Theories That Distinguish Leadership and Management - Example

LEADERSHIP VERSUS MANAGEMENT By Student’s Name Course + Code Name Professor’s Name University/College name City, State Date Introduction As much as leadership and management have common elements, including accomplishment of organizational goals and working with people, the two differ significantly in terms of their primary functions. Many researchers have spent most of their time and effort trying to make sense of or distinguish between leadership and management, with some of them coming to a conclusion that the two remain far apart while others concluding that the two are similar, placing emphasis on the level of performance of the responsibilities (Weihrich, 2007). However, it is clear that managers and leaders exhibit different characteristics that define their categorization, with different levels and approaches in utilization of the power at their disposal. As such, the primary function of management involves ensuring consistency and order through processes including budgeting, planning, staffing, organizing, and problem-solving (Weihrich, 2007, p. 242). On the contrary, leadership involves enhancing movement and facilitating adaptive or constructive change via processes including instituting direction through aligning people, inspiring, visioning, and motivating (Myers 2011). As much as a manager's position may give authority to carry out a given set of tasks and achieve certain objectives, the power that comes with such authority does not qualify them to be leaders. Instead, such power makes the managers bosses. Leadership takes a whole different turn as it initiates the desire to achieve highly among the followers as opposed to passing on orders (Myers, 2011, p. 115). It is important to note that leaders take an all-round approach towards meeting organizational goals, which include performance of managerial functions while managers do not necessarily perform leadership functions. This paper is going to review the distinction between leadership and management and hence draw a conclusion on whether the two should fall under a single umbrella. General Considerations Different researchers have continuously agreed on the need for both good managers and leaders in the organizational settings (Mingheti 2014). Nevertheless, with the new trend of organizations shifting from vertical to flat hierarchical structures, the increasing need for command and control has been increasingly identified among organizations (Kreitner 2009, p. 70). Considering their true meaning, control and command hold the same level of importance as management and leadership in the organizational setting. In fact, together they form the four pillars that drive organizations (Kreitner 2009, p. 70). It is paramount to note that as much as they are not overly distinct, they remain independent in the organizational. As such, leaders are required in the organization while managers are also required. This is a clear indication that being a manager is not necessarily being a leader and thus a leader has to be independently available in the organization to perform the leadership functions. On the contrary, part of the leader’s role include management and thus it can be rightfully said that a leader is also a manager (Mingheti 2014). As such, with the availability of a leader in an organization, there is no need for a manager, as the leader will also perform the managerial functions. Considering the four pillars, a clear line is still drawn between leadership and management with leadership involving factors that define the organization’s interpersonal factors including team spirit and morale, while management involving the organization’s conceptual issues including organization and planning (Kreitner 2009, p. 79). Command involves providing the organization with guidance through visions that have been well thought out, which would ensure that the organization is effective. Control involves the organizational structure, which ensures its efficiency (Kreitner 2009, p.79). The primary focus of management involves the business' conceptual side, which includes activities such as planning, budgeting, and organizing (Minghetti 2014, p. 47). This role involves all the legwork necessary in making the visions of the organization a reality. However, it is necessary for a clear distinction to be established between management and control. Contrary to controlling people, management is more concerned with the wise allocation of the resources of the organization (Minghetti, 2014). In fact, most of the managers understand the difficulty associated with controlling people. As such, management is more interested in the acquisition, integration, and allocation of organizational resources towards accomplishing the tasks and goals of the organization. Leadership, on the contrary, is concerned with the interpersonal relations that are developed within the organization and thus assumes the coaching and teaching role within the organization that enables instillinga right spirit and serves both the workers and the organization at large (Minghetti 2014, p. 48). Leadership was established because of the need to implement the four pillars of organizational development in concert (Adeniyi 2007, p. 165). Management only deals with one facet of the pillars, an aspect that leaves the rest out unattended. As such, an organization that has only managers and no leaders may lack the effectiveness of the rest of the pillars and thus would be unable to run efficiently. When the organization's roles of command, control, and leadership are not adequately addressed, its functionality is paralyzed to some extent (Adeniyi 2007, p. 165). Leadership provides synergy for the four pillars. As earlier identified, a good leader is also a good manager, and thus would perform management roles effectively, an aspect that facilitates addressing of all the pillars with utmost precision. Leaders can guide, motivate, and coach individuals within the organization towards achieving their best in the tasks within the organization. This prepares them for the command, which communicates the goals and vision of the organization to them for implementation. Leaders would also ensure that resources are well allocated through proper management, and organize activities properly towards success. Lastly, through control, the leader embraces all available opportunities that are necessary for risk reduction thus increasing the efficiency of the process (Carlson & Donohoe 2010, p. 188). In organizational setting, leaders make decisions concerning the direction in which they want their teams to go. As such, they set the goals and objectives for the teams and decide on the ultimate aim of the functions (Halan 2005, p. 20). Leaders then invest their efforts in inspiring and motivating the members of their teams towards accomplishing the set goals and objectives. To ensure success, the leader constantly reviews the progress of the team and ensures that they are on course towards achieving the set goals. In contrast, the role of the manager is to determine the way in which the team will accomplish objectives that have already been set. As such, management only steps in when it comes to the planning the project in line with achievement of certain goals and objectives of the organization, and establishing things like budgets, materials used, and pay (Redburn, et al. 2015, p. 43). As such, managers do not formulate objectives and goals of an organization but are only involved in the implementation of the plans that lead to the success of such goals. Leaders are more concerned with instigating change within the organization and thus go beyond the normal organizational framework towards exploring other measures that would facilitate such changes towards achieving positive results for the organization. For instance, a leader goes against the hierarchical structure as established by the organization and regularly interacts with the rest of the employees in order to gain an insight on their views concerning a given project[Mar132]. On the other hand, managers are rigid in their approach with their great focus being on establishing approaches within the organizational framework towards achieving the set goals. As such, a manager passes orders down the hierarchy without much consideration of the opinions of the subordinates unless such opinions are within the framework provided by the organization. Besides, as much as both the leader and the manager are interested in the general growth of the organization, they approach such growth differently. First, the leader is focused on instigating growth through motivating the followers towards desiring such growth. The leader with thus be more involved in approaching growth with the use of the human resource with the aim being to develop the organizational employees and to establish a relationship that will allow for free flow of ideas towards promoting sustainable growth. On the other hand, the manager is interested not only in the coordination of the human resources but also in the application of non-human resources towards ensuring growth[Alb13]. As such, the manager is not much involved in the development of the employees but instead requires them to perform optimally towards attaining the growth objectives of the organization. Leaders are visionaries, such that they observe the future trend in the business environment and thus promote internal change involving the employees, to ensure long-term sustainability (Ihlenfeldt 2011, p. 9). As such, leaders are highly innovative in terms of the methods applied in motivating and inspiring employees towards performing better. On the contrary, managers are less innovative as they operate within an already pre-determined framework involving methods of running a business that have already been tried and ascertained. Lastly, leaders are great risk takers, where they approach businesses with an open mind and thus create room for change regardless of the risk that may be involved. For instance, leaders may allow autonomy among the employees in decision making in the view of developing them, an aspect that increases the risk of poor decision making, and thus affect returns on investment. On the contrary, managers do not take risks and are in fact specialists when it comes to risk management (Bass & Bass 2009, p. 181). These individuals are more concerned with the benefit the business has to the owner than the development of the employees, and thus would stick to pre-determined structures and organizational culture towards attaining high profitability. Theories that Distinguish Leadership Great man theory This theory, also known as the trait theory, is based on the assumption that leaders are defined by different personality traits including perseverance, intelligence, and ambition, which are all rarely found in one individual. As such, the theory emphasizes that particular individuals are born as leaders with certain inherited traits (Derue, et al. 2011, p. 9). Case in point, individuals who become the best leaders have an appropriate combination of particular traits that are best suited for leadership. Most of the early research on leadership revolved around this theory where leaders were thought to have certain characteristics that define them as leaders, an aspect that led to a study of leaders in pursuit of discovering such traits. The underlying assumption of such earlier research was that those individuals who possessed such traits would most likely become great leaders (Derue, et al. 2011, p. 10). A leader is alert to the social environment, adaptable to different situations, cooperative, assertive, clever, conceptually skilled, persuasive, socially skilled, tactful and diplomatic. These traits allowed a leader to take a different approach as compared to a manager, where he or she is more determined to integrate the other employees of the company into the leadership and decision-making role of the organization. Leaders are more determined to create an environment that would foster creativity and all-round organizational success based on each individual’s self-motivation (Hoffman, et al. 2011, p. 350). This theory distinguishes leaders from managers as the latter stick to the provided framework in running business affairs without concentrating much on the development of the subordinates or creating much room for creativity as they are the sole decision makers. Behavioural theories Behavioral theories can also be used in defining leadership practices and approaches. Contrary to the Great man theories, these theories are based on the assumption that leadership can be learned (Derue, et al. 2011, p. 15). These theories assume that the success of leadership is based on learnable, definable behaviour. These theories are more inclined to what individuals do to become great leaders than inborn traits. As such, descriptive action is used in defining leadership success. According to behavioral theories, leaders exhibit two types of behavior, which include concern for the people around them, and concern for production (Derue, et al. 2011, p. 8). This distinguishes leaders from managers given that the latter are majorly driven by production and set structures that must beupheld by the employees through optimal performance, towards success. The managers employ reward and punishment mechanisms that would ensure that the employees who fail to perform are punished, and performers are rewarded. This minimizes the chances for employee development and instead shifts attention to competition. Motivation by Leaders versus Managers Both leaders and managers achieve organizational goals and objectives through the organization’s employees (Walker & Miller 2010, p. 35). This aspect requires them to motivate sufficiently the employees and make them feel responsible for their various roles within the organization. This is a concerning issue for most organizations. In spite of the increased research related to the subject of motivation, most managers fail to have a clear understanding of the subject, an aspect that has largely contributed to poor application of practice and theory (Walker & Miller 2010, p. 34). As much as the human nature may be viewed to be simple, it is complex to some level. Proper understanding of human nature is a prerequisite to workplace employee motivation and effective leadership and management. Various theories have been developed including Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Sigmund Freud's Theory X, and Douglas McGregor's Theory Y. Motivation Theories In Relation To Leaders and Managers Theory X The individuals behind this theory, Sigmund Freud was less optimistic and did not love people. According to the theory, people are lazy and they would always try to avoid work, as they hate it[Joh10]. Also, the theory posits that individuals have no ambition, an aspect that defines their lack of initiative and one that would always make them avoid responsibilities. This theory also assumes that the major concern for people is their security. Case in point, this theory suggests that individuals have to be coerced, rewarded, punished, or intimidated to push them towards doing any form of effective work. The managers, who hold the organizational hierarchy with great value, and thus believe that the subordinates need to be pushed towards meeting the objectives of the management, mostly employ this kind of approach. This defines the ‘stick and carrot’ management philosophy. In the view of this theory, motivation within the organization is to be created through constant policing of the employees by the managers. Nevertheless, this creates a frustrating and oppressive atmosphere for both the managed and the manager, an aspect that may impair the achievement of the set objectives[Joh10]. Theory Y Contrary to Theory X, Theory Y, developed by McGregor, posits that individuals have an interest in learning and working as if it were their natural activity to the level where they attain self-development and self-discipline[Joh10]. As such, individuals do not value the cash payments as rewards, as much as they value their freedom to engage in challenging and difficult work all by themselves. In this view, the manager is faced with the role of dovetailing the wish for self-development among the employees into the needs of the organization to ensure maximum productivity. Case in point, the objectives of both the employee and the organization are hereby met with sincerity and imagination. The maximum potential of the employees can be tapped through such a theory (Walker & Miller 2010, p. 39). This theory substantially defines the approach initiated by leaders in organizational settings. The leaders try to bond the employees into a homogenous group that would facilitate the development of each group member as part of a team towards meeting the objectives of the organization. As such, they are less inclined towards exercising power in the organization, and they aim at involving the entire employee body in the decision-making process, an approach that is instilled in the organizational culture. Theory Z (Hierarchy of needs) According to Abraham Maslow, all individuals have good inherent qualities at birth, which are gradually lost during growth and development. The central theme in Maslow’s approach revolves around the significance and meaning of work. This appears to epitomize the observation of Voltaire in Candide, where he believed that work shuns the three great evils, which include boredom, poverty, and vice (Walker & Miller 2010, p. 41). Maslow argues that an individual’s behaviour at a given moment is characteristic of their strongest need. This raises a question on the understanding of leaders and managers concerning the most important needs that are common among people in order to effectively initiate motivating factors that are based on such needs (Walker & Miller 2010, p. 41). Maslow identified various needs that define people's actions and preferences, which would form a basis for developing a motivational framework in the work environment to improve production. These needs include psychological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and actualization needs in that order (Walker & Miller 2010, p. 41). Such needs remain strong until they are satisfied to some level as an individual moves towards the needs that are at the bottom of the hierarchy (Walker & Miller 2010, p. 42). Leaders motivate their followers by meeting their needs from the top of the pyramid. In the current society, employees are more concerned with their growth and development such that they would easily drop a job that meets their financial expectations just because they feel personal fulfilment and growth (Walker & Miller 2010, p. 42). As such, leaders establish measures that would enhance self-actualization including continued training programs. They also enhance esteem needs through supporting autonomy in decision making among the employees. Leaders are also more concerned with establishing close relationships among the employees through work groups, an aspect that meets the need for love and belonging. On the contrary, managers are more concerned with meeting the employees’ safety needs through promoting job security, establishing protection policies, and enhancing job stability among others. Decision Making Process The decision-making process is salient in the running of an organization. This process sets the actual actions that are to be taken in the interest of achieving organizational goals or solving various situations within the organization (Hampton 2009, p. 228). It is clear that the approach towards decision-making is different among leaders as compared to managers. Managers solely assume the role of the decision maker and hence do not want their subordinates to get involved in the decision-making process. On the contrary, leaders are more involved in bringing the employees together through involving them in an integrated decision-making process with each member required to play a role and contribute to the final decision. Organizational Structure Organizational structure is important in determining the roles of different individuals in line with achieving organizational success. As such, the efficiency of the organizational structure is based on its alignment with the organization's strategy (Hill & Jones 2011, p. 149). The tasks of different individuals within an organization have to be coordinated and integrated to facilitate organizational success. There is no particular structure applicable to all businesses across the globe. The differences between organizations in terms of the calibre of employees, the mission, and the strategies applied define the type of structure that is applied, and a structure that works for a single organization may not work in a different one. For organizational success to be ensured, the structure has to strike a balance between innovation and order (Hill & Jones 2011, p. 151). It is also paramount for the structure of the organization to avoid effort duplication, to monitor work quality, and to standardize the procedures within the organization, among other functions. Leaders and managers hold differing view of the organizational structure, with the managers upholding hierarchical differences as provided by the organizational framework while leaders lean towards a flat structure. These structures play a crucial role in sharing information between the subordinates and the organizations heads. The flat structure employed by leaders enables proper interaction with the followers, enhancing free sharing of information that could be employed in making strategic adjustments towards success. On the contrary, the structure used by the managers mostly allows for a one-way flow of information, where the subordinates have no say in the running of the organization and only carry out orders from above. Conclusion It is evident that leadership and management are two distinct concepts that ought to be clearly distinguished. As much as management could exist independently, leadership incorporates aspects of management, and thus, a leader is a manager. However, one can exhibit managerial roles without showing aspects of leadership. Leadership is more involved with interrelationships and motivation of the employees in the organizational sector while managers are more involved with the conceptual issues such as resource allocation and task organization. For organizations to experience all round development, it is important for leadership to be embraced through training of the managers. This would enable proper addressing of the four pillars of development including leadership, management, control, and command. Through promoting proper relationships and communication among the employees, organizations are bound to experience increased flow of information and thus creativity, which is important in the development of new ideas amidst the changing paradigms of competition. Self-efficacy and esteem based motivation is also important to organizations in the current economic environment as it allows for individualized development and reduced responsibilities for the management through promoting autonomy in decision making at the ground level. Consequently, it encourages proper taking and managing risks towards meeting both the personal goals of the employees, and the goals of the organization at large. References Mar132: , (Johnston & Marshall, 2013, p. 216), Alb13: , (Lester, 2013, p. 204), Joh10: , (Walker & Miller, 2010, p. 36), Joh10: , (Walker & Miller, 2010, p. 37), Joh10: , (Walker & Miller, 2010, p. 38), Read More