The Relationship between Management Processes and Leadership Processes - Literature review Example

The Relationship between Management Processes and Leadership Processes Managing is part of our daily life, and so with leading. But, society’s problems are sometimes attributed in part from people’s lack of clear understanding of management principles. This principle involves even how management can be positively related to leadership in order to take advantage of this valuable principle and tool. Pascale and Athos (1983) argued that “the way in which management solves these problems in a society is a measure of the society itself.” From a textbook case and academic standpoint, leadership and management are concepts currently seeing its transformation from rational, technical activity into a fascinating and vibrant field that encourages deep study of its underlying and surrounding themes. In the Art of Japanese Management, Pascale and Athos (1983) argued that leaders and managers must be able to ensure that an organization resolve the following problems: 1) how to organize efficiently and delegate responsibilities; and, 2) how to reward and motivate employees, and how to control resources and ensure results. It has been a long-established view and knowledge how this tier relationship may coherently and effectively assist organization in its primordial goal to achieve its vision to succeed. But what do we mean by leadership and management really? Are these two concepts related with one another? Experts said the common notion ascribed and used to define the meaning of leader is by way of referring to the role one carries, the title attached to his name, and the role he plays in an organization. As few other definitions strikingly confuses the other meanings referred to leadership and management, the others expound it however; thereby producing a more complex meaning as studies being conducted runs deeper. However, it was never clear or determined how then should each concept play their respective roles in view of this issue. Without doubt, leadership and management are positively related. Like a twins, the two principles are tied since birth but the difference lies in the fact that both will eternally be inseparable. Although the dynamism of this relationship has been gaining strong reviews and analyses in both business schools and academe for many years, its complexity is deepening by miles. Scholars and researchers have documented enough proofs to support this, more than enough to encourage an exploration in an exciting and rich territory of thought-provoking issues that surround the behavioral concept of leadership and academic principle of management such as politics, values, ethics, gender and exploitation (Akella 2008). Thus, the quest for meaning in this tier of management and leadership can be compelling yet elusive, and remain so until today. To be pragmatic about the use of these concepts in our lives, however, can result in positive or negative way about how proper roles will be played by leaders and followers in our society, environment and organizations. Thus, it is said the interplay between leadership and management is influenced by two main factors – the characteristics of the individuals involved, and the nature of the situation they face, which can invariably affect or influence our understanding of the relationship of both concepts. This basic point lies in the heart of several approaches to leadership known as contingency theories of leader effectiveness. Under this approach to leadership, it said that no one best style of leadership. Instead, it said that certain leadership styles may prove most effective under certain situations. Together with the use of other contingency-leadership models, this study seeks to identify the conditions and factors that determine whether, and to what degree, leaders and managers will enhance the performance and satisfaction of their followers. Leadership and Management Defined Leadership, as an organizational behavior concept, has been defined many times but only yielded complexity that is hard to contain in one jar. Some said that in order to give a well-defined concept of leadership was elusive; hence, the quest goes on and on for many years. Shani & Lau (2000) cited a 1974 (Stogdill) study that concluded that by far, the divergence of definitions of leadership almost supercedes the number of persons who have attempted to define the concept. This divergence compounded and astonishes scholars and researchers globally, hence has relegated leadership an indirect attribute: still emerging as a management concept. Leadership is defined as a process that allows an individual influence others in order to attain a common goal in the group or organization (Greenberg 1999). Thus, effective leadership thrives on positive relationships between the leader and followers to create a two-way mutual process between the leader who is trying to influence and the subordinates who will be necessary in both parties’ achievement of a particular goal or mission. Thus, leadership inevitably involves influence and interaction between two or more members of a group who desire relevant changes (Daft & Noe, 2001). Such changes reflect a shared purpose that the leaders and constituents are willing or desiring to follow or achieve. Evident in the process of this interaction among the members of a group are the confluence of the situation, perceptions and expectations of the members. On a general viewpoint, leadership may be referred to as an art, act, science and function of addressing what needs to be done through leading or showing the way. Hence, leaders must understand the situation and the current state of things or reality. In view of this, effective leadership requires the basic know-how of determining future visions, which in turn requires strategic thinking to create the ability to focus on external factors and the people served (Stanley, 2004). Management, on one hand, is defined simply as the practice about managing people in an organization to make products or to perform services in an organization (Miller). In this fundamental set-up, the followers or people are considered as resources, a part in the business mix of an organization, akin to finances, equipments, and the like. The manager’s role here include 1) the followers’ output, 2) the quality and quantity of the products or services, and 3) to ensure that the employee’s needs are met (e.g., motivation, production, and stimulation). This definition, however, should not be confused to a leader, however, since the role handled by the manager is conceived to be more about making sure the needed or required demands in work or group are tackled or performed. That is because to some, a leader or manager is expected by the group as someone who must be a conduit of powerful ideas and source of great visions. He shares this vision and gives his followers the chance to own this vision, marking as a symbolic tie that binds and holds the team together. The vision of the leader serves as a blueprint for realizing results. As such, the vision needs to be energizing and compelling enough so that the followers are inspired to take part, find a way to help shape the vision in reality. In full complete arc, the leader empower people and gives them the chance to use and express their talent, reach their potential and also achieve success (Northouse, 2004). It is also observed that among the best qualities a leader should possess is by becoming a strong personal brand and a ‘magnet for great talents.’ These qualities are achieved by experience and age, as it requires a lot of hard work, dedication, perseverance and discipline, aside from their own high reputation and credibility. As a magnet for talents, the leader develops a craving for his followers to connect or to establish a work relationship with the said leader. The other members of the group eye to take part and contribute to the group’s progress. Invariably, to put Greenberg’s conclusion in this context, his definition of a manager is no longer far from that of a leader. Although some researches pointed out the blurring in the roles and definition shared by a leader and manager in practice today (Greenberg 1999), its growth is being seen as an oasis in the field of situational leadership researches that is still young. For his part, Drucker (1972), elucidated that management is not merely a discipline but a “culture” with its own values, beliefs, tools and language. Drucker suggest that such quality echoed the role of management as tool that managers and leaders can use in developing a more effective way of perceiving and cutting through the complexity of their organizations. In the same way, Boverie and Kroth (2001) suggest that there are management processes that leaders need to familiarize themselves with in order to ensure organizational system and managerial functions. These are: planning, organizing, staffing, leading, controlling and evaluating, coordination, problem solving, and representing. Meanwhile, Pascale and Athos suggest that society must produce managerial innovations, in ways that will break inherited molds of perception, old patterns of behavior and prior expressions of beliefs and values. To them, the Western management style of organizational structure and formal systems must be revamped. These formal systems include strategy, structure and systems. Strategy is defined as the plan of action that causes managers to allocate its scarce resources over time to get from where it wants to go. Structure, on one hand, is the way the firm is organized, whether centralized or decentralized. And systems, on the other hand, refers to the way information move around within an organization. The two authors underscored that management processes must include and pay attention to the social and spiritual means of an individual. Crane (2001) indicated that management is vital in success-targeting. It should also be the leaders’ concern to ward off risks and confusion whenever they occur; and, people look at leaders whom they can expect will identify their needs, motivate, and inspire change and action in carrying out the strategies they developed to achieve success. Analyzing Leadership and Management Processes in Different Perspectives As a complex process, leadership involves intricate social relationships and is affected by a wide range of variables. The many attempts at comprehending leadership in a multitude of perspectives resulted in a plethora of transformational changes over the years. In simplest terms, the changing demands of the situation inevitably influenced this fact-finding mission, and among the variables that were considered influential include leader’s characteristics, the attributes of the followers, the behavior of the leader, the relationship of the leader with the followers, and vice-versa, among others. In the past, behavioral scientists initially used the “Great Person Theory of Leadership” to underscore the observation that great leaders are born and they possess these so-called “personal qualities” that qualifies him to lead (Pierce & Newstrom 2003). In the next phase that ensued, personality attributes were identified as factors in determining if a person has the making or the promise to emerge as a successful leader. This personality qualities are looked at to examine what then separates or differentiates a promising or emerging leader with those who are non-leader in terms of effectiveness of his management. This era opened leadership as a psychological phenomenon. A 1948 study by Stogdill showed the personal factors that are associated with leadership, namely – 1) intelligence, 2) dependability, 3) persistence, 4) self-confidence, 5) adaptability, and many others. Mann (1959) reviewed the study and concluded the strong relationship between the leader’s personality with perceptions (Pierce & Newstrom 2003). The significant progress in this study further developed and later on focused towards other themes such as the influence of behavior on followers’ performance and satisfaction. In a categorical definition given by Bowers & Seashore (1966), leadership thus constructs as an organizational-useful behavior by one member of an organization toward another member or members of the same organizational family (Pierce & Newstrom 2003). Several key broad categories of effective behaviors soon emerged such as consideration (e.g., behavior that reflects friendship, warmth, trust), and initiating structure (behavior defining roles and responsibilities, providing directions, instructions) (Bowers & Seashore, 1966). An Ohio State University study in 1945 suggests that leaders do differ greatly along these two dimensions of concern for people (consideration) and concern for getting the job done (initiating structure) (Shani & Lau 2000). A University of Michigan study also obtained the spotlight in later years with its study that showed leaders to be production and relationship oriented. Leaders, it was observed, are said to be production oriented as they are very much concerned with planning, scheduling, coordinating, implementing, and other processes. Whence, the leaders are said to be relationship-oriented since they are concerned with expressing and showing respect, trust, confidence, and by being understanding of the needs of the followers (Shani & Lau 2000). Role of Situation in Management and Leadership Process The leadership process is further explored through the situational paradigm, evolving from the former behavioral approach model used in understanding leadership concepts. Several in-depth and brilliant studies later raised this awareness to the core of public’s consciousness. Malphurs (2004) who intoned the influence the leader's values give to his followers stressed the extent by which leaders mirror the values of an organization that shape employee values as well. As Kouzes and Posner (1995) argued that leaders make visions and values meaningful and followers look at these as models they can emulate and follow, situation plays a role in influencing the leadership process. The situation’s influence are spread through the interaction attempts of a leader to influence the followers. Murphy (1941) mentioned that such situation creates needs for people, thus, its nature dictates or define the leadership type that will best serve the organization. The variables that may directly or indirectly influence leadership are leader's characteristics, followers' attributes, behavior, leader-follower relationship, and others. In this regard, Murphy was among the very first researchers who contradicted previous’ understanding of leadership’s psychological dimension alone, citing the concept’s sociological nature. In his stellar assessment of leadership, he described it “to be a function of the whole situation and not something that resides in a person" (Pierce & Newstrom 2003). Another researchers, Smircich and Gareth used Murphy’s theory in asserting the qualities and capabilities a leader possesses that makes him socially- or situationally-affected. The two indicated how leaders are defined by the ways they are able to interpret ambiguous situations, which in turn such understanding is passed to the followers, and later, to arrive at an alternative course of action for reaching the goal set. This process is thus characterized as a unique and mutual interplay between the leader and follower and playing their roles in the context or situation (Pierce & Newstrom, 2003). Such leadership process soon emerges as a result of both the leader’s actions and the people he led (Smircich & Morgan, 1982). Stogdill elaborated how the leadership process acts as a work relationship between that of the leaders and his followers, that is associated with the attainment of the goals. He asserted that the traits of a leader must perfectly fit in the situation that includes the followers’ characteristics and goals (Stogdill, 1948). Given this view, he opined that individuals who are leaders in situation may not be in another. As a significant factor in the leadership process, further studies and researches suggest other factors that influence the effectiveness of a leader in any given situation (e.g., time, urgency of work to be done, nature of the work, degree of autonomy, hierarchy of management personnel, etc.) (Pierce & Newstrom, 2003). Contingency Theories of Leader Effectiveness As a complex system, leadership is said to involve intricate social relationships that is invariably affected by a wide-range of variables. Generally, two main factors are said to influence leadership: the characteristics of the individuals involved, and the nature of the situation they face. And this basic point lies at the heart of several approaches to leadership known among social scientists as contingency theories of leader effectiveness, which indicate that there is no one best style of leadership. Proponents of contingency theories suggest that effective leadership styles are proven only under certain conditions or situations. The said theories seek to determine the conditions and factors that determine whether, and to what degree, leaders will enhance the performance and satisfaction of their subordinates. This section thus deals with the different contingency theories which describe the various components that contribute to a situation and how these different conditions interact with leadership and management process and style to yield effective leadership in an organization. Of course, we first define what leadership style is. In documents by Shaw and Lau (2000), they defined leadership as the “pattern of philosophy, beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and assumptions about leadership that affect the individual’s behavior.” Along this definition, we add the leader’s position and behavior for dealing with followers, as among the factors that can greatly affect or influence leadership style. Even with the observation about the impact on teams of leadership style in order to achieve the best possible result, it is said that no one single leadership style can be relied on (Goleman, 2000). Path-Goal Theory: Leaders as Guides to Valued Goods In the path-goal theory of leadership, the basic idea that leaders do help their people reach their goals, plays a significant role in this approach. Developed by Robert J. House in 1971 and was later on revised Robert House and Terence R. Mitchell in 1974, the model contends that only when members or subordinates feel their leaders are supportive of their progress towards achieving the goals they set, that may in turn clarify the paths to such rewards, the former will help their leaders in this goal. In more specific terms, the leader, in trying to help clarify the nature of tasks and reduce the obstacles along the path to their goal, will then increase the subordinates’ perceptions that working hard will lead to good performance and that such performance will be rewarded and recognized. As a result of such conditions, motivation will be enhanced, and may also help enhance the performance of the group or organization as a whole. In the best ways possible that leaders will accomplish these tasks, the path-goal theory of leadership prescribes the complex interaction between key aspects of leader behavior and certain contingency factors, there are leadership styles that can be adopted, namely - 1) Instrumental. An approach focused on providing specific guidance, establishing work schedules and rules; 2) Supportive. A style focused on establishing good relations with subordinates and satisfying their needs; 3) Participative. A pattern in which the leader consults with subordinates, permitting them to participate in decisions; and 4) Achievement-oriented. An approach in which the leader sets challenging goals and seeks improvements in performance. In 1996, the path-goal leadership theory was revised by Robert House that contends that this model is “theory of work unit leadership.” Specifically, it noted that certain leader behaviors do increase the subordinate satisfaction and empowerment, work unit and overall effectiveness. It also addressed the keen effects of leaders on motivating subordinates and influencing their abilities and performance. From the original four (4) classes of leader behavior, individual differences of subordinates and contingency moderator variables, the reformulated theory now includes eight (8). It now include: path-goal clarifying, achievement-oriented, work facilitation, supportive, interaction facilitation, group-oriented decision process, representation and networking value based and finally, shared leadership behavior (McLaurin, 2006). Contingency Theory: Matching Leaders and Tasks Under the Contingency model developed by Fred Fiedler (1972), it addresses the question when then the types of behavior works best and influence the leadership style? More specifically, under what conditions are leaders more successful when they demonstrate a concern for people compared to a concern for production? In this theory, it assumed that a leader’s contribution to successful performance by his or her group is determined by the leader’s own traits together with and by various features of the situation. Different levels of leader effectiveness occur under different combinations of conditions. In the simplest terms, the contingency model argues that the effectiveness of group performance is contingent upon two factors – the leader’s motivational pattern and the degree to which the situation gives a leader power and influence (Fiedler, 1972). Combining these factors, the leader’s situational control can range from very high (positive relations with group members, a highly structured task, and high position power) to very low (negative relations, an unstructured task, and low position power). Situational leadership theory – adjust leadership style to situation Hersey and Blanchard’s theory holds the contention that leaders are effective when they select the right leadership style for the situation they face. For one, this depends on the maturity of the followers (e.g., readiness to take responsibility for their own behavior). Two variables affect this, namely - 1) Task behavior or the degree to which followers have the appropriate job knowledge and skills (i.e., their need for guidance and direction), and 2) Relationship behavior or the degree to which the followers are willing to work without taking direction from others (i.e., their need for emotional support). The situational leadership models expects leaders to be able to: 1) diagnose the situations they face, 2) identify the appropriate behavioral style, and then 3) implement that response. Because the situations leaders face may change all the time, leaders must constantly reassess them, paying special attention to their followers’ needs for guidance and emotional support. To the extent that they do so, they are likely to be effective. Specialized training in these skills has been found to be useful. Conclusion The relationship between leadership process and management are said to be affected or influenced by the situation. The old accepted definition of leadership and management are constantly being transported to the ebb and flow of this emerging social science as diversity of meaning grows. In defining leadership and management, it can no longer be confined with the relationship of an individual who can thus influence subordinates or followers. Thus, leadership’s implications and relationship with management, far extends to its relation between traits, behavior, and situations in which they are found or involved with. To be effective as a leader, internal factors no longer solely count but the external adaptability are also accounted for. Several theories and approaches emerged over the years that continually shape and define what a successful leader is. Unlike before when one who possesses certain traits like keen industry insight and knowledge, persuasiveness and strategic thinking already qualifies a person to become an effective leader, these approaches to leadership and management process revolutionized this thinking. The internal and external environment’s ever-changing nature, successful leaders are prescribed these time around to adapt their management and leadership styles to the call of the situation. Hence, leadership and management process is therefore a match between the leader and the leader situation. Works Cited Druckers, Peter, 1972, Management, New York: Harper & Row, pp. 17-21. Ferguson, C. (2003). Whose vision? whose values? on leading information services in an era of persistent change. Retrieved on March 7, 2006, from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub123/ferguson.html. Green, Daryl D. (2007), Leading a Postmodern Workforce, Academy of Strategic Management Journal Greenberg, Jerald (1999), Managing Behavior in Organizations, 1999, Prentice-Hall New Jersey Malphurs, A. (2004). Values-driven Leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Bakerbooks. McLaurin, J. Reagan (2006)), The Role of Situation in the Leadership Process: A Review and Application, Academy of Strategic Management Journal Pinos, Victor (2006), Leadership in the 21st Century: The Effect of Emotional Intelligence, Academy of Strategic Management Journal Shani, A. B. (Rami) & Lau, J. B. (2000). Behavior in Organizations: An Experiential Approach (7th ed.), .43-61. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature. Leaders and the Leadership Style, (3rd ed.), 70-72. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Delhi, India: Pearson Education, Inc. Read More