Leadership versus Management: How They Are Different, and Why
Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 8, Issue 2
Abstract
“Leadership” is different from “management”; many just know it intuitively but have not been able to understand this difference clearly. These are two entirely different functions based on their underlying philosophies, functions, and outcomes. Similarly, leaders and managers are not the same people. They apply different conceptualizations and approaches to work, exercise different ways of problem solving, undertake different functions in the organizations, and exhibit different behaviors owing to their different intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Although discretely different, the terms “manager” and “leader” are often confused and used interchangeably. This paper attempts to address this issue at various levels, including etymological, development, conceptual distinctions, definitional complexities, functional divergence, and behavioral differences. It is argued that in order to be competitive, future organizations need to develop as many leaders as possible, but that these leaders should also have sufficient management knowledge and capabilities. Organizations also need effective managers who possess adequate leadership skills for better problem solving and overall functioning in the teams.
The literature on leadership dates back to several centuries. Ancient approaches to leadership comprise the writings of early philosophers and thinkers who put together their thoughts on leaders, leadership, and the need for leadership development. Philosophers such as Aristotle (Nichomachean Ethics and Politics), Plato (The Republic), Confucius, Sun Tzu (The Art of War), Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince), Pareto (The Treatise on General Sociology), and many others contributed to the development of the theoretical base of leadership. By contrast, the literature on management is relatively new and dates back to the beginning of the twentieth century.
Despite the different timing of their evolution and the different contexts in which these concepts developed, leadership and management are widely used interchangeably. Although many scholars have attempted to provide a distinction; there is a common confusion that leadership is similar to management and leaders are similar to managers (Kotter 1990, 2006; Zaleznik 1977, 1998; Bennis and Nanus 1985). Cogliser and Brigham (2004) highlighted the growing interest of scholars in differentiating leadership from other related phenomena such as entrepreneurship and management. Some scholars argue that leadership and management are two opposing styles of employee supervision that are both popular, and are still being used in the business world (Kumle and Kelly 2000). Others believe that they are two sides of the same coin (Bryman 1992) and complementary systems of action, each with its own function and characteristic activities (Gokenbach 2003). Mangham and Pye (1991, p. 13) go even further, saying, “It results in nothing more than a vague feeling that managing is something rather mundane, looking after the nuts and bolts of the enterprise and leading is something special and precious undertaken by the really important people in the enterprise.” However, the majority of literary arguments support the fact that leadership and management are completely different from each other whilst leaders are distinct from managers (Zaleznik 1977; Kumle and Kelly 1999; Kotter 2006; Perloff 2004). Mowson (2001) believes that leaders may not excel at management and, what is more often the case, managers do not necessarily make great leaders. In practice, many managers perform the leadership role, and many leaders do manage. Therefore, the debate continues and the misunderstanding over the two terms persists.
Interchangeably referring to the terms “leadership” and “management” can engender functional complications and long-term confusions over the roles of leaders and managers. Kotter (2006) argues that blurring the difference between leadership and management will also cause difficulties in measuring, testing, assessing, hiring, developing, and promoting them. Arguably, the boundary between whole existing knowledge domains on leadership and management is rather confusing, and will be further baffling if the difference between leadership and management, or leaders and managers, is not articulated. This will not only have an unfavorable impact on furthering the research on both bodies of knowledge, but also in providing an understanding of the work that has already been done. For example, researchers argue that this confusion of terms hinders efforts to attain accuracy and precision in research on leadership and management (Kotter 2006; Gordon and Yukl 2004; Zaccaro and Horn 2003). On a practical level, this misunderstanding might hinder programs to develop managers and leaders (Zaleznik 1998), which suggests that organizations may face difficulties in their efforts to develop the right talent for the right jobs.
If a natural leader emerges in a group being overseen by a manager, a conflict of views is likely to develop. Similarly, in the presence of a natural leader, the manager may feel uncomfortable and feel that the manager’s authority is challenged. Organizations should appreciate the talents of their personnel, and place each of them in the right positions to help reduce the chance of such conflicts. Finally, if there is no clear understanding of leadership and management, organizations cannot derive benefits from complimenting with the attributes of the two functions.
“Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their jobs done.”
—Peter Drucker
Purpose
This paper attempts to elucidate the differences between leadership and management, and to distinguish between leaders and managers. The discussion is undertaken under the broad topics of etymological development, definitional complexities, conceptual distinctions, behavioral differences, and functional divergence between the terms “leadership” and “management.” The paper also discusses the intersections of the roles of leaders and managers. These two terms become clearer and easier to understand when discussed in isolation from each other. The fundamental questions considered in this paper are:
1.
How do leaders differ from managers?
2.
How does leadership differ from management? and
3.
How can leadership and management be constructively combined to achieve better results in organizations?
Etymological Development
The history of the word “leadership” goes back several centuries. The best etymology of the word “leadership” has been described by Grace (2003), who notes that the word evolved in the English language over the last millennium. The origins of the words “lead,” “leader,” and “leadership” have their roots in pre-Anglo-Saxon culture. Leadership comes from the word “lead,” the roots of which are in “loedan” (or “lithan”), which means “to travel.” Although the word “lead” (which means “to cause to go along with oneself” or “bring or take a person or an animal to a place”) appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) during 825 CE, its modern definition (that is: “to guide with reference to action and opinion; to bring by persuasion or counsel to or into a condition; to conduct by argument or representation to a conclusion; to induce to do something”) appeared in the text around 1225 CE.
In the early nineteenth century, the word “leading” was explained by the concepts of influence and exercising of dominion. In the editions during that era, “leadership” was defined as “the state or condition of a leader.” In the twentieth century, leadership was defined as “the ability to lead” and later on it was used as a synonym for “manager.” Here, it is important to note that the suffix “ship” broadly indicates the state or condition, the qualities of a class of human beings, or rank or office. After more than a thousand years of its first use, the OED defines “leadership” as: “the dignity, office, or position of a leader, especially of a political party; ability to lead; the position of a group of people leading or influencing others within a given context; the group itself; the action or influence necessary for the direction or organization of effort in a group undertaking.”
On the other hand, the word “manage” has two distinct sources. The first is the Italian word “meneggiare” which (roughly translated) meant handling things—especially horses. This derivation was more masculine in nature and carried the connotation of taking charge, especially in the context of war. By the beginning of the sixteenth century, this broader sense of “manage” remained the so; however, it later got confused with the French word “menager” which meant careful use, especially in the household. The usage of “menager” was more gentle and feminine in nature. This dual character of management has remained so ever since (Mant 1977). Bavington (2005) observes that the term “management” encompasses three principal meanings: management-as-control (with roots in the Latin word “manus”), management-as-caretaking (with roots in the French word “ménager”), and management-as-coping (a modern understanding of management). The current definition of “management” in the OED is: “organization, supervision, or direction; the application of skill or care in the manipulation, use, treatment, or control (of a thing or person), or in the conduct of something.”
This discussion shows that the word “leadership” has evolved with the underlying meanings of influence, persuasion, direction, and the ability to lead in a given context. These meanings reflect that a leader influences others by his or her ability, persuasiveness, and vision. “One who guides others in action or opinion; one who takes the lead in any business, enterprise, or movement; one who is “followed” by disciples or adherents; the chief of a sect or party; the foremost or most eminent member (of a profession); also, in wider sense, a person of eminent position and influence; one who leads a choir or band of dancers, musicians, or singers” (from OED). This understanding of “leader” and “leadership” was in existence over ago when Lao Tzu, a Chinese philosopher and poet, wrote:
A leader is best
When people barely know he exists
Not so good when people obey and acclaim him
Worse when they despise him
But of a good leader, who talks little,
When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
They will say: we did it ourselves.
On the other hand, “management” is about controlling, supervising, application of skills, caretaking, and coping with prevailing circumstances. Therefore, a manager, according to OED, is “a person who organizes, directs, or plots something; a person who regulates or deploys resources; a person who manages (a department of) a business, organization, institution, etc.; a person with an executive or supervisory function within an organization, etc.”
Definitional Complexities
Goethals et al. (2004), the editors of the Encyclopedia of Leadership, argue that there is no single and universally accepted definition of leadership. Leadership behavior involves particular acts in which a leader engages in the course of directing and coordinating the work to his group members (Fiedler 1967). In their Handbook of Leadership, which is often referred to as the bible on the subject, Bass and Stogdill (1990) define the leadership as, “the principal dynamic force that motivates and coordinates the organization in the accomplishment of its objectives.” Burns (1978) defines leadership as “the reciprocal process of mobilizing by persons with certain motives and values, various economic, political and other resources, in context of competition and conflict, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers.” According to Bennis (1989), leadership is the “process (not a position) that involves leaders, followers, and situations.” House (2004), the chief investigator of the biggest ever study conducted on leadership, defines it as the “ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (House 2004).
Cogliser and Brigham (2004) observe that the leadership field has been beset with conceptual or definitional challenges. Whereas it is an important concept in various contexts such as academia, military, politics, business, and society, there is no commonly agreed upon definition or set of descriptions of leadership (Bass 1990; Kotter 1990, 1995, 1999; Terry 1993; Zaleznik 1998). Each author appears view leadership as having an individual perception and definition. However, it is clear from the previously mentioned definitions that at the definitional level, leadership is perceived to encompass certain attitudes of the leader, who inspires the followers to achieve certain goals. 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). 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). However, at the same time, a number of moderating factors determine the effectiveness of leadership such as situation, followers’ readiness to change, organizational context and bureaucracy, leader-follower fit (Fiedler 1967; Gardner et al. 2005).
At the definitional level, the literature on “management” offers straightforward descriptions. For example, Daft (2003) defines management as “the attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, leading, and controlling organizational resources.” Levitt (1976) notes that “management consists of the rational assessment of a situation; the systematic selection of goals and purposes; the systematic development of strategies to achieve these goals; the marshalling of the required resources; the rational design, organization, direction, and control of the activities required to attain the selected purposes; and finally, the motivating and rewarding of people to do the work.”
Drucker (1988) notes:
Although there are several existing and emerging branches of management, the definition of “management,” unlike that of leadership, is more or less agreed upon. Moreover, the functions of management are well categorized and clearly defined in the literature.[T]o be sure, the fundamental task of management remains the same: to make people capable of joint performance by giving them common goals, common values, the right structure, and the ongoing training and development they need to perform, and to respond to change. But the very meaning of task has changed, only because the performance of management has converted the workforce from one composed largely of unskilled laborers to one of highly educated knowledge workers.
Conceptual Distinctions
From the discussion so far, it is clear that scholars differ in defining “leadership” but the underlying philosophy remains mainly undisputed. Conceptual foundations of “leadership” are very old, and can be traced to ancient literature mostly in the context of politics, government, religion, and society. It has been one of the world’s oldest preoccupations, serving as both a hot topic and an important driver of innovation for thousands of years (Bass 1990). That is, leadership is a process that involves vision, motivation, and actions of the leader that enables the followers to achieve certain collective goals. It involves the leader, followers, and the situation. The purpose of leadership is to provide direction and bring about change.
On the other hand, the conceptual foundations of “management” emerged during the period of relatively rapid economic development and industrialization of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Daft 2003). Such developments brought up the need for appropriate means of organization, planning, and scheduling of available resources. The emergence of large and complex organizations in the early twentieth century and escalation in the search for better ways of resource utilization led to the development of a rational, scientific approach to the study of management, as efforts were made to turn organizations into efficient operating machines (Kotter 2006). In brief, leadership and management are not only different at the definitional level, but also, their conceptual foundations have been developed from different needs and contexts. In these regards, it can be observed that leadership involves power by influence and management involves power by position. Leadership is about coping with change while management is about coping with complexity (Kotter 1990).
Stogdill (1997) argues that leadership cannot emerge unless the members of a group assume different responsibilities. On the other hand, management is appointed and follows the traditional hierarchy.
Zaieznik (1977) argues that leaders and managers differ in their conception of chaos and order, in their motivation (which results from their individual personal history), and in how they think and act. Managers are process oriented, stability and control seekers, problem solvers, and systematic in nature. On the other hand, leaders tolerate chaos, are empowering and are problem examiners, and mostly rebels against routine.
Maccoby (2000) notes that leaders are change agents whereas managers are principally administrators. Leaders have broad perspectives enabling them to peer into the future to determine needs and what changes need to be made to ensure and facilitate growth and survival, but managers are guided by a drive to handle routine in order to produce efficiently (Perloff 2004). According to Bennis (1989), becoming a leader is synonymous with becoming yourself; however, becoming a manager is becoming what a company wants you to become. Leaders produce the potential for dramatic change, chaos, and even failure; but managers produce standards, consistency, predictability, and order (Kotter 1990). Leaders are more about soul (or heart) rather than mind, while managers have more of mind rather than soul (Capowski 1994).
Behavioral Differences
Zaleznik (1977) maintains that the managerial culture emphasizes rationality and control. Nurtured under this culture, managers tend to be problem solvers by instinct, and their energies are spent on finding solutions to the problems relating to organizational goals, resources, structures, and people (Zaleznik 1977; Covey et al. 1994). This is why, opposite to leaders, managers are more scientific in nature, structured and deliberate in their approach, authoritative and stabilizing in their behavior, and persistent and tough minded in their routine. A leadership culture, on the other hand, is open, communicative, frank, and participative. Therefore, it encourages the development and application of new ideas to approach problems.
Taking the problems as opportunities, leaders seek fresh options and persuade their followers to innovatively grapple with the problems. Leaders are more rebellious in nature while managers prefer to conform to the organizational norms, rules, and hierarchy (Kumle and Kelly 1999). Therefore, most leaders challenge the status quo whereas managers prefer to accept the status quo (Bennis 1989).
George (2003) notes that good leaders understand their purpose, lead with heart, follow their personal set of values, establish and retain connected relationships, and demonstrate the highest sense of self-discipline in the lives. Leaders’ behaviors demonstrate their deep concerns for the development of their followers, the well being of their organizations, and the welfare of society. Whereas leaders remain original and authentic in their behavior, managers copy (Shamir and Eilam 2005; Bennis 1989). Zaleznik (1977) argues that leaders’ relationships are mostly intensive and one-to-one. On the other hand, managers establish networks and widely distributed attachments. According to Stogdill (1997), leaders are differentiated from others in terms of the influence they exert upon the goal-setting and goal-achievement activities of the organization (Stogdill 1997). They stand out differently, question assumptions, are usually suspicious of traditions, and are champions of innovation (Bennis 1989). Leaders’ behaviors are directed by their inner values and are inspired by their future vision. On the other hand, managers’ behaviors are mostly directed by others, and they are motivated by the targets they want to attain.
Functional/Operational Divergence
“People ask the difference between a leader and a boss. . . . The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert. The leader leads, and the boss drives.”
—Theodore Roosevelt
Maccoby (2000) argues that leadership is a relationship (selecting talent, motivating, coaching, and building trust) between the leader and the led that can energize an organization. On the other hand, management is a function (planning, budgeting, evaluating, and facilitating) that must be exercised in any business. Similarly, Weathersby (1999) notes that leadership involves motivating people to contribute to the vision and encouraging them to align their self-interest with that of the organization. However, management is about allocation of scarce resources toward the attainment of an organization’s objective(s), the setting of priorities, the design of work, and finally, the achievement of results. According to Kumle and Kelly (1999), in managerial culture, roles are rigidly defined within the organization. Management controls the processes through the power of a small group—usually those members who take the orders directly from the top—instead of total team input (Kumle and Kelly 1999). On the other hand, leadership culture empowers the employees by trust and gives them the freedom to fulfill their job responsibilities. Where leadership reframes the present employees of an organization through training and not rehiring, the emphasis of management is on rehiring resources, and not on reframing employees with more training (Kumle and Kelly 1999).
In order to achieve better results, management strives to realize organizational efficiency along with effectiveness within the parameters of the organization’s mission. However, leadership takes a different approach. Perloff (2004) argues that leadership creates and 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. He uses an analogy of “trains” to describe the difference between leaders and managers. In his view, managers make the trains run on time, but it is leaders who decide the destination as well as what freight and passengers the trains carry. Put simply, managers are more like tacticians, whereas leaders are strategists. Covey et al. (1994) make the same point in a different way: management works within the established paradigm while leadership creates new paradigms. Management operates within the established system whereas leadership improves the existing systems and establishes more and better systems.
Leaders provide vision and inspiration, and support the people to do things, whereas managers provide the resources and expect results. Zaleznik (1977) suggests that leaders develop fresh approaches to long-standing problems and open issues to new options; managers act to limit choices. Whilst leaders inspire the purpose, managers are concerned about systems, controls, procedures, policies, and structure (Bennis 1989). The main role of the leaders is to set a new direction for a group. However, managers control, guarantee discipline, and introduce order according to established principles (Schumpeter 1934). Leadership is about knowing where the organization needs to go, whereas management is concerned with how to get there. At a further functional level, Maccoby (2000) notes that leaders recognize and select the talent, nurture the talent by motivating them, coach the talent, and retain the talent by building trust; managers are task masters of planning, budgeting, evaluating, and facilitating. Table 1 presents, in the form of short summaries, the views of various authors on the difference between leaders and managers.Table 1. Difference between Leaders and Managers
| Leaders | Managers | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Leaders are change agents | Managers are principally administrators. | |
| Leaders get organizations and people tochange. | Managers write business plans, set budgets,and monitor progress. | Maccoby(2000) |
| Leaders select talent, motivate, coach, andbuild trust. | Managers plan, budget, evaluate, andfacilitate. | |
| Leaders are more about soul (or heart) ratherthan mind | Managers are more about mind. | |
| Leaders are visionary, passionate, creative,flexible, inspiring, innovative, courageous,imaginative, experimental, and initiators ofchange. They draw their power from theirpersonal traits and attributes. They make useof their referent power to influence thefollowers. | Managers are rational, consulting, persistent,problem solving, tough-minded, analytical,structured, deliberate, authoritative, andstabilizing. They draw their power from theirposition and authority | Capowski(1994) |
| Leaders have good intuition and insight. | Managers have good analytical ability. | |
| All leaders are good managers. | All managers may not have leadershipqualities. | Daft(2003) |
| Leaders are mobilized by their personalpower and endorsement of the group. | Managers are mobilized by authority andposition power. | |
| Leaders set a direction, communicate it toeveryone who will listen (and probablymany who won’t), and keep people psychedwhen times get tough. | Managers establish systems, create rules andoperating procedures, and put into placeincentive programs and the like. | Robbins(2002) |
| Leaders decide what freight and passengersthe train carries and where it is headed. | Managers make the train run on time. | Perloff(2004) |
| Leaders have broad perspectives enablingthem to peer into the future to determineneeds and what changes need to be made forgrowth and survival. | Managers are guided by the myopic drive tohandle routine in order to produceefficiently. | |
| Leaders are strategists. | Managers are tacticians. | |
| Leaders seek to develop new goals and alignorganizations. | Managers have a narrow purpose and try tomaintain order, stabilize work, and organizeresources. | Kotter(2006) |
| Leaders produce the potential for dramaticchange, chaos, and even failure. | Managers produce standards, consistency,predictability, and order. | Kotter(1990) |
| Leaders are inspiring visionaries concernedabout substance. | Managers are planners who have concernsabout the process. | Zaleznik(1977) |
| Leaders leave a great deal to chance. | Managers are eager to solve the problems. | |
| Leaders adopt a personal and active attitudetoward goals. | Managers have impersonal, if not passive,attitudes toward goals. | |
| Leaders develop fresh approaches to long-standing problems and open issues to newoptions. | Managers act to limit the choices. | |
| Leaders work from high-risk positions andare often temperamentally disposed to seekout risk. | Managers work to reduce the risk. | |
| Leaders are concerned with ideas and relateto people in more intuitive and empatheticways. | Managers relate to people according to therole they play in a sequence of events or in adecision-making process. | |
| Leaders establish and break off intensiveone-to-one relationships. | Managers rely on moderate and widelydistributed attachments. | |
| Leaders are visionaries, collaborators,salespeople, and negotiators. | Managers are captains, analysts, conductors,and controllers. | Zimmerman(2002) |
| Leaders innovate. | Managers administer. | Bennis(1989) |
| Leaders are original. | Managers copy. | |
| Leaders develop. | Managers maintain. | |
| Leaders are concerned with trust and people. | Managers are concerned with systems,controls, procedures, policies, and structure. | |
| Leaders inspires trust. | Managers rely on control. | |
| Leaders have a long range perspective. | Managers have a short range view. | |
| Leaders ask “what” and “why.” | Managers ask “how” and “when.” | |
| Leaders’ eyes are on the horizon. | Managers have eyes always on the bottomline. | |
| Leaders challenge. | Managers accept the status quo. | |
| Leaders are their own people. | Managers are the classic good soldiers. | |
| Leaders do the right things. | Managers do things right. | |
| Leaders conquers the context. | Managers surrenders to the context. | |
| Leaders produces visions, concepts, plans,and programs. | Managers adopts the truth from others andimplements it without probing the facts. | |
| Leaders are concerned with effectiveness. | Managers are concerned with efficiency. | |
| Leaders opt for “pull” rather than “push.” | Managers opt for “push” rather than “pull.” | |
| Leaders provide vision and influence. | Managers provide resources. | |
| Becoming a leader is synonymous withbecoming yourself. | Becoming a manager is becoming whatcompany wants you to become. |
How Leadership and Management Overlap
“Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.”
—Stephen R. Covey
Leadership and management are interrelated, and may sometime perform a similar function and achieve the same goals; however, they are different and distinct skills (Kotter 1990; Bass 1990; Conger and Kanungo 1992; Zaleznik 1998; Bateman and Snell 1999; Yukl 1999; Perloff 2004; Hay and Hodgkinson 2006). In view of some, there is a sense that leadership is an aspect of managing that is overtly concerned with thinking about the long-term future of the organization and fostering support for particular ideas (Hay and Hodgkinson 2006). In this view, today’s businesses need excellent leaders and brilliant managers, visionary leadership and high-quality management. Overemphasis on either one is neither healthy nor desirable for any kind of organization. Capowski (1994) makes essentially the same point and notes that the debate on the difference between leadership and management has been missing an important point. The point is that being a manager is not bad and being a leader is not better, although Hay and Hodgkinson (2006) observe the tendency of literature to see leadership as separate from management but also superior. The current authors, however, argue that using labels such as “leader” and “manager” does not necessarily make a difference as to how organizations run. An effective executive needs a combination of both qualities: “what is needed is better management and better leadership (Hay and Hodgkinson 2006, p. 13). To Capowski (1994), vision without structure is likely to result in chaos, while structure without vision will result in complacency and perhaps catastrophe.
Ideally, a business organization should look for a small number of good leaders and many capable managers to run it. Bass (1990) argues that sometimes leaders manage and sometimes managers lead (Bass 1990). Occasionally, these two functions are blended and complementary (Kotter 2006). Yukl (2002) argues that rather than seeking to establish distinctions between managers and leaders, the two can be explained using the same processes and models. Some authors even use the terms “managerial leadership” and “leader-manager” (see Yukl 1989; Gardner 1990). Gardner (1990) suggests that a leader-manager is one who is futuristic, inspiring, and visionary. In contrast to an archetypal manager, the leader-manager empowers the employees, and values their contributions by encouraging them and by applying participatory management.
The leader-manager inspires the followers by developing trust, attracting and nurturing talent, and by continuous coaching and teaching (Maccoby 2000). Yukl (2005) shares the same perspective, maintaining that both leaders and managers employ a mix of leadership and management behaviors. This mixing of behaviors suggests they must combine the necessary skills to direct day-to-day affairs effectively (a role traditionally associated with management), while at the same time anticipating and managing change (the main role in leadership). Kotter (1982) seems to adhere to this same perspective and notes that fundamental components of the managerial process include planning, organizing, directing/leading, and controlling. This implies that leading is indispensable for an effective manager. Other authors argue that the strategic leaders utilize planning—particularly strategic planning—as their primary focus (Boal and Hooijberg 2000; Cogliser and Brigham 2004). Mangham and Pye (1991) argue that leading is not a specialized phenomenon and an entirely distinct activity, but simply an aspect, perhaps a highly salient aspect, of managing.
Some researchers argue that to run today’s business organizations effectively and to ensure that they grow in a sustainable manner, some combination of management and leadership, efficient functions, and connected relationships are necessary (Maccoby 2000; Valikangas and Okumura 1997). It is logically incomprehensible that every manager in an organization insists on having his or her distinct vision, as there should be people at the operational and functional level, executing the plans and implementing the strategies. Bryman (1992) also maintains that many visions can be achieved only through the actions of many managers and not simply through the exhortations of individual leaders (Grint 1997). While leaders are vital in determining the future vision and destination of an organization, managers in the front line of the organization are critical in sustaining quality, service, innovation, and financial performance. Similarly, Sarros (1992) notes 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.
This distinction shows that leadership and management are distinct and leaders differ from managers. However, in order to exploit the full potential of their human and other resources, organizations will need to develop leadership skills in their managers (Priestland and Hanig 2005) and management skills in their leaders (Weathersby 1999). There is increasingly a need for more leadership at all levels of the organization and to fulfill that need, managers have to become better in leadership.
The Way Forward
Although Kotter (2006) notes that the debate on differentiating leadership from management is likely to continue in academic circles, corporations will continue to ask for leaders but need managers, and consultants will continue to supply leadership development and assessment. He argues that people get opportunities to show leadership although their principal job may be management. However, the current authors take a different stance. It is argued that too much emphasis on management and too little focus on leadership is not useful for organizations. An overly managerial environment hinders innovation. It routinizes operations and closes the door to new ideas and fresh approaches. In today’s knowledge-based economies, competitive industries, and turbulent operating environments where it is necessary to unleash the talents of a highly educated workforce, conventional managers can only slow down progress. Therefore, it is important that organizations develop as many leaders as possible while ensuring that these leaders also know management aspects. The organizations need to develop their managers into leaders in order to stretch the performance of their human resources. Toor et al. (2007) also argue that this debate does not aim to prove that leaders are better than managers or that leadership qualities are the only solution to modern business challenges.
Some authors have argued in the literature that the terms “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” (Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff 1991, p. 529). Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff (1991, p. 529) state: “Leadership is seen as symbolic performance, expressing the hope of control over destiny; management as the activity of introducing order by coordinating flows of things and people toward collective action, and entrepreneurship as the making of entire new worlds.” This view shows that either of the roles, on its own, does not necessarily guarantee success. Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff (1991) suggest that organizations operate in historical, economic and political circumstances and are influenced by various sociopolitical and economic forces, shaping of fashions, and occupational and organizational cultures.
It is necessary to continue the efforts to identify the differences between leaders and managers, and between leadership and management. There are several research implications here. In most studies, when researchers examine leadership, their subjects mostly belong to the management ranks. In organizational studies, researchers treat managers as synonymous with leaders. Bryman (2004) also argues that research on leadership tends to focus on the role and leadership practices of formally designated leaders who in most cases are managers. Parry (in press) also shares the perspective that the person in the senior management position is often considered a leader. He argues that the leader is someone who has a certain influence on followers. And that it is the nature of this leadership impact leadership researchers need to investigate. In this regard, research on informal leadership has much to offer. Although some studies have been conducted on informal leadership (Rusaw 1996; Pescosolido 2002), more work needs to be done on how leaders are selected as subjects in research studies. Also, research endeavors should be made to distinguish leadership from management. This would provide useful inputs into leadership development initiatives where there should be a clear determination of whether the outcome should be the creation of leaders or managers. Finally, studies can focus on how effective leaders and managers strike a good balance between leadership and management to maximize their influence on others.
Conclusions
Much has been written on the difference between “leadership” and “management” and between “leaders” and “managers.” There are striking parallels between “leadership” and “management” as well as “leaders” and “managers.” However, it is clear that today’s organizations need both leaders and managers. They need leaders with managerial capabilities and managers with leadership qualities. Therefore, it is important that organizations adopt strategies to systematically develop their professionals into managers who are effective leaders as well. These managers, in given circumstances, can then perform a leadership role. For this purpose, leadership development should be made a part of organizational strategy because it is a source of competitive advantage.
References
Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership, 3rd Ed., Free Press, New York.
Bateman, T. S., and Snell, S. A. (1999). Management: Building competitive advantage, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, London.
Bavington, D. (2005). “Of fish and people: Managerial ecology in Newfoundland and Labrador cod fisheries.” Unpublished dissertation, Ch.1, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, p. 4–11, online: ⟨http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_ecology⟩ (September 21, 2007).
Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader, Perseus, Reading, Mass.
Bennis, W. G., and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge, Harper and Row, New York.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations, Sage, London, and New York.
Bryman, A. (2004). “Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review.” Leadership Q., 15(6), 729–769.
Boal, K. B., and Hooijberg, R. (2000). “Strategic leadership research: Moving on.” Leadership Q., 11(4), 515–550.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership, Harper and Row, New York.
Capowski, G. (1994). “Anatomy of a leader: Where are the leaders of tomorrow?” Manage. Rev., 83(3), 10–14.
Cogliser, C. C., and Brigham, K. H. (2004). “The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned.” Leadership Q., 15(6), 771–799.
Conger, J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1992). “Perceived behavioral attributes of charismatic leadership.” Canadian J. Behav. Sci., 24(1), 86–102.
Covey, S., Merrill, A. R., and Merrill, R. R. (1994). First things first: To live, to love, to learn, to leave a legacy, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B., and Wolff, R. (1991). “Leaders, managers, entrepreneurs on and off the organization.” Organ. Stud., 12(4), 529–547.
Daft, R. L. (2003). Management, 6th Ed., Dryden, London.
Drucker, P. F. (1988). “Management and the world’s work.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 66(5), 65–76.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership, Free Press, New York.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., and Walumba, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.” Leadership Q., 16(3), 343–372.
George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
George, B., and Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership, J-B Warren Bennis Series, Wiley, San Francisco.
Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J., and Burns, J. M., eds. (2004). Encyclopedia of leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Gokenbach, V. (2003). “Infuse management with leadership.” Nurs. Manage, 34(1), 8–9.
Gordon, A., and Yukl, G. (2005). “The future of leadership research: Challenges and opportunities.” German J. Hum. Resour. Res., 18(3), 359–365.
Grace, M. (2003). “Origins of leadership: The etymology of leadership.” Proc., International Leadership Association Conference, November 6–8, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Grint, K. (1997). Leadership: Classical, contemporary and critical approaches, Oxford University Press, New York.
Hay, A., and Hodgkinson, M. (2006). “Rethinking leadership: A way forward for teaching leadership?” Leadership Organiz. Devel. J., 27(2), 144–158.
House, R. J. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of sixty-two societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Kotter, J. P. (1982). “What effective general managers really do.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 60(6), 156–168.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). “What leaders really do.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 5(3), 3–11.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). “What leaders really do.” The leader’s companion, J. T. Wren, ed., Free Press, 114–123.
Kotter, J. P. (1999). What leaders really do, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Kotter, J. P. (2006). “Leadership versus management: What’s the difference?” J. Qual. Participation, 29(2), 13–17.
Kumle, J., and Kelly, N. J. (1999). “Leadership versus management.” Supervision, 61(4), 8–10.
Levitt, T. (1976). “The industrialization of service.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 54(5), 63–74.
Mangham, I., and Pye, A. (1991). The doing of managing, Blackwell, Oxford.
Mant, A. (1977). The rise and fall of the British manager, MacMillan Press, London.
Maccoby, M. (2000). “Understanding the difference between management and leadership.” Res. Technol. Manag., 43(1), 57–59.
Mawson, T. C. (2001). “Ready! Aim! Inspire! Leadership in engineering.” Leadership Manage. Eng., 1(2), 50–51
Parry, K. W. (in press). “Qualitative method for leadership research: Now there’s a novel idea!” Regulatory Compliance J.
Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). “Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion.” Leadership Q., 13(5), 583–599.
Perloff, R. (2004). “Managing and leading: The universal importance of, and differentiation between, two essential functions.” Talk presented at Oxford University, July 14–15.
Priestland, A., and Hanig, A. (2005). “Developing first-level leaders.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 83(6), 113–120.
Robbins, S. (2002). “The difference between managing and leading.” Online: ⟨http://www.Entrepreneur.com/article/0,462,304743,00.htm⟩ (September 21, 2007).
Rusaw, A. C. (1996). “All God’s children: Leading diversity in churches as organizations.” Leadership Q., 7(2), 229–241.
Sarros, J. C. (1992). “What leaders say they do: An Australian example.” Leadership Organiz. Devel. J., 13(5), 21–27.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy, Vol. 14, Harper and Row, New York.
Shamir, B., and Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?’ A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development.” Leadership Q., 16(3), 395–417.
Stogdill, R. . (1997). “Leadership, membership, and organization.” Leadership: Classical, contemporary, and critical approaches, K. Grint, ed., Oxford University Press, 112–125.
Terry, R. W. (1993). Authentic leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Toor, S. R., Ofori, G., and Arain, F. M. (2007). “Authentic leadership style and its implications in project management.” Bus. Rev., 2(1), 31–55.
Valikangas, L., and Okumura, A. (1997). “Why do people follow leaders? A study of a U.S., and a Japanese change program.” Leadership Q., 8(3), 313–337.
Weathersby, G. B. (1999). “Leadership versus management.” Manage. Rev., 88(5).
Yukl, G. (1989). “Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research.” J. Manage., 15(2), 251–289.
Yukl, G. (1999). “An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership.” Eur. J. Work and Org. Psy., 8(1), 33–48.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations, 5th Ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Yukl, G. (2005). “Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research.” J. Manage., 15, 254–289.
Zaccaro, S. J., and Horn, Z. N. J. (2003). “Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective symbiosis.” Leadership Q., 14(6), 769–806.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). “Managers and leaders: Are they different?” Harvard Bus. Rev., 55(3), 67–78.
Zaleznik, A. (1998). “Managers and leaders: Are they different?” Harvard Bus Rev on Leadership, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Zimmerman, E. L. (2001). “What’s under the hood? The mechanics of leadership versus management.” Healthcare Exec., 62(8), 10–12.
Biographies
Shamas-ur-Rehman Toor is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Building in the School of Design and Environment at National University of Singapore. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected]. George Ofori is professor and head of the Department of Building in the School of Design and Environment at National University of Singapore. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 8 • Issue 2 • April 2008
Pages: 61 - 71
Copyright
© 2008 ASCE.
History
Published online: Apr 1, 2008
Published in print: Apr 2008
ASCE Technical Topics:
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
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.