The concepts of Leadership and Management

In recent years, there has been ongoing debate as to whether or not there is an obvious distinction between the concepts of Leadership and Management (McCartney & Campbell, 2006).Although leadership and management are vital to organisations many theorist argue that both terms are profoundly different and that both exist as two separate entities (Bennis & Nanus ,2003; Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy ,2002; Shriberg, Shriberg & Kumari, 2005 ; Zaleznik, 1977, cited by McCartney & Campbell, 2006 ). Bennis & Nanus (2003) argues that managing is to “bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for and to conduct”, whereas leading is “to influence” and “provide direction” (p.20). Bennis & Nanus (2003) asserts that “Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right things” (p.20). Hence, the connotation can be interpreted as an association between efficiency and effectiveness, vision and rational and finally innovation and logic (Sampson & Daft, 2009). Although Bennis & Nanus (2003) statement is mostly true there appears to be an indistinguishable region, due to the fact that leading is considered as one of the four functions of management and that leaders occasionally use certain managerial skills to achieve personal and organisational goals. This essay will provide linkages between theoretical arguments of both Leadership and Management first by providing a theoretical definition on both terms followed by a well developed argument on the basis of whether or not both terms are distinct or that one paradigm is a subset of the other (Koontz, 1964, as cited in McCartney & Campbell, 2006).

Numerous management texts often define management “as a set of activities directed at an organisation’s resources with the aim of achieving organisational goals in an efficient and effective manner” (Griffin, 2002, p.7, as cited in McCartney & Campbell, 2006). Sampson & Daft (2009) describe leadership as the “ability to influence people to the attainment of organisational goals” through interpersonal relationships that co-exists between leaders and followers. Colvard (2003) argues that although managers provide leadership and vice versa, managers do not perform the unique functions of leaders. Similarly, Bennis & Nanus (2003) emphasised that leaders generally carried out a different organisational purpose than that of managers, as leaders required different sets of skills to meet organisational goals. In contradiction to Colvard and Bennis & Nanus’s statements , Caldwell (2003) claims that in current times innovation is as much essential in management as in leadership, as managers no longer perform their traditional role of directing and controlling work procedures but act more often as facilitators (Kirton 1980; Kanter 1989) .

In recent years there has been much written on the difference between leadership and management (Sampson & Daft, 2009). One of the many viewpoints suggested is that both management and leadership require distinct skill sets that vary from one another to such a degree that they are unlikely to become uniform (Zaleznik, 1977, cited in McCartney and Campbell, 2006). Often the Distinctions between management and leadership are associated with power, personal history, motivation and even empowerment. Contemporary leadership texts maintain their position in regards to the differences argued between both concepts, with references to Bennis’s quote.

An alternative notion on leadership and management is that one paradigm is a subset of the other, therefore signifying the ability of an individual to possess both leadership and managerial skills. Koontz (1964) implied that managers possess leadership skills even though it accounts for small fraction in the functions of a manager. In contrast, Bennis and Nanus (1985) considered leadership as being the most comprehensive concept of the two by presenting it as the preferred alternative to management.

Many other theorists believe that leadership and management are complimentary skill sets that are both necessary for organisational success (Kotter, 1990). Russell’s (2001) described individuals who possessed both sets of skills as “leader-manager”. As there are many perspectives, it appears that the debate concerning whether leadership and management skills are distinct interpersonally or whether they can coexist intrapersonally has not yet been fully resolved (Yukl, 2002).

Both Zaleznik (1998) and Kotter (1990) emphasises that leadership and management may be similar and yet very distinct. Managers set up and account for whereas leaders establish direction. Managers ‘control’ while leaders ‘motivate’. Managers produce high standards and consistency in a specified timeframe. Leaders produce the potential for dramatic change and possibly even failure (Kotter, 1990).

The vast amount of research on the issue of the difference between the concepts and leadership and management indicate that “leaders manage and sometimes managers lead” (Bass, 1990). There is more to leadership than managing and vice versa as leadership is a small quantity in the functions of managment. Leaders and managers may be differentiated by attitudes, goals and values.

Generally many leadership theorists argue that the functions of leaders and managers are theoretically different .However the two concepts occasionally blended, but act as two different functions. Kotter (1995) distinguishes management as the process by carrying out structured procedures and policies as method of dealing with change.

The main difference argued in the distinction between leaders and managers is related to source of power and the amount of conformity it creates within the followers (Sampson & Daft, 2009). Sampson & Daft (2009) classify power as “the ability to influence the behaviour of others” (Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981) (p.554). In general there are five sources of power, legitimate, reward, coercive, expert and referent, which can subsequently be further divided to position and personal power (French & Raven, 1960, as cited in Sampson & Daft 2009). Management power comes from organisational structure by promoting stability and resolving problems in order to fulfill their task and achieve organisational goals (Zaleznik 1977; Sampson & Daft 2009).leadership power, however , comes from the personal sources and interests of the leader (Sampson & Daft 2009) .Legitimacy of managers depends upon employee acceptance, whereas legitimacy of a leader depends on the reception of their subordinates (Bass 1990).

The “great man” theory focuses on leaders who have achieved a level of greatness (Kakabadse and Kakabadse, 1999). This theory presumes that a “great man” or individual possess the essential skills to perform as a leader. Many theorist have investigated the behaviour of leaders and how this impacts on leadership effectiveness (Yukl, 2006), the function of leadership (Shamir, 1995), as well as on contingency approaches (Baker, 2007; Fiedler, 1967). It is believed that the ‘behaviour’ of a leader, rather than their personal traits determines leadership effectiveness as well as the overall achievement of organisational goals (Sampson & Daft, 2009).

The focus of recent research has shifted from personality traits toward the behaviour displayed by leaders. Different patterns of behaviour were grouped together and labeled as styles. The best known theory was Blake and Mouton’s leadership Grid .The leadership grid measured a leaders concern for people and the task at hand. the model consist of five major management styles; team management whereby set tasks are accomplished by committed workers. Secondly Club style management is when the primary focus is shifted from being task oriented to worker orientated. Authority – compliance management happens when the primary focus is on efficiency in operations/productions. Middle of the road management is a style that reflects an even amount of concern on the task at hand as well as the concern for the works. Lastly , Impoverished management occurs when managers aren’t concerned with the task as well as the workers, taking a laissez- faire approach . This theoretical approach is often effective in allowing managers to consider different actions or methods in reaching organisational goals.  In contrast, contingency leadership theories focus on the application and effectiveness of leadership styles to the different operating environments that can be found in the workplace (Sampson & Daft, 2009).

The contingency approach assumes the leadership behaviour is dependent on a wide variety of chance events or situations. This approach is used to identify the conditions of a task, managerial job and person as parts of a complete management situation and attempt to integrate them all into a solution which is most appropriate for a specific circumstance (Sampson & Daft, 2009).

Frederick Fiedler’s contingency model emphasises the importance on leadership style, position power and the situation in which that leader operates. Fiedler associates the effectiveness of a leader as by assessing group situations. Fred Fiedler’s Contingency Model also expects that the success of leaders will depend upon their characteristics (Sampson & Daft, 2009).

Path- Goal theory concentrates on leaders providing rewards individual accomplishment of objectives by illustratively providing a path to the achievement goals and the removement of barriers.  There are four primary styles of leadership styles in the path- goal theory. Firstly is supportive leadership occurs when leaders sympathises with the workers needs. Directive leadership is the situation in which leaders set out the performance goals by providing specific guidelines to allow subordinates towards the achievement of organisational goals. Thirdly, achievement oriented leadership occurs when leaders emphasises the importance of achievement of difficult tasks whereby employees are awarded according to their achievements .lastly participative leadership occurs when leaders consult with sub ordinates about work and the path in which to take to resolve problems. Leaders should adopt a style with which they complement the organisational situation to ensure that both the work is completed within the set period of time.

Recent work on leadership has begun to distinguish leadership as something more than just “the ability to influence and motivate people” (Sampson & Daft, 2009). Research has found that some leadership approaches are more effective than others. These types of leadership are catogorised as transformational and transactional leadership. Transformational leadership occurs when leaders broaden their horizons in order to fulfill organisational goals and the needs of employees’ .Burns (1977) argued that it was possible to distinguish between transactional and transforming leaders. Bass (1985) suggested transactional forms can be drawn upon and transformed. Thus, resulting in transformational leadership being efficient in the accomplishment of organisational goals