Difference Between Management And Leadership Business Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

According to University of North Carolina Wilmington, Management is organizational process that includes strategic planning, setting: objectives, managing resources, deploying the human and financial assets needed to achieve objectives and measuring results. Management functions are not limited to managers and supervisors. Every member of the organization has some management and reporting functions as part of their job.

It can be sad that Fayol's principles of management are superior to Mintzberg in terms of its applicability today. Pryor and Taneja (2010) suggest that Fayol principles have been adapted by many organizations. His work has been added to contemporary management theory in order to tell today's managers what to do in order to become more efficient and effective.

According to Lamond (2004), Mintzberg has unknowingly tried to show the work managers get engaged in while doing their managerial functions. He also states that Mintzberg have made some connections with Fayol's managerial functions and the behaviors he found himself. Feels therefore suggests that technically Mintzberg agrees with Foyal's work.

Archer (1990) observed that when Fayol's principles were taken as good management principles in 1930's to 60's, efficiency and living standard of American people increased. He also notes Japanese work style is based on principles and techniques of Fayol. Pryor and Taneja (2010) therefore believe that Fayol's principles are still relevant to organizations effectiveness.

On the basis of evidence we can say that Fayol principles are management effective whereas Mintzberg theory does not describe effective management style. Mintzberg participants were constantly jumping from issue to issue and were taking decisions according to current situations. It can be said that delegation of work by managers would have helped them to make their process and procedure more effective.

The latter phenomenon Mintzberg himself describes as the dilemma of delegation. There might be a good reason for managers not to delegate the work but it is still not the most effective way of managing.

Many contemporary management literatures accepts Mintzberg model and does not see the weak points present in Mintzberg study. Accepting Mintzberg study does not mean that Fayol's theory is not being accepted by contemporary management. According to Wren (1994) Foyal and Mintzberg theory are not opposing to each other but are two different views on management. According to Lamond (2004) Fayol and Mintzberg theory represent 2 sides of a coin. Fayol theory tells what managers should do whereas Mintzberg theory tells what managers actually do in an organization.

(Amm, 2011)

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership model was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1977. According to Greenleaf, Servant Leadership takes place when leaders assume the position of servant in their relationship with fellow workers. Servant leadership should not be motivated through self interest rather it should make leaders motivated to work for others.

(Greenleaf, 1977)

There are several characteristics to be a servant leader -

Listening - Servant leader should be a good listener and should be active while listening to subordinates and help them in decision identification

Empathy - Servant leader should be able to understand and empathize with others

Healing - Servant leader should be strong enough to heal himself and others

Awareness - Servant leader should have self as well as general awareness

Persuasion - Servant leader should not take advantage of their power, they should rather convince their subordinates

Conceptualization - Servant leader should think about the future in advance.

Foresight - Servant leader should be able to foresee the likely outcome of a situation

Stewardship - Servant leader should be obligated to help and serve others

(Anon., n.d.)


(Hopkin, 2008)


Like different theories in social science, leadership theories should also be able to translate into working models. There have been many criticisms for servant leadership for missing empirical substantiation. Stone, Russel and Patterson (2003) call the theory "systematically undefined and lacking in empirical support".

(Smith, 2005)

According to Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) literature on servant leadership is filled with anecodotal evidence and dense research work is needed for it. Russel and Stone (2003) effort to try and make a servant leadership model is a great step in making servant leadership more popular and accurate but they lack behind due to very less research available for servant leadership.

(Smith, 2005)

Servant Leadership is also criticized on social perspective as many researchers think servant leadership is anti-feminist or anti-religious in nature. According to Eicher-Catt (2005) values given through servant leadership are gender biased in nature and say that servant leadership theory is "a theology of leadership that upholds androcentric masculine norms" and "insidiously perpetuates a long standing masculine-feminine, master-slave political economy". Smith, Montagno and Kuzmenko (2004) warn that "some authors have tried to relate servant leadership with spiritual and moral terms". Other authors distinguish servant leadership with religious and spiritual terms but express concerns that servant leadership theory can conflict with spiritual orientation of individual.

(Smith, 2005)

Some researchers are doubtful about the practicality and applicability of servant leadership with real world situations. They doubt the objectives of servant leadership in relation with today's world where individuals' effort and performance is everything. Other argues that theory is unrealistic as it "ignores accountability and the underlying fundamental aggression of people in the workplace".

(Smith, 2005)


There are many literatures which suggest servant leadership theory emphasis on leadership motivation which brings out weaknesses that are in people. This weaknesses include individual's error of judgment, excess of pride and self-interested actions that can occur in individual holding a high post in an organization, which can lead to unhealthy subordinate relationship. According to Lee and Zemke (1993) servant leadership theory states that leaders are no more superior to people they lead. Some researchers found individuals having self-interest and self-esteem in modern workplace and found the need for implementation of servant leadership.

(Smith, 2005)

Buchen (1998) supported the model of servant leadership and argued that self-identity, capacity for reciprocity; relationship building and preoccupation with the future are essential themes for mode of servant leadership. He also supported the Greenleaf's model of servant leadership and made it clear that this theory will help to provide a new model for future faculty and future institutions.

(Irving, 2005)

Spears (1998) also helped to create 10 characteristics associated with servant leadership by analyzing the original writings of Greenleaf. According to Spears these 10 characteristics serve to communicate the power and promise that are open to his invitation and challenge. Spears and Lawrence (2002) later work emphasized on the 10 characteristics affirmed in the earlier work.

(Irving, 2005)

Greenleaf theory was developed in 1960's and 1970's but is today helping the organizations to move from traditional, hierarchical paradigms of industrial pasts. King (1994) observes the businesses today are drastically compressed as business running conditions are changing every 18 to 36 months; organizations are converting from large units to small and efficient units. Servant leadership can help organizations to focus on employee empowerment, teamwork and flatter organizational structure. Wolford-Ulrich (2004) asked other researchers to see servant leadership through the lens of design, noting that design is a rich service tradition. They identified designers work as serving clients to derive desirable outcome. Designer-client relationships shares similarity with leader-follower relationship of servant leadership; both focuses on the need of those they serve.

(Smith, 2005)


Fayol delivers a more conceptualized description about the management process. Lamond (2004) thinks that Fayol provides kind of a directive for good and efficient management. Wren (1994) regards his principles as "lighthouses to managerial actions". Mintzberg also provides fair insight into the area of contemporary management but his theory lacks the point of effectiveness. This makes Fayol theory superior in terms of applicability and relevance.

Servant leadership can be operationalized and is well suited for application service arena. Theory was first proposed in 1970 but some researchers trace its origin to human relation movement of 1950's. Some recognize its principles being practiced for more than 2,000 years but servant leadership lacks a formal, confirmed framework and has not been actually linked to any organizational performance. Many areas are still to be exploited and answered including whether the servant leadership can be formally trained. As theory is getting adopted by many organizations today, these and other issue of this theory must be addressed.