’s “way of doing things” (Cohen, 2010). This system has been in use for the better part of the 20 century where but overtime it has killed innovation and creativity in organizations. Scholars such as Schumpeter argued that the inclusion of a manager as an agent to safeguard the interests of the business owners who mostly happen to be the original entrepreneurs kills innovation and creativity in the organization since the manager does not fully embrace the passion and the ambition that the entrepreneur(s) had (Heertje, 2006). A leader in contrast is a person who most of the time likes challenging the obvious. Like entrepreneurs, leaders often come up with new ways of doing things and influence people to adopt them; as such leaders are not limited by the choices available to them at a particular time (Mabey & Lees, 2007). Leaders also operate in what a manager might consider chaotic situation where they interact with all members in the organization regardless of their level. Leaders most of the time integrate their followers in their work to achieve synergy and motivation in their teams to build a strong team focused towards a common goal (Zaleznik, 1992). As such leaders will mostly favor flat management styles of inclusive management where everybody feels equal even though everyone has different responsibilities. Mangers have also been accused of favoring low risk ventures or style of doing things (Zaleznik, 1992). It will be fair to agree with Zeleznic on this since managers in many instances have had to be less aggressive given that business world can be less predictable sometimes. Managers as agents employed by the owners of a business are rewarded according to their performance. Taking a high risk may result in losses thus losing the trust and confidence the business owners had in managers, consequently the manager will lose his job. The best choice to a manager then will be to maintain an average performance of the business by taking low or moderate risks. Managers will not take chances with the performance of the company and will thus use aggressive methods to push everybody to meet the targets set at the beginning of the year (Zaleznik, 1992). It is common for line managers to be given an absurd production target or sales people to be given a very high target figure, this mostly leaves the employees stressed and having little motivation for work as the ambitions of the company don’t at all have any regard for the well being of the employees (Zaleznik, 1992; Schroeder, 2012). Leaders are great risk takers who would put everything on the line for something they believe in. this can result in massive losses especially for business but naturally leaders have a high tolerance for failure unlike managers who do not believe in failure but perfection. A leader believes failing is a chance to learn and move forward. A leader will mostly encourage his followers to make mistakes and come up with new ways of doing things because he believes more can be achieved through innovative means. As such in companies where leadership is really strong innovative and creative employees are recognized in a special way that encourages the rest of the team to use their creativity for the benefit of the company (de Jong & Hartog, 2007). 5 Development of Leadership There is always a great debate between people who hold views from two different schools of thought regarding leadership. There are those who believe leaders are born while others who believe leaders can be developed. Some people are born naturally as leaders showing leadership characteristics early on in their lives. These people assume leadership positions naturally whenever they are in a team. This contention is however challenged by a school of thought that holds that experiences and especially childhood experiences shape us into what we become later in life (Mabey & Lees, 2007). Essentially then, a leader is not born a leader but it is the experiences that he has undergone that shapes him into a leader. While it is logical to agree with the assumption that some individuals are born with natural leadership talents, it is also important to note that for one to become a leader they must gain the necessary individual knowledge and skills to aid in leadership, otherwise talent is not a guarantee for success but rather it should be nurtured to full potential. It means therefore that organizations have a task of identifying talented novices who can become leaders and go ahead to instill skills in them to become knowledgeable leaders. 6 Conclusion Leaders and mangers have a striking difference if management is to be defined in the traditional way of management that involved hierarchies and glorification of the punishment and reward kind of management. Zeleznic argument regarding managers being task oriented and leaders being people oriented is justified in the sense that leaders seek to motivate people towards goals while managers push people towards goals. Both of them will achieve almost similar results but in different ways. The leader’s style is sustainable in the long-term while the manager’s is not. Leaders also have tolerance for failure and will encourage creativity, but managers happen to be perfectionists who desire predictable formal systems that don’t encourage creativity but task completion as defined. It is clear therefore that the two differ in nature but are closely related since both approaches can be harmonized to meet at a central ground where management and leadership styles of working can be used jointly for better results. References Cohen, S. L. 2010. Effective global leadership requires a global mindset. Industrial and Commercial Training , 42 (1), pp.3-10. de Jong, J., & Hartog, D. 2007. How leaders influence employees' innovative behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management , 10 (1), pp.41-64. Heertje, A. 2006. Schumpeter on the Economics of Innovation and the Development of Capitalism. Edward Elgar Publishing. Iqbal, T. 2011. The Impact of Leadership Styles on Organizational Effectiveness. GRIN Verlag. Kotter, J. P. 2008. Force For Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. Simon and Schuster. Mabey, C., & Lees, T. F. 2007. Management and Leadership Development. SAGE. Morrison, J. 2000. Developing a global leadership model. Human Resource Management , 39 (2/3), pp.117-132. Owen, J. 2009. The Death of Modern Management: How to Lead in the New World Disorder. John Wiley & Sons. Schroeder, C. 2012. Leadership and Management - A closer look on Differences and Managerial Roles. GRIN Verlag. Stine, P. 2000. Invisible management, visible results: a personal story. Strategy and Leadership , 28 (6), pp.23-27. Zaleznik, A. 1992. Managers and Leaders: Are They Diffrent. Harvard Business Review , 1-12. Read More