Leadership and Management Styles and Theories - Essay Example

On the other hand, management according to McNamara is the term for describing the functioning, planning, organizing, leading, and coordinating activities in an organization.

 Whilst McWhinnie believes that the definition of leadership should be limited to the style (approach) and skill that is used by a person or group to guide an effort. Johnson and Scholes (1993) argue that leadership is ‘the process of influencing an organized group within an organization) in its efforts towards achieving an aim or goal. They argue that a leader is not someone who is at the top position but rather someone who can influence.  The definition given by Johnson and Scholes is contradicting to some extent in that how can one be influential without being at the top position or leadership role?

  On the contrary, Dubin (1951) argues that leadership is the exercise of authority and making decisions. Concurringly, Hemphill (1954) voices his view that   ‘Leadership is the initiation of acts that result in a consistent pattern of group interaction directed toward the solution of problems.

From the arguments raised, one can deduce that a leader can or cannot be seen physically in an organization but has the power to manipulate or persuade organizational policies. If such is the case then a leader has the final ‘say’ or decision in matters affecting an organization and is therefore responsible for the organization. Moreover, it can be deduced that leadership is a relationship between a leader and his followers.

   Analogously, management is to forecast and plan, organize, command, coordinate, and control (Fayol 1916). In comparison, Koontz and O’Donnell (1984) define management as an operational process initially best dissected by analyzing the managerial functions. The five functions are planning, organizing, staffing, directing and leading, and controlling.  This implies that management sees the day-to-day affairs of an organization.

However,  Peters(1988)  maintains his stand that five important areas constitute management in his  definition, which states that the  “Five areas of management constitute the essence of proactive performance in our chaotic world: firstly, an obsession with responsiveness to customers, secondly, constant innovation in all areas of the firm, moreover, partnership – the wholesale participation of and gain sharing with all people connected with the organization, furthermore leadership that loves change (instead of fighting it) and instills and shares an inspiring vision, and  finally, control using simple support systems aimed at measuring the “ right stuff” for today’s environment.” 

As indicated by the arguments raised by these writers, management functions as a liaise between the organization and the leaders. Nevertheless, Hannagan (1995) is of the view that leadership is a subset of management in the sense that management is broader in scope as it is concerned with behavioral as well as nonbehavioral matters. He continues to argue that leadership can be seen as performing the managerial function of leading which is defined as the process of influencing people to help achieve organizational goals.  He can be right to some extent, yet he forgets to realize that management stands for almost any type of administration at various business levels be it strategic or tactic. Concurrently, Byars (1987 p 159) contends ‘leadership is a higher order than management. An individual within an organization who is able to influence the attitude and opinions of others within the organization and a manager is merely able to influence the actions and decisions’

Despite these facts raised by the authorities, the debate is still on. Who maintains growth, leadership or management, or both? It is of paramount importance to say that an organization could be in danger if it is over-led and undermanaged or vice versa and that the ideal combination of clever leadership and solid management will help in the growth of the organization. To support this assertion, Schalm (2009) quotes Mintzberg as ‘we are inviting trouble because of our penchant..... Of separating leaders and managers’.