Relation And Differences Between Leadership And Management Management Essay
Meaning of leadership: Leadership is the process through which an individual tries to intentionally influence another individual or group to accomplish a goal. Furthermore, leadership is a process because it is a series of actions applied by individuals to achieve goals and it is intentional because it does not just happen; it requires effort on the part of a leader (McCallin, 2003).
Meaning of management: Management is the art of getting things done by others as efficiently as possible and the major resource managers have is the people employed by business. Briefly, management is the task of planning, organizing, leading, motivating and controlling of organizational activities where the manager is a key role player in an organization (Dyer, et.al, 2000).
Relation between leadership and management: There is close relationship between management and leadership. However, many writers have distinguished between management and leadership. In the power status, managerial positions and scope but these two subjects are un- separable and embedded with organizational performance where good leadership ensures the better management and effective performance. On the other hand, many methods of management training can also be used as a means of measuring leadership style (Mullins, 2000).
Characteristics of leadership: Knowledge. intelligence, knowledge, adaptability, ability, creativity, able to enlist cooperation, judgement, cooperativeness, interpersonal skills, decisiveness, alertness, tact, oral fluency, self-confidence, diplomacy, emotional intelligence, personal integrity, prestige, independence, emotional balance and control, and social participation are the essential quality of leadership(Huston, and Marquis,2008).
Difference between leadership and management: Researcher Roger (2009) has summarised the differences between leadership and management that managers are made to feel not enough for not being more attentive to people; that is, not exercising enough leadership and has instated that evangelize leadership are more likely to be describing managership. Managers need to understand that leadership and managership are different roles, requiring very different responsibilities, demanding very different expectations, and calling for very different abilities. He has further described that managers are able to meet situations more directly and with less dissatisfaction when they distinguish absolutely between managerial responsibility and leadership opportunity and again explained that most people think of a leader as the person who states a vision, creates excitement among people to believe in the vision, and then directs actions to accomplish the vision. Leader does the function of stating a vision and creating excitement but the function of managers is to direct actions to accomplish the vision crosses the line. For example, leaders are normally hailed as forcing their organizations to face new challenges but managers don’t force. Furthermore, leadership is sometimes used to connote a positive behaviour whereas managership is presented as a less worthy or even negative approach. He has further described the differences that exercising leadership is not the same as doing the “right” thing or the “good” thing and leadership is not a wiser attitude than managership, or a substitute for managership.
Leadership styles: Leadership styles are defined as the different combinations of tasks and transaction behaviours that influence people to achieve goals. Six basic leadership styles that can be applied to changing work situations have been identified where the coercive, transformational, facilitative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching are summarised by the researchers (Huber et al. 2000).
The coercive style: The coercive leadership style summarised by Goldman (2000), and Pennings, (1986) is concerned with, “Do what I say” approach which can be very effective in a turnaround situation, like a natural disaster, or when working with problem employees, however, the researchers have argued that coercive leadership hampers the organization’s flexibility and dampens employees’ motivation in most of the situation where a coercive leaders use rewards and punishments to influence their employees’ behaviour (Pennings,1986). Researcher has noted that the coercive leadership is concerned with a task orientation rather than a follower orientation where leaders always give emphasis on controlling of others. They have further claimed that the coercive style emerges to be the least effective in the most situations than all other leadership style (Holdford, 2003)
The affinitive style: Researcher has summarised that the affinitive leadership style focuses more on the follower than the task .Researcher has clarified that the affinitive style of leadership tries to keep followers happy and meet their emotional needs where the leader influences primarily through positive rather than negative feedback. It has noted that a few pharmacy managers suppose that positive feedback will cause employees to slack off in their work, so they offer only criticism, however, positive feedback can enhance productivity by enhancing communication, loyalty, trust, and innovation in reality (House, 1996; Goleman, 2000)
The democratic style: Previous finding has concluded that leaders who exercise the democratic style give followers a say in decisions that affect their work lives which generates a sense of possession by the staff in an organization’s goals, nurtures the generation of ideas, and to construct trust and respect. On the other hand, researcher has insisted that democracy can be very unproductive if people discuss unimportant issues. It has further pointed out another drawback of democratic style that use of the democratic style to avoid making difficult decisions and to shift potential blame for bad results to workers. Research has noted that democratic leadership is less successful in times of crisis (Holdford, 2003).
The pacesetting style: House, (1996) has explained from his research finding that Pacesetting leaders set tremendously high performance standards for both followers and themselves where the leader leads by example, demonstrating effort and give up and asking the same of others. It has further clarified that if the leader puts in long hours or gives up weekends for work-related projects, the leader expects everyone else to do the same .In the pacesetting style of leadership, followers who cannot keep up with the leader are replaced by others where leaders are often praised in popular press for their successes(Goleman, 2000).
The coaching style: Holdford, (2003) has described in his article that Coaching leaders struggle to develop the abilities of their followers so that they can work more independently and successfully toward organizational goals where leaders help workers to set goals and achieve them through career development, training, and skill development. It has argued that coaches do work cooperatively with the staff to get better productivity and performance, and leaders provide the followers with the tools necessary to attain victory. Furthermore, leaders challenge followers and delegate tasks to them that help develop their skills (Goleman, 2000).Most of the times; it is easier for leaders to do a task themselves than teach followers to do it. Researcher has noticed that people who are trained to do something can take over the responsibility for it and may even perform a better job at it than the leader (Holdford, 2003).
Situational variables of leadership: Though there may be many situational factors affecting leadership effectiveness. Fielder has identified three critical dimensions of situation which affect a leader’s most effective style which are leader’s position power, task structure, and leader-member relations
Leader’s position power: This is determined by the degree to which a leader drives power from position held by leader in the organization which enables him to influence the behaviour of others. In the case of a manager, it is authority delegated to him. As fielder points out, a leader with a clear and considerable position power can more easily obtain followership than one who has not assigned clear and considerable position (Ashour, 1973).
Task structure: Task structure refers to the degree to which the task requirements are clearly defined in terms of task objectives processes, and relationship with other tasks. When the tasks are held responsible for performance than tasks is unclear (Ashour, 1973).
Leader-member relation: Leader-Member Relation refers the degree to which followers have confidence, trust, and respect the leader. Fiedler has considered this dimension as the most important for the leader and his position, power, and task structure are subject to control by the organization and these can be prescribed (Prasad, 2000; Ashour, 1973). Researchers have realized that many situational elements are now recognized as affecting the process of leadership, in addition to the qualities of the leader and followers. Situational factors are the nature of the task or activity, its history, the availability of human and material resources, and the quality of leader-follower relations (Calder, 1977; Rush, et.al, 1977) .
The situational approaches of leadership: The situational approach focuses on the significance of the situation in the study of leadership where a variety of people with differing personalities and from different backgrounds have appeared as effective leaders in varied situation. The person who becomes the leader of the work group is thought to be the person who knows best what to do and is seen by the group as the most suitable leader in the particular situation. The continuum of leadership behaviour draws attention to forces in the situation as one of the main forces influencing the nature of managerial behaviour. The situational approach emphasises the situation as the dominant feature in considering the characteristics of effective leadership (Mullins, 2005).
Capabilities development of leadership in future: Researcher Gratton has pointed out that leaders are the part of organizations shaped by technology that has created the patents, ideas and innovations that brought success where the past will not bring sustainable competitive advantage for the future. Leaders have to build the potential of people in the organizations, the knowledge they bring and their commitment and enthusiasm to meet the future challenges of an organization. Building human potential demands a new agenda, a new set of challenges for leaders and a redefined set of managerial capabilities are main capability development factors. This new agenda creates a set of expectations of the leaders. Gratton sets four expectations as message for leaders (Mullins, 2005).
Dream collectively: The researcher has noted that a leader has to create time and process for him/her and his/ her colleagues to dream about the future; create enthusiasm and excitement and a vision for future; view the present as a pathway to the future; allow people to work independently but within the frame of the general direction; and work to identify and co-ordinate the major themes for action (Mullins, 2005).
Balance the short term with the long term: Researcher has suggested to think in the past, the present and the future; be aware of human scale of change and create plans to action that reflect human time scales and capacity in human potential; build a vision for the future that engages people and allows them to understand their future role (Mullins, 2005)
Build an organization that values people: Leaders have to treat their people with respect and have their ideas taken seriously and allow them to believe they can make a difference; be aware of the need to create communication channels with employees; demonstrate be commitment to people; treat people with politeness, respect and dignity and create a strong role model for others to follow (Mullins, 2005).
Understand the reality of the organization: Leaders have to create a deep, shared understanding of the current state of the business, and examine the metaphor of the organization; put the building of a highly committed workforce at the centre of strategy; build a model of their organization around high levels of trust, commitment and inspiration; develop an understanding of process fairness and justice, and understand employee’ perceptions of integrity, consistency and pride (Mullins, 2005).
Plan of actions to develop leadership capability:
Balance the short term with the long term
Build an organization that values people
Understand the reality of the organization
Roles of emotional intelligence as common feature of a great leader: Goleman has defined emotional intelligence that emotional intelligence includes self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill. He has further explained that emotional intelligence manifests itself not simply in the ability to control leader’s temper or get along with others in work place but also involves knowing leader’s own and his/her colleagues’ emotional makeup well enough to be able to move people in directions that assist to accomplish company goals. Furthermore, he has argued that emotional intelligence isn’t just a native talent and it can be measured, learned, and developed (Goleman, 1998). Research finding has summarised the importance of emotional intelligence in order to develop of a collective sense of goals and objectives and how to go about achieving them because the goals and objectives considered are major, overarching goals that are commonly referred to as the leader’s vision for the organization. Researcher has further summarised the role of emotional intelligence in an organization for development of a collective sense of goals and objectives and how to go about achieving them; instilling in others knowledge and appreciation of the importance of work activities and behaviours; generating and maintaining excitement, enthusiasm, confidence, and optimism in an organization as well as cooperation and trust; encouraging flexibility in decision making and change; and establishing and maintaining a meaningful identity for an organization(George, (2000). On the other hand, research finding has noted that emotional intelligence may add to leaders developing a forceful vision for their groups or organizations in a number of ways where leaders may use their emotions to improve their information processing of the challenges, threats, issues, and opportunities facing their organizations. Leaders are often faced with a large amount of information characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity; out of this information, they need to chart a course for their groups or organizations (Forgas, 1995). Researcher has argued that emotionally intelligent leaders are thought to be happier and more committed to their organisation (Abraham, 2000). On the other hand, emotionally intelligent leaders are able to achieve greater success perform better in the workplace take advantage of and use positive emotions to envision major improvements in organisational functioning. It has further argued that leaders use emotions to improve their decision making and instil a sense of enthusiasm, trust and co-operation in other employees through interpersonal relationships (George, 2000; Miller, 1999).
Research has summarised five main emotional competency sets which are self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills where knowing one’s internal state, preferences, resources, and intuitions are the factors concerning with self-awareness, managing one’s internal states, impulses, and resources are concerning with self-regulation, emotional tendencies that guide or facilitate reaching goals is concerning with motivation, awareness of others’ feelings, needs, and concerns are related with empathy, and adeptness at inducing desirable responses from others are concerning with social skills (Fullan,1991).
Managing conflict: Conflict is a state of unresolved differences within individuals, between an individual, and a group, or two or more groups. In other words, it is a disagreement among team members in an organization (Mullins, 2005). A good manager doesn’t try to eliminate conflict; he/she tries to keep it from wasting the energies of his people. If employees fight with bosses in an organizations openly when they think leaders are wrong-that is healthy for leaders. If employees fight each other openly in the presence of leaders for what they believe in- that is also healthy. But leaders keep the entire conflict eyeball to eyeball (Townsend, 1985). Research finding of Katz MD, (2007), has summarised that institutional planning and personal conduct are the ways of managing conflict in an organization where establishing an institution-wide conflict management program, building a culture that welcomes normative conflict resolution, and fostering group cohesion are concerned with institutional planning where as anticipating conflict, developing communication skills, identifying the precise source of the conflict, establishing rules of conduct, finding a nonjudgmental starting point for the discussion, establishing shared standards and goal, recognizing any shared frustrations with the system, conducting in a private setting with a colleague(if necessary), and transferring the subordinates to an uninvolved colleague. On the other hand, leaders can manage conflict by establishing common goals in an organization and changing structural agreement.
Establishing common goals: Most of the conflicts assume that incompatible goals are a necessary antecedent for the development of conflicts. It means that the existence of superordinate goals-common goals will reduce the occurrence of dysfunctional conflicts. This is true particularly in the in the case of conflict among groups and between individuals and organization. Researcher has observed that the fundamental problem of intergroup competition is the conflict of goals and breakdown of interaction between the groups. This breakdown, in turn, permits and stimulates perceptual distortion and mutual negative stereotyping. The basic strategy of reducing conflict, therefore, is to find goals upon which group can agree and to re-establish valid communication between the groups (Scein, Eh, (1990).
Changing structural agreement: Research has summarised that in some cases, the change in organizational structural or some part of it can reduce dysfunctional conflicts. There are some guide lines that conflicts can be reduce by decentralisation, restructuring to remove obvious differentials in status symbols between hierarchical interest groups, development of cycles of work with opportunity to employees to complete tasks, and sharing in organizational rewards. Structural variables are summarises as reduction in interdependence, reduced in share resources, exchange of personnel, creation of special integration, and reference to superior’s authority(Khan, and Katz, 1978).
Organizational culture, power, and control: Although, senior managers are in no doubt that change would be valuable, there are still a lot of obstacles to conquer before it can be brought about. Many of these are correlated with what I have just been describing about-the information-gathering systems and decision-making processes that together form an organization’s structure and operations. In fact, most of these actions are intimately bound up with one another. They can be modelled as a network or web, with each element relating to each other in reciprocal way. The cultural web covers stories, symbols, power structure, organizational structure, control systems, and rituals and routines. At the centre of the web is the paradigm, the values and beliefs or dominant logic which guides behaviour and shapes organizational decision making (Rieple, and Haberberg, 2001).
Power structures: Power structures are the dominant groups that reflect historical success and the achievement of power by key individuals. For example, in 3M, power structures are engineers
Symbols: Symbols are the ways in which organization is represented- both to itself and to the outside world. Symbols are an important way in which organization’ members learn to make sense of the world around them, and are also key indicators of what behaviour is expected. We can take the example of changing language as a symbol of changing values in UK Rail Company.
Stories: Stories are the tales told by organizational members to each other and to outsiders about what has gone on in organization. They form an importance part of organization2sense making2 in which individuals learn how and what to think by finding out what others think. Company reports and accounts, biographical books, and press articles are a good source of officially sponsored stories.
Organizational structure or configuration: Organizational structure is the organization’s formalised decision-making processes. There are however, occasions when dominant individuals or group are not reflected in the formal structure where a problem that makes achieving change particularly difficult.
Control system: Control systems are the ways in which certain behaviours are rewarded and encouraged, or vice versa where the things a company measures are powerful indicators of what it really thinks is important.
Routines and rituals: Routines and rituals are for the most part, unconscious, they are sticky. Because of this they are quite difficult to assess and therefore change. A firm’s rituals are same to its routines, but concerned with expressed behaviours that indicate the importance of particular things. For example, an induction ceremony, like the training course which new employees undergo at university (Rieple, and Haberberg, 2001).
Forces for change: Poor or declining performance, new management, political, legal, and social events, and competition are the major indicators of organizational change where a leader has to be conscious about those above mentioned factors where organizational culture/cultural web, organizational capabilities, power structures, and the pain of new change fatigue are forces against change in an organization. Research has summarised that a main player in managing conflict and supporting team members to handle conflict is a team leader who is able to with conflict management skills. West, et.al,(2003) have summarised that leadership clarity is connected with stronger team processes around clarity of objectives, levels of participation, dedication to excellence, and support for innovation. They have further mentioned that team processes are more positive when leaders lead clearly; however, research that examines the impact of transformational and emotional leadership in conflict processes is limited. Research findings have argued that the transformational leadership dimension of intellectual stimulation can create an environment, where questioning assumptions and inventing new uses for old processes stimulate a healthy form of conflict (Bass, 1990; Dionne, et.al, 2004).
Critical analysis: To be a good leader is a challenging task for human beings in this complex global business environment. My past experience summarises that usually a good leader is a combination of several of leadership styles where leaders must tailor their personal leadership style to fit each situation. However, it is very difficult or rare to be a leader having all skills of different leadership styles because human beings are limited in their capacity. Furthermore, the coercer style is especially effective during a wartime situation when the command is in combat or under fire, however, this style of leadership can have some negative effects if the command, work centre, or individual is performing at a high rate of efficiency. Subordinates will not respond well to the repeated use of threats during normal situations. . Similarly, the primary advantage of transformational leadership style is the reinforcements used to promote performance; however, it ignores other factors, like, emotional and social values that contribute to the performance of an employee. Democratic leadership style is flexible to subordinates, however, it is suffering from slower decision making, less initial production and leader can be unsure and makes everything a matter for group discussion. On the other hand, Laissez-fair leadership is also suffering from less group satisfaction, less group productivity, poorer quality of work, less personal growth, jobs fall back on someone else or are not completed, there is a problem of taking credit of good work. Next autocratic leadership style is also suffering from more group hostility, more dependence on leader, more apathy in group, and slower execution of decisions and Charismatic leadership style is also unsuitable in all context because it can be spectacular failures, create a personality cult, and can wear out the workers( Holdford, 2003; Huber et al. 2000; Goleman, 2000)
Conclusion: Leadership is the process through which an individual tries to intentionally influence another individual or group to accomplish a goal Effective leadership strengthens the organizations through times of peril and makes a business organization successful. Furthermore, effective leadership enables a not-for-profit organization to fulfil its mission. The effective leadership of leader enables organizations to grow strong and healthy and become productive organization. Most of the researchers are agreed that personal traits are important, acquired skills are important, and the situation for leadership is important to accomplish the mission, goals and objectives of an organization and its stakeholders.
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal: