Understanding the Difference Between Leadership and Management - Literature review Example

Management and Leadership Name Institution Introduction A review of ‘leadership’ and ‘management’ literature reveals the two concepts are different yet still overlap. Two different views explain the overlap. Robbins et al (1998) provides the first view, which perceives leadership to be a superior form of management. In which case, leadership is essentially management that has been effectively executed. Hanold (2014) also provides the second perspective, which originates from the standpoint that management entails what persists within an organization. To this end, leadership and management overlap, as leadership is in essence a vital management skill. Therefore, the reasoning that management contains some principles of leadership is sensible because of the overlap. Still, it could as well be reasoned that making a distinction between the two terms is crucial; otherwise, organizations would be set for failure. One reason for this is demonstrated by Hanold (2014) in his argument that failure to differentiate them leads to a situation where management potential denigrates while leadership is exalted. Hanold (2014) also argues that confusing the two terms leads individuals to perceive leadership as capable of remedying all forms of dilemmas in organizations. This is perilous, as leadership and management all play fundamental roles in an organisation. It is based on this reasoning that this paper describes the difference between leadership and management before commenting on the manner in which leadership and management is practised at a given school. It further examines three leadership types: ethical leadership, strategic leadership and transformational leadership. 1. (a) The difference between leadership and management First, a manager is an action character while a leader is a visionary. In Lopez’s (2014) view, the difference between management and leadership is inherent in the roles of a manager and a leader. While a manager is an action character, a leader is a visionary. Nayar (2013) described the roles of a manager as intrinsically possessing stereotypically decision-making roles, and indicating a definite form of status. Hanold (2014) agrees with such an observation and posits that a manager does the decisional roles, including allocating resources and tackling disturbances. At this juncture, the implication of status, or hierarchy, denotes that unlike leaders, managers do have subordinates, who have to work under them to set things right within an organizational setting. In which case, their power and authority over others is in terms of a formal authority (Robbins et al., 1998). From this perspective, it becomes clear that managers have a transactional and authoritarian role. In a current school scenario, the dean of the faculty is a manager, as he has a formal authority vested in him by the university, while his subordinates comprise the lecturers and other members of the faculty staff, who work for the dean and largely follow directions given or preferred by the dean. His management style is also transactional, in a sense that he directs the lecturers and other members of the faculty staff on what to do, while they in turn do this as they have been promised a reward, including a salary. Second, management is concerned with ensuring the survival of an organization while leadership is concerned with people development. Hanold (2014) views the difference between management and leadership in term of ethics. He asserted that leaders tend to be more vital than managers due to their ethical behaviour. He argues that management lacks definite moral or ethical dimension, while merely seeking to serve the interests of certain groups, such as the shareholders. What this shows is that management’s chief concern is organisational survival. Therefore, when ethics is removed from the concept of leadership, then management would be left. Essentially, much of the literature surveyed appeared to focus on a single aspect of managerial work that is concerned with action. They attempted to define management as intended to do things in the right way, plan and budget, control, solve problems, and generate results that can satisfy stakeholders. A leader empowers others to embrace change while a manager centralizes power to put things right. Simply put, a leader is a visionary. Lopez (2014) views leadership as intended to realize the potential of others and of self. He, however, appears to shift from the traditional definition of leadership that emphasized a leader as one who has influence over others. Instead, he mentions that unlike a manager who is concerned with putting things right to ensure that the expectations of the stakeholders are met, a leader balances intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, creates support teams, and assimilates personal life with work. In other words, a leader empowers others to embrace change while a manager centralises power to put things right. Hence, unlike a leader, a manager is promised certain rewards by the stakeholders, include a pay for getting things done to the expectations of the stakeholders (Bhindi & Duignan, 1997). In a typical school scenario, the dean of faculty embraces the descriptions of a manager. He is paid to oversee roles of the lecturers and other members of the faculty staff on what to do and to ensure that they do things in the right way within a tight budgetary and time allocation. Hence, they inherently pass on their work focus to the lecturers and other members of the faculty staff. Unlike a manager who seeks to do things in the right way, plan and budget, control and solve problems and generate results that can satisfy stakeholders, a leader is concerned with sensemaking, providing visions and visioning, relating and inventing. Here, sensemaking denotes interpreting developments within the organisation. Relating denotes building trusting relationships in the organisation. Visioning denotes conceiving and communicating a gripping picture of the future, or the bigger picture. Lastly, inventing is concerned with changing a capacity to create new techniques of doing things (Hanold, 2014). What these show is that while the authors attempt to construct a realistic image of an authentic leader, where the leader does not strive to show his perfection as an individual, they provide a normative description that distinguishes a leader from a manager. Unlike the managers who have subordinates, the leaders have followers. While in a current school scenario a leader may have subordinates, this is only so as leaders are also managers because of the overlapping nature of their roles. However, when a leader has to lead, he has to renounce his formal authoritarian control, as leading requires a considerable number of followers while following is inherently a voluntary activity (Hanold, 2014). For instance, in a typical school scenario, when the dean of faculty needs to influence the lecturers and other members of the faculty staff to perform tasks better to increase student performance in events of poor motivations or salary from the university, he would have to give up his formal authoritarian role and become more transformational and charismatic. This may entail inspiring them rather than just directing them on what to do (Robbins et al., 1998). The dean of faculty would have to appeal to the faculty staff to follow him, show them how following his innovative methods of doings things would lead them to achieve their specific goals and that of the organisation. This may require empowering and inspiring the faculty staff to follow him enough to discontinue their methods of practice and attitudes. Unlike in management where the faculty dean may have to put threats, such as demotions and sacking, to compel the staff to work better, in leadership he relies on his charisma to attract the staff to embrace change and promises them transformational benefits, including extrinsic rewards. Overall, from the literature review, it can be concluded that while management seeks to regulate the existing system to ensure that things operate as required, leadership pursues opportunities that bring about change. Additionally, management accommodates the status quo, while leadership confronts the status quo. Next, a manager has to operate and direct the organisation within the currently defined paradigm, while a leader is visionary, and, therefore, invents new paradigms (Hanold, 2014). An additional important inference is that a manager concentrates on planning or how things should be coordinated and done, while a leader concentrates on what work or tasks would mean to his followers (Robbins et al., 1998). Therefore, a manager oversees the complex systems to ensure that they are working appropriately, while a leader assists individuals to accept, embrace, and implement change, including by energizing and motivating them. It is also important to consider that while a manager tends to rely on control and coordination, a leader relies on trust. Lastly, a manager is concerned with ensuring efficiency and effectiveness to meet organisational or stakeholder objectives, by concentrating on short-term goals and monitoring the bottom line. On the other hand, leadership is vision-oriented, as a leader is concerned with the future of the organisation and centres on the long-term goals (Bhindi & Duignan 1997). b. Davies' types of leadership: transformational leadership, ethical leadership, strategic leadership Ethical Leadership Davies (2009) commented that good leader leads in a manner that is transparent, as well as set good examples in all aspects of governance. He added that given the vital roles of leaders in schools, they have to make ethical decisions. Therefore, leaders influence and set the standards for ethical decision-making. Ethical leadership depends on the values and moral principles that the leaders hold in organisations (Othman 2014). Ethical leaders work within the bounds of values framework. Bhindi and Duignan (1997) agree with this perspective. In his view, ethical leaders are characterised by a tendency to adhere to amoral code. These show that ethical leadership has a strong link to compliance with the moral codes. Indeed, several studies have attested to this assumption. A study by Othman (2014) showed that ethics and effective leadership are strongly correlated and inseparable. A link between effective leadership and compliance to values and moral codes is, therefore, inherent, as values always prevail in the decisions that leaders make. An additional characteristic is that ethical leaders tend to respond in a positive way to ethical climates and influencing the organizational members to be ethical in their work practice. A study by Othman (2014) showed that ethical leaders possess moral authority, such as being honest, fair, considerate, as well as trustworthy, which make the organisation ethical in different spheres of work. What this shows is that ethical leadership encourages a role model influence that brings about an ethical climate in the organisation. Othman (2014) also adds that ethical leaders are often people-oriented, and as a result respects, motivate, care, inspire, and treat people well. Othman (2014) concluded that ethical leadership requires acting with integrity, which is crucial for instigating responsible leadership qualities, and subsequently caring for organisational members and others, adopting ethical behaviours, and being transparent. For instance, in a school situation, an ethical school leader demonstrates capacity to accept individual differences, based on the teacher’s racial, ethnic, gender and religious diversity, and assigns them task fairly and in a just manner, without any level of bias. He also respects all members of staff and considers their different perspectives, and encourages other members of staff to do the same. Strategic leaders According to Davies (2009), strategic leaders engage in five main activities. They set directions, translate strategies into actions, align the human resource and the organisational strategy, conceive efficient points of intervention, and develop the organisations’ strategic competencies. The strategic leaders possess several characterises. They are inherently dissatisfied with the present circumstances or status quo. For instance, they can envision the future of the organisation and tend to pursue a change for the better. They often look forward to change the organisational culture to be more forward-looking (Davies 2009). A strategic leader also tends to place emphasis on their personal learning and strategic thinking. A study by Davies (2009) had established that a large number of school leaders surveyed preferred personal learning and prioritised knowledge that promoted the school’s strategic direction. For instance, school leader seeking to influence students to take a new direction may engage in self-learning to learn about the strategies, which they can use to promote student development. A strategic leader also creates mental models that they can use as frameworks for developing own understanding and practice. Davies (2009) explained that school leaders tend to create mental models that use to understand complex situations. For instance, the school leaders seeking to influence better student performance may develop theories to help them understand the sources of student failures, likely successes of the new strategies, and to challenge the strategies suggested by others. A strategic leader also possesses significant personal and professional networks. Davies (2009) suggests that a strategic leader continuously scans his environment, whether locally or globally to seek new ideas and make contacts. In a typical school situation, a school leader makes networks with teachers and students to understand what happens in the school, and with other schools to understand what happens in other schools. Transformational leader According to Sahgal and Pathak (2007), a transformational leader’s key goal is transforming people and organizations, by changing their hearts and minds, develop values, and expand their understanding. Transformational leadership has several characteristics. A transformational leader has a capacity to influence the confidence of his followers, hence allowing them to accept radical changes in an organisation. According to Lievens et al. (1997), transformational leaders do not take advantage of their position to attain personal interests. Rather, they develop the potential of others to attain shared objectives. For instance, a school leader can give confidence to teachers, whose students have failed, through encouraging speeches and communicating the future school vision. A transformational leader has also a capacity for inspirational motivation (Hallinger, 2007). Sahgal and Pathak (2007) define inspirational motivation as a leader’s capacity to inspire and motivate others to show appropriate behaviours, such as teamwork. For instance, rather than sack a non-performing teacher, a transformation school leader talks to the teacher to help him identify his weakness, encourage him to re-examine current teaching paradigm, and support the teacher to make extraordinary efforts. In this case, a leader helps the teacher to challenge the current system and to recommend the right changes. A transformational leader also has individualized consideration, which Sahgal and Pathak (2007) defines as the capacity to analyse followers. In a typical school situation, a school leader who is transformation tends to observe, assess, as well as envisage the teacher’s needs and wishes. Davies (2009) suggests that a leader is also sensitive, compassionate, honest, and has empathy. Conclusion The concept of leadership and management are different. A manager is an action character while a leader is a visionary. Additionally, the management is concerned with ensuring the survival of an organization while leadership is concerned with people development. A leader also empowers others to embrace change while a manager centralizes power to put things right. Additionally, unlike a manager who seeks to do things in the right way, plan and budget, control and solve problems and generate results that can satisfy stakeholders, a leader is concerned with sense making, providing visions and visioning, relating and inventing. Lastly, unlike the managers who have subordinates, the leaders have followers. An ethical leader leads in a manner that is transparent, as well as sets good examples in all aspects of governance. They influence good values and set the standards for ethical decision-making. Next, strategic leaders tend to be dissatisfied with the present circumstances or status quo, place emphasis on their personal learning and creates mental models they can use as frameworks for developing own practice. They also have significant personal and professional networks. On the other hand, transformational leader transforms people and organizations, by changing their hearts and minds, develop values, and to expand their understanding. References Bhindi, N. & Duignan, P. (1997). Leadership for a new century. Educational Management & Administration, vol. 25, no. 21 pp. 117-133 Davies, B. (2009). The essentials of school leadership. New York: SAGE Publications Hallinger, P. (2007). Research on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership: Retrospect and prospect. Paper prepared for ACER Research Conference, 2007. Hanold, M. (2014). Understanding the Difference Between Leadership and Management. Retrieved: < http://samples.jbpub.com/9781284034158/9781449690861_CH02_Secure.pdf> Lievens, F., Geit, P. & Coetsier, P. (1997). Identification of transformational leadership qualities: An examination of potential biases. European Journal Of Work And Organizational Psychology, 1997, 6 (4), 415-43 Lopez, R. (2014). The relationship between leadership and management: Instructional approaches and its connections to organizational growth. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 6(1), 98-112 Nayar, V. (2013). Three Differences Between Managers and Leaders. Harvard Business Review, August 2013 Othman, Z. (2014). Attributes of ethical leadership in leading good governance. International Journal of Business and Society, 15(2), 359 - 372 Robbins, S., Millett, B., Cacioppe, R. & Waters-March, T. (1998). Leadership in organisational behaviour: Leading and Management in Australia and New Zealand, 2nd edn. Sydney: Prentice, Hall Transformational Leaders: Their Socialization, Self-Concept, and Shaping Experiences. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(3), 263-279 Read More