Good Management Or Good 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.

Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall Stephen R. Covey (cited in Shamas UR- Rheman and George Ofori, 2008, p.5). The difference between management and leadership is still debatable. This essay argues that, good management and good leadership are equally important to an organisation. The concept is explored through the work of Abraham Zalezink, Shamas UR- Rheman and George Ofori, etc.

Good management and good leadership are varied concepts. However at a point, these two notions may overlap. Therefore, the existence of both of these elements in an organisation is crucially important. So what is an organisation? An organisation is established when two or more individuals come together to achieve a common objective or a goal on ongoing basis ( Business Therefore in order for an organisation to achieve its ultimate best, the correct ingredients are needed; good management and leadership. Once an organisation has the ability to recognise the difference between a manager and a leader, only then the business may begin the journey to its success. However, some may argue that management and leadership are two different concepts (Ofori et al, 2008) whilst other may argue the two concepts are �two sides of the same coin� (Bryman, 1992, cited by Ofori et al , 2008, pp 62). It is difficult to decide who has the correct view, but they may all agree that, it is a vibrant part of an organisation�s performance.

Firstly, let�s look at the idea of good management. Theodore Levitt an American economist and a professor at Howard Business School has identified management as:

�Management consists of the rational assessment of a situation and the systematic selection of goals and purposes (what is to be done?); the systematic development of strategies to achieve these goals; the marshalling of to be required resources; the rational design, organisation, direction and control of the activities required to attain the selected purposes; and, finally, the motivating and rewarding of people to do the work.�. (cited in Zalezink, 1975, pp3)

This highlights the fact that it is up to the management to decide the direction where the organisation is headed. In order to reach the ultimate destination, the managers have to identify what problems needed to be solved and how can he or she may involve the employees in the process. An organisation do not just need management, it needs a �good management�. Here �Good� is referred to as being competent and skilful for their job and having people friendly characteristics (Business This suggests a manager must have the technicality as well as the personality to suit the job. In addition, managers are often referred to as the �task makers� of an organisation (James Kotterman, 2006, pp13). This is because, when the top level manager (such as the CEO) passes down an order to achieve a specific target, it is up to the front line management to delegate the tasks based on effectiveness and efficiency of the fellow employees. According to James Kotterman (2006, pp13), management is established to reduce the �internal chaos� in the organisation. As the organisations� relationships become more complicated as we step in to the future, they need different bodies who can handle the situation in an effective manner. Since �management� is a new concept as well, they bring about �consistency� and �order� to an organisation (Kotterman 2006). Therefore, good management has become the life line of an organisation.

Secondly, the concept of leadership has come a long way and each individual has their own definition to the idea of leadership. However, in this case leadership will be defined according to J. Kotterman (2006)

�Leadership �creates organizations or alters them in some fundamental way by challenging the status quo, creating a vision, communicating that vision widely, getting people to believe in it, and then empowering them to act.�

In simple this suggests leadership is the process of positively influencing and encouraging individuals to set and achieve objectives. Being an effective leader is not always an easy task. Leaders should see changes as an opportunity to rethink what is going on inside and outside of the business. According to S. Manikutty (2003) leaders may exist at any level of the organisation despite the fact they have given the proper authority. This means most employees of an organisation will be influenced by a leader in some manner. Therefore, it is important that these leaders possess good leadership qualities with an emphasis on ethical behaviour. Here �good� is defined as having the competency and skills to perform a task and has people friendly personal qualities (Business Also, it is vital leaders adopt an ethical behaviour into their performance because, it will guide them to do the �right thing� (Linda K. Trevino, Laura P. Hartman, Michael Brown, 2000, pp131). Since, most individuals at the workplace may be influenced by these leaders, it is important that they are swayed in a positive manner! Linda et al (2000) further argue that these leaders will treat their fellow employees with �dignity� and �pride�. Lastly, leaders tend to be more active rather than reactive (Zalezink, 1975) which means they establish ideas rather than responding to them. This highlights their �active attitude� towards achieving goals (Zalezink, 1975, pp7). Therefore, good leadership has also become a significant contributor for an organisation�s success.

Management and leadership are equally important to an organisation. This is because; it is highly unlikely that one individual may have both of these qualities (James Kotterman, 2006). According to James Kotterman, leaders are �charismatic� and �highly admired� whereas managers are referred to as organisation�s �task masters� who have �whip� on one hand and the �bullhorn� on the other to give out orders rigorously (Kotterman, 2006, pp13). For instance, let�s take the example given by the President and Chief Executive Officer of American Management Association, David Fagiano (1997, pp5). He refers to management as an �octopus� with a significant number of hands that seems to be growing daily, suggesting the delegation of work rather than the power. He argues that in some organisations individuals prefer, power over importance of sharing knowledge. He then compares leadership to a �goose� and identifies when geese are travelling in a V-formation they tend to share the rear position because the leader goose become tired after a while due to wind resistance. So in order to reach their destination, the whole flock must be informed of their target (Fagiano, 1997). Likewise, in the case of an organisation, leaders must share their knowledge with their fellow employees to achieve great goals. This example highlight today�s organisations� situation. Managers are the ones who are appointing employees to get the job done whilst leaders have the opportunity to use their imagination. Likewise Zalezink (1975) have stated, managers lack the ability to ensure the use of their �imagination� or �ethical behaviour� while directing the organisation to achieve its goals.

Management and leadership adopt different methods when they are to achieve organisational goals. Zalezink (1975) argues that managers have the ability to adopt impersonal or objective attitude towards goals rather than being passive. He suggests that, manager�s need to achieve goals have risen out of necessity rather than �desire�. Therefore it is likely that they would follow the organisational principles rather than being rebellious (Zalezink, 1975). As a result of that, today�s organisations have given the priority to management rather than leadership without realising the impotence of both aspects. Even James Kotterman has supported the view that, �they are both important to a successful workplace� (Kotterman, 2006, pp13). However when it comes to leaders, they approach goals in a entirely different manner. They are likely to adopt an active role towards achieving goals. When managers are compared to this method, they are sometimes referred to as �unimaginative cold� (Kotterman, 2006). They try to �alter moods�, �evoke images and expectations and establishing specific desires and objectives that determine the direction a business takes� (Zalezink, 1975). Good leadership is to inspire people in a positive manner to follow them whilst good management is getting his or her fellow employees to complete tasks in an efficient manner.

These two concepts, leadership and management approach their organisational tasks in different angles as well. Zalezink argues that managers have the concept of work as people and ideas working cooperatively to identify what strategies are needed to achieve the ultimate goal (Zalezink, 1975). According to him, managers may adopt variety of skills to undertake these tasks; such as understanding the effect of the opposition that has on the particular task, �staging�, �timing� and �reducing tensions� (Zalezink, 1975, pp7). In addition, managers are more likely to take the responsibility for the tasks that are under taken by the employees under his or her span of control as well as constantly seeking ways to improve them (Kotterman, 2006). Furthermore, Zalezink further states, managers tend to appear flexible and are open to tactics or to undertake �negotiation�. However, in the process of achieving the goal, they may use rewards as well as punishment (Zalezink, 1975). So when managers require its employees to accept a certain solution to a problem, managers must ensure two elements are present in the solution �coordination and balance� (Zalezink, 1975). However, leadership approach differs. Whilst managers propose a strict outline for the employees to work within, leaders develop fresh approaches and �open issues for new options�. They tend to overlook to the future �50,000 feet in anticipation of the organization's global needs and long-term future� (Kotterman, 2006, pp15). According to Zalezink (1975) leaders are more like artists and they are part of the completed piece of art. In addition, leaders need create excitement in the work place and only then they can influence the employees to follow their terms.

Lastly, managers and leaders have different relationship with their fellow workers. Managers are more likely to work collaboratively with fellow employees rather than being self-contained. This was proved by an experiment conducted by Zalezink where indivduals were asked to write short stories by looking at a painting. Managers �populated his or her story with people� (Zalezink, 1975, pp 10) whilst an individual who was considered as a leader took a more of an empathetic story with a story centred on a single person. So it was concluded by Zalezink that, �Managers relate to people according to the role they play in a sequence of events or in a decision-making process, while leaders, who are concerned with ideas, relate in more intuitive and empathetic ways� (Zalezink, 1975, pp11). This argument is also supported by Sandra Schruijer and Leopolds Vansina stated that �Followers� hopes, needs, feelings of dependency and anxiety may determine how leaders� act� (S. Schruijer and L. Vansiana, 2002, pp870). This simply highlights that, manger�s attention is centred to get the job done while a leader may consider what the event means to the fellow employees. On the other hand, Manikutty argues that there is an existence of a rite of passage to become a leader from a manager which he refers to as , ��jumping a chasm than walking smoothly on a bridge over a gulf� (Manikutty, 2003, pp53). But it is difficult to agree with this concept because, when the difference between leadership and management is clearly cut out, it is hard to assume a manager will make a transition to become a leader at one point. Individuals may refer to themselves as leaders because they are at the top of the hierarchy in an organisation but this is not always the case. Likewise Kotterman has argued, �Too often, senior managers believe they are leading when in fact they are managing (Kotter ,1995 cited in Kotterman 2006, pp 16). � One does not train oneself to be a leader; one has to become a leader� (Bennis, 1998, cited in Manikutty, 2003, pp 55). Therefore it can vividly bee seen that management and leadership are two different ideas.

However, some may argue, either good management or good leadership is important to an organisation, rather than the existence of both of these elements. According to Strategic Directions only twelve per cent of the population has faith in the management (�Strategic Directions�, 2010). Then if this is the case, someone has to perform the duties of a leader. It is clearly evident that with the entire work load put on top of a manager, it is difficult for his or her to lead by example rather than delegating or ordering tasks to be completed. Like Roger J. Plachy (1981) has stated, if an individual is not getting along with the manager, it is likely that their job satisfaction will be significantly low and they will only attempt their tasks due to his or her position powers. Further he states, �The more you choose to manage the less you choose to lead� (Plachy, 1981). This indicates that when an individual is concentrated on one of these concepts, they cannot fulfil the duty of the other. �A leader deals with emotions, excites camaraderie and unity, and guides vague notions into concentrate actions. A manager determines, organises and directs programs, and compromise among different desires� (Plachy, 1981). Therefore, an organisation should consist of both.

From the above arguments, it is clear that management and leadership can be clearly differentiated and they are equally important to a work place. There are certain tasks that a manger is capable of performing whilst there are other tasks only leaders can carry out (Manikutty, 2003). Therefore what we need in an organisation is a manager who is a leader or leader who is manager or one from each. �According to Brikinshaw, reintegrating leadership and management is like a cart pulled by two horses. The horses have to keep moving in the same direction at the same pace but if they do this, the result is more powerful and stable ride� (cited in �Strategic Direction�, 2010, pp11). If an organisation wishes to strive for success, it is preferable for good management and good leadership to exist.

In conclusion, in the twenty first century, good management and good leadership are very important to an organisation. Both elements perform different tasks; they approach the achievement of goals in a different manner, they have a diverse relationship with their fellow employees and they approach organisational tasks in dissimilar manners. So in order for an organisation to success these two elements must complement each other in day to day organisational performance. Like Zalezink (1975, pp2) has stated �both types are needed in any large organisation- managers to keep things running smoothly, and leaders to provide long-term direction and thrust�