Is Leadership and Management the Same or Different - Coursework Example

The Problem The question “Is leadership and management the same or different?” appears to have a simple answer by virtue of the significant number of commentaries that attempt to explain the differences between the two. But there is apparent confusion, or at least large differences of opinion, about what management and leadership are exactly, and exactly how they are different from each other. For example, management and leadership can be defined in terms of the activities associated with each role. “Management” can be generally described as encompassing the activities of planning, control, and organising people and processes, while “leadership” is associated with the activities of co-ordinating different processes or groups and providing overall direction. (Nienaber & Roodt, 2008, p. 38, p. 46) But these descriptions are somewhat vague, and suggest that there is considerable overlap between the two roles. Another way to differentiate between management and leadership is in terms of the characteristics of a “manager” or a “leader.” Leaders are considered “visionary,” “passionate,” “creative,” “inspiring,” “innovative,” and “courageous.” Managers, by contrast, can be described as “rational,” “consulting,” “persistent,” “tough-minded,” “analytical,” and “structured.” (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003, p. 1439) But these descriptions also seem insufficient, because they suggest that a manager or leader has one characteristic or its opposite, and not aspects of both; could not a leader or manager be both creative and persistent? The difference between managers and leaders could also be described in terms of their relationship with their subordinates. A “psychological contract” is an understanding between an employee and his employer about the terms of their relationship. (Boxall and Purcell, 2003 in Flynn, 2011) A transactional psychological contract is described as one which has clear terms of engagement, i.e., ones that could be understood by a third-party observer such as specific wages and incentives, between the employee and employer. A relational psychological contract is one in which the terms of engagement are forms of emotional attachment that cannot necessarily be observed by a third party. (Flynn, 2011, p. 11) The implication, especially in the context of the differences between management and leadership described in terms of activities or characteristics, is that management involves a transactional psychological contract and leadership involves a relational psychological contract. This way of describing the differences seems insufficient as well, because it is easy to conceive of both kinds of a psychological contract existing simultaneously. For example, would not an incentive offered by a manager/leader to a subordinate – such as a bonus for completing a certain quota of work – encourage some kind emotional attachment to the job on the part of the employee? In order to explore the problem, it is necessary to attempt to define management and leadership individually, without reference to each other. If this can be done, then it could be concluded that management and leadership are different things. If not, then the conclusion would have to be that leadership and management are simply two words describing the same thing. What is Management? Both management and leadership imply that some sort of organisation exists, if even at the smallest level possible involving just two people – a leader and a follower, or a manager and the managed. “Organisation” implies that there is an “organiser.” (Pearson & Parker, 2008, p. 44) An organisation can take many forms, so it is possible for the “organiser” to exist in many different forms as well. It is necessary to acknowledge this, so as to separate the concept of “management” from “a manager”; an organisation can be managed collectively, for example. (Pearson & Parker, 2008, p. 45) That means that management is best defined according to the first of the three contexts described above, the context of activities. The activities of management can be defined as those necessary to maintain the organisation’s form and purpose. These could include providing the system of communication within the organisation and between the organisation and the outside world, obtaining and utilising the necessary resources such as worker skills, raw materials, or budgets to achieve the organisation’s purpose, and defining what that purpose is in terms of practical functions. (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003, p. 1448; Pearson & Parker, 2008, pp. 46-47) Thus the essential activities of management are contained within the organisation, and are not something separate from it. The exercise of management is defined by the organisational context, and the manager takes a relevant form, whether a single person or a process exercised by the organisation as a whole. What is Leadership? Leadership is defined as something transcending mere management; where management is seen as process- or structure-based, leadership is virtually always seen in human terms. One way in which leadership has been described is as that which enables the release of the “human spirit” in those being led, providing inspiration and motivation to encourage creativity. (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003, p. 1439) Another way of looking at it is that leaders are different in that they are capable of interacting with others through normal means in some extraordinary way and in fact many managers view themselves as exercising leadership when they engage in an otherwise ordinary activity such as listening or chatting with employees. (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003, p. 1443) Since the act of having a conversation with another person is obviously something any normal individual can do, this perception of leadership implies that there is either something special about “leaders” that they are able to converse in a way that is fundamentally better than the way most people do, or that a higher position in a hierarchy confers a greater importance on the activity. Leadership can also be framed in terms related to the psychological contract. Leaders can either be transactional or “transforming,” which is a slightly different way of saying “relational.” A transactional leader creates an exchange of objects of value, which can be economic, political, or psychological, and are ideally mutually-beneficial. A transforming leader engages with another person in such way to create a beneficial emotional change – a higher level of motivation or morality that is ongoing, and not dependent on an exchange of objects. (Whittington & Galpin, 2010, p. 18) The key is that the initiation of the exchange, whether or an object-value or an emotional basis, is done by the leader; that defines leadership as that initiation and successful formation of the relationship. Another definition of leadership can be found in the ideas of Mary Parker Follett, who viewed leadership as the understanding of the attributes and potential of a whole group as well as each of the group’s individual members. The leader is the one who is able to elicit the best of these and then integrate them into an effective unit with a common purpose. The leader is also part of the group, so in this sense, Follett’s concept is similar to the idea that management is derivative from the organisation as explained above, which is not surprising because her work was presented early in the 20th century when the idea of distinguishing between management and leadership was not as popular as it is now. (McLarney & Rhyno, 1999, pp. 295-296) The difference is that Follett strongly implies that the leader is one who has abilities beyond those of the rest of his peers. The idea of “empowerment” or “getting the best out of the organisation and its individuals” is reflected in a study of Australian firms that found that workers felt that more democratic organisations were paradoxically more highly-controlled than more bureaucratic or hierarchical organisations. (Savery, 1982, pp. 36-37) This suggests that a greater level of trust conferred on workers is reciprocated by a greater willingness to accept management direction, and implies another attribute of leadership in that it determines the effectiveness of management. Conclusion Management and leadership are different, but they are intimately related, and the exercise of management often includes the exercise of leadership, and vice versa. Management is defined in terms of the organisation, and can be thought of as the control of processes that make the organisation function with a specific purpose. Leadership is defined in terms of relationships between people. While co-ordinating people according to their roles and talents can also be thought of as an organisational process, and thus a function of management, when this is done in a transcendent way it is thought of as leadership. However, this can be a very fine distinction that does not really separate management from leadership. Sometimes an organisational process that is a very normal activity only takes on the aspect of leadership by virtue of the position of the person who is engaging in the activity. (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003, p. 1438, 1454) This does fit the definition of management as an aspect of human relationship in a literal way in that the special attribute of the leader is a distinct position, but it is also a bit of a contradiction because it suggests that there is otherwise nothing “special” about a leader; anyone could fill the position, which reduces the concept of leadership to being a function of the organisation and indistinguishable from management. On the other hand the ideas of Follett and the results of Savery (1982) suggest that there is something special about leadership in terms of its effect on organisations. Good leadership in terms of relationships between people seems to have a positive effect on management in terms of organisational function. In view of that, it is perhaps best to acknowledge that while leadership and management are indeed two different things, their meaning is relative to each other. References Alvesson, M., and Sveningsson, S. (2003) “Managers Doing Leadership: The Extra-ordinarization of the Mundane”, Human Relations, Vol. 56, No. 12, pp. 1435-1459. Boxall, P., and Purcell, J. (2003) Strategy and Human Resource Management. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave. Flynn, S. (2011) “Can You Directly Motivate Employees? Exploding the Myth”, Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 11-15. McLarney, C., and Rhyno, Shelley. (1999) “Mary Parker Follett: Visionary Leadership and Strategic Management”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 292-304. Nienaber, H., and Roodt, G. (2008) “Management and Leadership: Buccaneering or Science?” European Business Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 36-50. Pearson, G., and Parker, M. (2008) “Management or Organizing? A Dialogue”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 113, No. 1, pp. 43-61. Savery, L. (1982) “Influence and Trust of Members Within Small Firms”, Management Decision, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 32-37. Whittington, J.L., and Galpin, T.J. (2010) “The engagement factor: building a high-commitment organization in a low-commitment world”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 14-24. Read More