There has been a long-standing debate in the literature as to why and how leadership is similar to, or different from, management. Although several scholars have contributed to the debate, there seems to be an absence of pragmatic evidence. Hardly any study that attempts to differentiate leadership from management provides empirical findings. The purpose of the current paper is to begin to cover this research gap. Interviews were conducted with 49 leaders and senior executives in the construction industry of Singapore. The interviewees were asked how they perceived the differences and similarities between leadership and management. Thematic network analysis was used to analyze the interview data. Findings show that there are clear differences between leadership and management on the basis of how leaders and managers define and conceptualize these terms. Leadership and management are different phenomena and processes in which leaders and managers perform varied functions and play different roles in organizations. The study shows that leaders and managers, at least in the construction industry, apply a mix of both leadership and management to perform their daily jobs and fulfill their organizational responsibilities. The findings also echo the many striking overlaps between the roles of leadership and management.
There has been a long-standing argument about whether or not leadership and management are different from each other. If they are different, on what grounds do they differ? If not, what similarities do they share? Many researchers have contributed to the debate since the 1970s (see Zaleznik 1977; Kotter 1982, 1990; Sarros 1992; Capowski 1994; Bennis 1989; Covey et al. 1994; DuBrin 1995; Kumle and Kelly 2000; Weathersby 1999; Yukl 1999; Maccoby 2000; Zimmerman 2001; Perloff 2004; Daft 2003; Kotter 2006; Toor and Ofori 2008b). Apparently, interest in differentiating leadership from management has grown over the years. After Zaleznik (1977) started this debate, the number of publications on the topic has consistently grown over the years. Mangham and Pye (1991), however, remained skeptical about whether this debate is useful or not. In their opinion, the whole feeling of management as being mundane while leadership is special and important is largely vague. A review of contributions to the debate also shows that a common confusion remains that leadership and management are similar and that leaders and managers play similar roles.
Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff (1991) advocated a very different stance. In their view, terms such as leaders, managers, and entrepreneurs “can be seen as enactments of archetypes, embodying the different fears and hopes of those who create organizations by their daily performance” (p. 529). They also argued that various sociopolitical and economic forces shape different fashions and form various occupational and organizational cultures. Under the various historical, economic, and political circumstances in which organizations operate, terms like leadership or management emerge and become popular according to the need of the era and demands of the time. In the contemporary world, where leadership is looked at as very important and special while management is perceived as otherwise, it is even more important to clarify the meanings of these terms. Otherwise, blurring the difference between leadership and management can engender difficulties in measuring, testing, assessing, hiring, developing, and promoting leaders and managers (Kotter 2006). Misinterpretation of terms can also hinder programs that seek to develop managers and leaders for organizations (Zaleznik 1998). This confusion over differentiating leadership from management is likely to grow if the distinctiveness of each term is not well articulated.
Aims of the Paper
Despite the long-standing debate on differentiating leadership from management, there is hardly any empirical evidence on how these two terms can be differentiated. Almost all arguments contributed to the debate are the mostly personal views of scholars; Zaleznik (1977), who used quotations from different individuals to explain the difference between leaders and managers, is an exception. The study described in this paper aimed to begin to cover this research gap and provides empirical evidence to address the following questions: How do practicing leaders and managers perceive the difference between leadership and management? Which do managers in construction do more of, leadership or management?
Literature Review
Zaleznik (1977) opened the debate on how leaders differ from managers over 30 years ago. Three decades after publication of his classic article “Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?” in Harvard Business Review, the debate continues in academic circles and the popular press. Participants in this debate can be divided into two schools of thought. The first school of thought advocates a lucid difference between leadership and management and regards these terms as distinctive. Authors such as Kotter (1982, 1990, 2006), Bennis (1989), Maccoby (2000), and Perloff (2004) apparently belong to this school. Table 1 summarizes the literature on how the two terms differ.
Table 1. Differences between Leadership and Management Identified in the Literature
Leadership
Management
Source
Leadership is really managing work that other people do.
Management is motivating and rewarding people to do the work (Levitt 1976, cited in Zaleznik 1998).
Under leadership, employees are empowered by trust and given the freedom to fulfill their job responsibilities.
Under management, roles are rigidly defined within the organization; management controls the processes through the power of a small group instead of total team input.
Leadership reframes the present employees of an organization through training and not rehiring.
Management emphasis is on rehiring resources, not reframing employees with more training.
Leadership is a relationship (selecting talent, motivating, coaching, and building trust) between the leader and the led that can energize an organization.
Management is a function (planning, budgeting, evaluating, and facilitating) that must be exercised in any business.
Leadership creates visions, sells its visions to those who need to implement them, and evaluates whether these have been successful, along with determining what the next steps are.
Management is about achieving organizational efficiency and effectiveness within the parameters of the organization’s mission.
Management tends to be routinized, structured, and oriented toward the present.
According to the other school of thought, leadership and management significantly overlap and are hard to clearly differentiate. Many think that these roles, although different and distinct, are interrelated in many ways (Kotter 1990; Bass 1990; Conger and Kanungo 1992; Zaleznik 1998; Batemen and Snell 1999; Yukl 1999; Perloff 2004; Hay and Hodgkinson 2006). The two functions are blended and complementary because sometimes leaders manage and sometimes managers lead (see Bass 1990; Kotter 2006). Both leadership and management can be explained using the same processes and models, as both leaders and managers use a mix of leadership and management behaviors (Yukl 2005). According to this school of thought, leadership is not a specialized phenomenon and an entirely distinct activity, but simply an aspect, perhaps a highly salient aspect, of managing (Mangham and Pye 1991). Therefore, it is undeniable fact that organizations need people who are good at leading as well as managing if they want to become internationally competitive and better places in which to work (Sarros 1992).
Research Method
This paper reports on part of a study on leadership development in construction professionals in Singapore. It is based on interviews with 49 prominent executive leaders in the Singapore construction industry. Out of 49 interviewees, five were past or current presidents of various professional organizations and trade associations. These leaders also occupied executive positions in their parent organizations. Notably, all of them had become leaders after rising through the ranks of management. Therefore, they were assumed to have a better understanding of what it meant to be leaders because they had been in managerial positions. The interviewees were chief executive officers, group presidents/chairpersons, managing/executive directors, managing partners, general managers/deputy general managers, and directors of various construction-related businesses and organizations, including developers, architects, engineers, contractors, and quantity surveyors, in Singapore (see Table 2).
Table 2. Affiliations and Positions of Interviewed Leaders
Characteristic
No.
Gender
Male
42
Female
7
Company type
Architects
8
Consultants (engineers, designers)
9
Contractors
7
Developers
11
Quantity surveyors
7
Architects + engineers
4
Others
3
Position in the organization
Manager/senior manager
7
General manager/deputy general manager
2
Director/executive director
20
Managing director
2
Chief executive officer (CEO)/deputy CEO
10
Managing partner
2
President/vice president
4
Chairman/group chairman
2
A combination of purposive and snowball sampling was used in this research to select the interviewees. The leaders were selected through a peer nomination process. First, past and present presidents of various professional organizations and trade associations were interviewed based on the assumption that they were leaders in their respective professional fields as they were elected to leadership positions by their own peers. These leaders were then requested to nominate professionals in the industry whom they thought could be considered leaders in their respective professions. Since the interviewed leaders were nominated and perceived as leaders by their peers in the industry, a certain level of reduction in social desirability and personal bias was achieved.
Interview Responses
Invariably, the interviewees had gone through the management ranks before taking up leadership roles in their organizations. They had experienced both roles and were able to explain the difference very clearly. All interviews were audiorecorded and then transcribed into text files. The transcribed files were carefully analyzed by repeated reading sessions. Thematic analysis (Attride-Stirling 2001) was carried out to see how the interviewees perceived leadership and management. These differences can be elucidated under four general topics: (1) how the leaders defined leadership and management, (2) how the leaders differentiated leadership and management by drawing conceptual distinctions, (3) how the leaders portrayed functional divergences between leadership and management, and (4) how the leaders perceived leadership and management as being different on the basis of behaviors of those who performed these roles. In addition, the analysis identified areas of overlap and complementarity.
Definitions of Leadership and Management
In the extant body of knowledge on leadership and management, there is no agreed upon definition of leadership, whereas management is, more or less, described by fundamental functions that include planning, organizing, leading, and controlling organizational resources. In the current study, many interviewees differentiated leadership from management by defining each of the roles. For example, one executive believed that leadership is more personal and management more organizational in nature. She observed,
“Leadership is more of a personal style. Management is probably more organizational…. I am not a very academic person. They will be interlinked, though. But leadership does influence management style.”
A CEO in another firm viewed leadership as vision and management as action. He went on to say,
“Leadership is the ability to make decisions, being able to motivate others to follow that vision and being able to empower other people to do what they should do rather than trying to micromanage everything, yet being able to see what they are doing, being able to make corrections along the route. On the other hand, management is carrying out daily work, running everyday jobs, looking after routine issues, and making sure you are hitting the bottom line. Leaders are flexible and open to change, while managers are usually rigid and keep the status quo.”
Another senior executive differentiated between leadership and management by attempting to define both roles. He said,
“Leadership is more about inspiration, about guidance, about communication and building trust among the team. Management is probably the day-to-day running of an organization. It is about developing and organizing aspects of your businesses and running those businesses.”
Another director defined leadership and management as follows:
“Leadership is about gaining respect and being able to give direction and get the job done to get the result. Management is about many more things, like money, client happiness, resources, cash flow, and other daily routine jobs of office.”
Conceptual Distinctions
Many leaders made the distinction between leadership and management by conceptualizing them. For example, one senior executive in a quantity surveying firm put it very succinctly: “In spirit, leadership is big. Management is a subset of leadership.”
Many explained that leadership and management are different from each other, but describing this difference was a challenge as there was a thin line distinguishing the two. A director in a consulting firm noted,
“There is a fine line between leadership and management. Leadership is something that subordinates or followers look up to. A leader would be able to manage well, too. But managers are not necessarily good leaders, and subordinates look up to them for instructions, not for guidance.”
A senior director in an architecture practice asserted that good managers are not necessarily good at leadership. He, too, emphasized good management skills for leaders in professional practices. He observed,
“My opinion about the difference between leadership and management is that you may be good in management but not necessarily in leadership. To manage a company, it’s a matter of getting specific management skills. But providing leadership is slightly more than that. Leadership in a professional practice should also have to have certain management skills, or you will not be able to convince your team that you are doing the right thing.”
The CEO of a developer’s firm highlighted the above point in a different way:
“Management is to do the things that the leader says… do it well, do it organized. This is not to say that management is not important. If you don’t have proper management, then you spend a lot of time firefighting. So any leader in any point of time is also a manager. You are never totally a leader and never totally a manager. So what is important is that when you are on the management side, you organize your work in such a way that there is a proper procedure and people know exactly how things are to be done.”
A senior construction manager in a contracting firm conceptualized leadership and management in the context of organizational culture. He explained,
“Certain groups, workplaces, and organizations have certain cultures. Leadership develops a positive culture and a free-flowing working environment. Organizations essentially need some leadership to develop a certain positive culture. Pure management, on the other hand, gives importance to a more functional culture where things have to be monitored and followed up. But purely by management you can’t get the working culture. You get it by leadership. Once the working culture is there, it is easier to manage. Therefore, you need to have more leadership to lead the work and lead the culture. Once the culture is formed, then it would be more management than leadership.”
An executive in a consulting firm said,
“I consider leadership as something longer term with a clear vision of what to achieve. Management, however, is more about function; it’s short-term and involves setting a target and achieving it.”
Functional Divergences
Under the category of functional divergences, the interviewees mainly differentiated leadership and management by describing the functions of both. A senior director in an architectural practice explained functional differences between leadership and management as follows:
“To be the head of an organization, there is need of both leadership and management. For leadership, there is an X factor. You will find a difference in why certain people are good leaders and others are good managers. This factor makes a person special. When [a leader] says something, people listen. In an architectural team, you’ve got to be handling the people both inside and outside. Leadership means that you are able to relate to your own people as well as to others outside. You have to bring success to the organization, and respect comes when you achieve this all-round success.”
A senior executive from a design consultancy explained the functional divergence as follows:
“I think most managers would think of themselves as leaders, which may or may not be true…. The proof of that would be, Would they be able to carry out their objectives without imposing authority? If you need to get something done by imposing on your staff the necessity for the objective, the task to be carried out, this is management. If your staff is doing this of their own accord because they understand the philosophy behind completing the task to the organization’s goals, then that would be leadership because somehow you have inculcated in them a sense of achievement of goals without having to manage that.”
A managing director in a developer’s firm elucidated the difference between leadership and management:
“As a leader, you have to mobilize the people. In a crisis situation, you need to play a responsible role. Learning calmness in a chaotic environment is important. Commitment, conviction to play a part, and ability to exert some level of influence are part and parcel of a leader’s job. To do all this, he should be good at communication and must show consistency in his action. People should know his value system. For a good project manager, leadership is very important. Apart from cost, quality, schedule, management of resources, and understanding of design, a project manager should be good at the process of planning and design, working with government, understanding bylaws, and comprehending the constraints that face project completion.”
A managing partner of a quantity surveying firm underscored the need for sensible decision making for leaders. He observed,
“I think leaders are people who are not afraid to make very hard decisions, and you provide impetus and initiative in leadership. Management would be something more administrative…rather, a looking after and carer-like position. You look after things in management. You don’t provide the impetus and initiative in management.”
The president of an engineering organization differentiated leadership and management based on their respective functions. She said,
“Leaders lead, managers manage. Leadership provides direction, thinks about strategy, thinks about what people need, and improves the company’s and people’s performance. Management is like setting tasks, and you make sure that people deliver that. There is not quite a difference there. The manager is sometimes appointed, but people may not see you as a leader. Leadership is not so much a given or appointed. Leadership is like earning it. Managers look at deliverability and end results. Leaders look at long-term implications.”
Behavioral Differences
Many leaders interviewed for this study elucidated the difference between leadership and management by considering how leaders and managers behave. An executive from a leading quantity surveying firm viewed behavioral issues as a cornerstone of leadership. She explained,
“I may be better off in managing work-related problems and projects, but I may have challenges in leading the people. For instance, you might have a very different staff member who may have a very different attitude. Let’s take a real-life example; maybe the person is 20 years older than me. Here comes the role of leadership. I may say something that he may not like. So you have to control this human problem through your behavior. You get to manage things easily, but people are people, and they have feelings, emotions, and personal problems. You have to handle them with better behavior.”
A senior managing partner in a design firm also commented on the importance of behavior:
“There is some difference. Leadership is to show to your subordinate how you lead; you show your work to people. Management is to manage your subordinate’s work. There is lot of overlap there between these two. Sometimes when you want to lead a team for a project, in this process you manage them as well and manage your work, time, and resources. You show by example how to manage, which is leadership.”
A senior manager from a contracting firm conceptualized the difference as follows:
“Maybe the difference is basically that you just manage in management, and you lead in leadership. In management, you enforce the regulations, whereas in leadership, you lead by example. In management, people don’t follow you; they obey you. In leadership, people follow you by their own choice.”
Leadership and Management: Overlap and Complementarity
Many interviewees highlighted that leadership and management overlap and that in many instances, leaders do management while managers perform leadership. The CEO of a developer’s firm noted that an effective leader needs a mix of both leadership and management. He observed,
“CEO is not only about being a manager; it is about dealing with staff, the people. You have to make others see things differently. As you do more, you see things differently. I was a manager in the beginning, and then I learned how to lead. Now I do a mix of both to perform my job more effectively. It takes networking, self-confidence, and emotional intelligence to be a good leader-manager. I do not make things personal with people. I have made it a family. I deal with issues and never with personality.”
An executive shared the above perspective and noted that both leadership and management are imperative for the effective functioning of an organization. She said,
“Well, I think you can’t draw a clear line there. You can’t say that this belongs to leadership and this belongs to management. In my view, you can’t lead if you can’t manage. So if you lead and you don’t manage, it does not work with the absence of one. You need both. You may be weaker in one aspect, but you definitely need both.”
A senior construction manager commented that construction management required a mix of leadership and management under different circumstances. He observed,
“We have to do both in construction. When we are dealing with other parties, we mostly use the management skills. Coming to our own work, leadership is more important. If you manage the employees, it does not go to their minds and ears. Some people can lead to show the way, and that is how the work is done much better.”
A senior director in an architect practice joined the above stance, saying,
“In the present company, I am a director in charge of finance. In my office, we have different directors handling different things. We have design directors who handle the design work specifically. In that case, they don’t run the company. I don’t run projects, but I am functioning as more of an administrative and finance director, worrying about the cash flow, manpower, cost, and related issues. It is getting more and more complicated. We are doing projects overseas as well. We have grown from a 10-person staff to 70 staff members. Management is different than with the previous partnership.”
Another senior executive from an engineering design firm opined,
“Leadership is the next level of management. Managers like me, we do 100% management, and we try to do the leadership role. Not 100% of our time is spent in the leadership role. The crux of the problem in our industry is the short delivery date and time frame. So I spend more time managing, although I should be spending more time in leadership. I do believe that if we have good management by example, then you naturally achieve leadership. Management is one of the skills required to be a leader.”
The executive director of a consulting firm also held the view of needing to balance leadership and management. He said,
“I don’t know about others, but for me, it’s both. There has to be a balance of leadership and management, because in order to be a good leader, you have to know how to manage.”
Discussion and Emergent Themes
The leaders’ interview responses clearly show their belief that leadership and management are two different phenomena and processes in which leaders and managers perform varied functions and play different roles in their organizations. In their respective roles, leaders and managers apply different sets of behaviors and exercise a range of diverse tactics that suit their personality and character. To elaborate further on the difference between leadership and management, Fig. 1 shows a thematic network that was developed as part of the analysis. This network shows several basic themes—such as change, empower, flexible, long-term, and so forth—that group together to summarize more abstract principles or organizing themes such as definitional differences or behavioral differences. The organizing themes dissect the main assumptions underlying the broader themes to finally establish a superordinate or global theme (see Attride-Stirling 2001), which in this case is the difference between leadership and management.
Fig. 1. Thematic network for differentiating between leadership and management.
Although both leadership and management occur within an organizational context, an important theme that emerges from the findings in this research is that leadership is rather more flexible and open to new ideas, whereas management is more rigid and looks for tested approaches. This view is shared by many scholars in the literature who recognized that leadership is predominantly associated with creating and coping with dramatic change in organizations (Kotter 1982; Bennis and Nanus 1985; Tichy and Devanna 1986; Kotter 1990; DuBrin 1995). In the view of some, change is inherent in the leadership process (Osborn et al. 2002; Parry 1998; Hackman & Johnson 1996; Yukl 2002; Sarros 1992; Kan and Parry 2004; Toor and Ofori 2008a). Management, in contrast, is focused on stability in the system, predictability of outcomes, and order in processes (DuBrin 1995; Kotter 1982, 1990).
Another important theme that dominates the findings in this study pertains to authority and power that are vested in the roles of leadership and management. Leadership relies on personal power, informal ways and means of influence, one-to-one touch and communication between leaders and followers, and coherence between the goals of leaders and those of followers. This view also prevails in the extant literature; many scholars view leadership as a relationship between leader and led that can energize an organization (Maccoby 2000), an art of creating a supporting work environment (Thamhain 2004), a phenomenon that works on the system (Covey et al. 1994), inspiration of and support for people to do things (Bennis 1989), and creation of a common vision to achieve results by persuading others (Weathersby 1999) in a trust-based environment (Kumle and Kelly 2000).
People follow a leader for a mix of positive reasons, such as hope of success, trust in the leader, excitement about a project or mission, or the opportunity to stretch oneself to the limit (Maccoby 2000). The leader’s power is legitimized by the followers (Bass 1990; Stogdill 1997), and the leader influences others by giving them hope, inspiring their self-efficacy, establishing their desires, and consistently following a set of personal values (Zaleznik 1998; George and Sims 2007). In contrast, management predominantly relies on position power, formal authority, and control of processes through the power of a small group who take orders directly from the top (see Kumle and Kelly 2000; Capowski 1994; Daft 2003; Toor and Ofori 2008b). Managers are more impersonal in their attitude and rely on moderate and widely distributed attachments (Zaleznik 1977). Their authority is legitimized by the position they hold, and they influence others by transactional means in a reward and reinforcement approach.
Despite the differences, a strong message found in most interviews with leaders was that there are many overlaps between the roles of leadership and management and that the leaders performed a mix of leadership and management to achieve the desired results in a team process. Interviewees repeatedly observed that managers in the construction industry applied a mixed approach to perform their daily jobs. This pattern also finds strong support in the existing literature. First, construction involves a social system, or a collective of individuals in which people are the principal actors (Love et al. 2002). Therefore, to perform their jobs more effectively, managers and leaders in the construction industry adopt a balanced approach to get the desired results through teamwork. Mainstream literature also supports that leadership and management are interrelated and sometimes perform a similar function and achieve the same goals (Kotter 1990; Bass 1990; Conger and Kanungo 1992; Zaleznik 1998; Batemen and Snell 1999; Yukl 1999; Perloff 2004; Hay and Hodgkinson 2006; Toor and Ofori 2008b).
The opinion of a senior executive director interviewed in this study echoes the above assertion. He said,
“We have to do both in construction. When we are dealing with third parties or clients, we mostly go purely by the management skills, like attending meetings, writing letters. But coming to your own work, leadership is more important than just management. You can tell people that these have to be done this way, but I don’t think it will go into their minds and ears. Whereas if you get some people to lead, somebody that you know of to lead and to show the way, work will be done better.”
Both leaders and managers use a mix of leadership and management behaviors, combining the necessary skills to direct day-to-day affairs effectively while anticipating and managing change (Maccoby 2000; Yukl 2005; Kotter 1982). To lead better, leaders should be well versed in management and vice versa because sometimes leaders manage and sometimes managers lead (Bass 1990). According to Capowski (1994), vision without structure is likely to result in chaos, while structure without vision will result in complacency and perhaps catastrophe. Therefore, to achieve the vision of leadership, someone has to perform the routine tasks and manage the details to achieve leadership goals. It is logically incomprehensible that every manager in an organization can have his or her own distinct vision, as people are needed at the operational and functional level executing the plans and implementing the strategies; this comes through management. Similarly, for management to be more effective and influential, leading is indispensable. To exploit the full potential of their human and other resources, organizations need to develop leadership skills in their managers (Priestland and Hanig 2005) and management skills in their leaders (Weathersby 1999).
In a recent article on leadership for the future construction industry, Toor and Ofori (2008a) noted that the construction industry has been excessively focused on management to the exclusion of leadership and that construction project professionals are also not perceived as leaders and are mostly termed managers. They further noted,
“There is the need for a shift in the way project managers function and lead projects. They need to develop as authentic leaders to successfully operate in the increasingly complex working environment. Within a fast changing construction industry, there is mounting pressure on project managers to do more with fewer people and less resources. Under such circumstances, the people side of project management, or what many would call leadership, is paramount to the successful delivery of desired results.”
The findings from the current study show that effective leaders in the industry fully recognize the need for balance between effective management and influential leadership—usually referred to as people side of management—to achieve their desired objectives in construction. A senior manager and head of a division in a developer’s firm reflected this view in the following words:
“To a large extent, project management to me is people management. So it is how you motivate a team of consultants to actually work together with you to meet the common goal. Thus, each of them is a professional trained in their own field. So I personally do not have any specific skills as I am not an engineer or architect. We employed these specialists from other places. Motivating the people is a key quality; the people look up to you as a leader, and you actually bring the team toward the goal.”
Conclusions
Leadership and management are different and distinct based on how they are defined, the underlying concepts, the functions they involve, and the behaviors that leaders and managers use to perform these respective roles. Several themes emerge from the current study demonstrating the difference between leadership and management. Among all the emergent themes, three were found to be most significant. First, leadership pursues change that is coupled with sustainability, while management endeavors to maintain order that is tied with the bottom line. Second, leadership exercises personal power and relational influence to gain authority, whereas management banks on position power and structural hierarchy to execute orders. Third, leadership empowers people, whereas management imposes authority. An important message that vividly emerged from this research is that leadership and management overlap and complement each other within individuals and organizations. A total reliance on either leadership or management cannot accomplish organizational goals, nor can it result in effective teamwork. Therefore, organizations need leaders with managerial astuteness and managers with leadership qualities. Complementing leadership with management can pave the way for organizations to achieve sustainable growth and a long-term competitive advantage in the form of competent leader–managers.
Finally, it is essential to continue efforts to identify the differences between leadership and management using other methodologies. Such endeavors will help management researchers clearly understand the difference. This research can also provide useful input into leadership development initiatives. Leadership development programs must be very clear as to what they are targeting: producing better leaders with management skills, managers with leadership skills, and managers with managerial tactics. Future research can also focus on how human resource development programs can integrate training in both leadership and management without confounding them with each other to make an adequate and useful blend.
References
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). “Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research.” Qual. Res., 1(3), 385–405.
Kan, M. M., and Parry, K. W. (2004). “Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leadership in overcoming resistance to change.” Leader. Q., 15(4), 467–491.
Perloff, R. (2004). “Managing and leading: The universal importance of, and differentiation between, two essential functions.” Presented at Oxford Univ., July 14–15. 〈http://www.katzquiz.com/opinion.cfm?o_num=3〉 (Jun. 26, 2007).
Stogdill, R. M. (1997). “Leadership, membership, and organization.” Leadership: Classical, contemporary, and critical approaches, K. Grint, ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 112–125.
Shamas-ur-Rehman Toor is affiliated with Islamic Development Bank Group, Jeddah. He can be contacted at [email protected]. This article is a result of his Ph.D. research and has no relation to his current affiliation.
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
LM.1943-5630.0000138/asset/d23248a7-6567-4106-99aa-0bed208e9da6/assets/images/large/1.jpg)
