Management Vs. Leadership - An Assessment of Interdependence

AbstractNegotiator
Leadership and management have been the focus of(Lussier & Achua, 2007).
study and attention since the dawn of time. OverIronically, in today's interpretation of a leader, one
time leadership and management have been seen aswould be hard pressed to find a leader whom is
separate entities, but those times have past. It is thisunable to do all of the above, and then some.
paper's intent to prove that good management isMintzberg, in later publications, however, goes much
incumbent upon the success and quality of thefurther in his assessment of managers and their roles
leadership that drives it, and by proxy, so too willin the organization. In a collaborative effort with
poor leadership bring poor management that will leadJonathon Gosling, the two determine the five
to poor results, and decreased levels of success.mindsets of a manager (2003). They break the five
From the great minds in management theory: Fayol,mindsets into:
Taylor, and Weber; homage being paid to Barnard1. Managing self: the reflective mindset; where the
and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker andeffective manager is able to reflect upon the history
Porter; to the great minds in leadership development:(current and aged) to create a better future moving
Jung, McClelland and Burnham, this paper intends toforward.
examine them all and bring them together as is2. Managing the organization: the analytical mindset;
required in this economy and these times.here referencing a tennis match, where the manager
Much time, effort, and money has been placed intomust be cognizant of the crowd and their reaction,
the study of both management and leadershipbut also focusing on the ball itself.
successes. Mintzberg and Drucker have done some3. Managing context: the worldly mindset; thinking
of the best and most informative work at bringingglobally and looking for the unorthodox solution.
management and leadership together; now, with the4. Managing relationships: the collaborative mindset;
rising costs of overhead and decreasing profitwhere the manager is able to engage the employees
margins, now is the time to connect the dots, onceand moves beyond empowerment [which "implies
and for all.that people who know the work best somehow
Leadership and management have been the focus ofreceive the blessing of their managers to do it
study and attention since the dawn of time.(Kibort, 2004)] into commitment.
Reference biblical scripture that questions the5. Managing change: the action mindset; "imagine your
leadership decisions of King David and the managerialorganization as a chariot pulled by wild horses. These
prowess of Moses and his exodus to the "Promisedhorses represent the emotions, aspirations, and
Lands" (Cohen, 2007); Plato helped us to manage themotives of all the people in the organization. Holding a
Republic while Machiavelli helped us to formulate oursteady course requires just as much skill in steering
idea of what a Prince should represent (Klosko,around to a new direction" (Gosling & Mintzberg,
1995); Shakespeare questioned Hamlet's decision2003, p. 54-63).
making (Augustine & Adelman, 1999) andGosling and Mintzberg conclude with one very
trumpeted Henry IV's managerial effectivenessinteresting point. They stipulate that, unlike Pavett
(Corrigan, 1999). John Stuart Mill gave us the "shining& Lau (1983) that good managers are able to
city upon a hill", while Hegel taught us the "elementslook beyond the desire to fix problems with simple
of the philosophy of right" and Marx taught us howreorganizations. In fact, they argue that hierarchy
to manage a people in his overly popularized (and oftplays a very small role in the actual completion of
misunderstood) manifestos (Klosko, 1995). Thomastasks on the unit level and can only lead to more
Payne rewrote leadership to the basic levels ofbureaucracy. Which leads one to ask the question:
Common Sense, while Thomas Jeffersonwho is to complete those unit level tasks and solve
acknowledged that in the management of a people,those problems associated with people?
you must remember that "all men are created equal"There is no definitive definition of what leadership is,
and that they maintain certain degree of"unalienableas it appears to change form and focus for each
Rights". Countless others have come to the surfaceindividual study. For the purposes of this paper,
over the span of time, all promoting a new orhowever, the definition set forth by Lussier &
improved way to both manage and lead their people.Achua (2007) seems to fit best: "Leadership is the
(And hopefully yours, too, if you're willing to pay forinfluencing process of leaders and followers to
it.) However, through it all, one thing has remainedachieve organizational objectives through change"
constant; people are not autonomous entities that will(p.6). How do we compare leadership and
respond the same to every situation. People aremanagement? The common misconception is that it
evolving, thinking, emotionally and socially aware of allis something that should be compared "straight up",
that is around them; they are motivated throughor "even Steven". Obviously, there are natural leaders
different methods and they are driven by differingand persons in positions of social authority throughout
levels of success (McClelland & Burnham, 1995).every facility, and yes, it is incumbent upon the
Over time, leadership and management have beenmanagers and leaders to empower those people to
seen as separate entities, but no more: it is,support the overall mission. Admittedly, some of
therefore, this paper's intent to prove that goodthese people may never become managers, but their
management is incumbent upon the success androle in the facility is of the utmost importance.
quality of the leadership that drives it, and by proxy,However, as managers are an industry specific entity,
so too will poor leadership bring poor managementit is ridiculous to try and compare leadership to
that will lead to poor results, and decreased levels ofmanagement outside of the constraint of the
success. In today's fast paced environments,management role. Recognizing and accepting the
management requires leadership; you cannot haveconstraint of the comparison, it must be
one without the other and still attain the success thatacknowledged that in industry, you cannot have
you desire.good leadership without good management; and in
Reference any management text or publication andobvious juxtaposition, poor leadership leads to poor
you will inevitably come across the obligatorysuccess rates for the management. It seems
references to the great minds in managementapparent that our management staffs should
theory: Fayol - the first to recognize management asconcentrate on growing employees into leaders, to
a "discipline" to be studied (Brunsson, 2008), Taylor'seventually become managers; but if the managers
scientific management of industrial work and workersthemselves are not leaders yet, then much difficulties
(Safferstone, 2006), and Weber's bureaucracy;will soon befall upon that company. As Peter Drucker
homage must also be paid to Barnard, Kotter, Bennis,will tell you, it is imperative to build a strong
and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker, andmanagement team, centered around strong
Porter (Lamond, 2005). These great minds haveleadership. In thinner times, gone are the days of
helped to forge the way for the management fieldtwo people for every position. Here are the days
and helped to better management teams across thewhen a successful company is able to package good
world. The world of "leadership study" carries quitemanagerial skills into every leader, and good
the similar pedigree; ironically, it also carries many ofleadership skills into every manager. Failure to do so
the same names. It is, however, this author's opinionwill result in failure to succeed.
that many of the additions to the pool of knowledge"Drucker devotes considerable effort and space to
on leadership were not made known until the studydefining the nature and role of management. This
of psychology was made more fashionable by thediscussion also focuses on the nature and value of
likes of Freud and Jung. Management, it appears, is aleadership in the organization. According to Drucker,
tool to better the bottom line and productivity,leadership gives the organization meaning, defines and
whereas leadership is one of those studies that is tonurtures its central values, creates a sense of
be improved through the person's ability to be inmission, and builds the systems and processes that
touch with their personality, traits, motives andlead to successful performance" (Wittmeyer, 2003).
effects on the human elements of productivity.References
There appears be some coincidence in the timing ofAnastasi, Thomas (1998). Personality negotiating:
the juxtaposition of the terms "management" andconflict without casualty. Boston University,
"leadership" and the correlation to the fact that mostBoston, MA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
literature post 1950 seems to cross pollinate the twoAugustine, Norman & Adelman, Kenneth (1999).
phrases. It is quite possible that this, the historicalShakespeare in charge: the bard's guide toleading and
time for post war boom, is where production was atsucceeding on the business stage. New York, NY:
record highs and management of production was notHyperion
as key as the management of people Possibly drawnBrunsson, K. (2008). Some Effects of Fayolism.
from a social recognition that people were not to beInternational Studies of Management &
managed, but rather, they were to be valuedOrganization, 38(1), 30-47.
members of the team, and therefore, to be led - it isCohen, Norman. (2007). Moses and the journey to
speculative, but it appears evident that entering theleadership: Timeless lessons of effectivemanagement
1960's, most literature intertwines the "leaders" andfrom the Bible and today's leaders. Woodstock, VT:
the "managers" into the same professionalJewish Lights
classification.Publishing.
Carl Jung (1923) posits that people carry specificCorrigan, Paul (1999). Shakespeare on management:
traits and that those traits cannot be altered.leadership lessons for today's managers.
However, much time effort and money has beenDover, NH: Kogan Page Limited.de Charon, Linda.
placed into the study of both management and(2003). A transformational leadership development
leadership traits, tendencies, styles, and successes.program: Jungianpsychological types in dynamic flux.
Why is this? One belief is that Jung only half analyzesOrganization Development Journal, 21(3), 9-18.
the person and that more than your traits influenceGosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2003, November).
your leadership potential (de Charon, 2003). ThisThe Five Minds of a Manager. (cover story).
affords the opportunity for you to learn skillsHarvard Business Review, 81(11), 54-63
necessary to become a better leader, even if thatJung, Carl (1923) Psychology Types. New York, NY:
means understanding who you are and what yourHarcourt Press
tendencies are, in order to counteract them. Jung'sKibort, Phillip M (2004). Management vs. Leadership.
work with personality traits has become the hallmarkPhysician Executive, 30(6), 32-35.
to virtually every professional development andKlosko, George (1995). History of political theory: an
personal development course on the market. Jungintroduction. Volume II; modern politicaltheory.
stipulates that every person has any combination ofBelmont, CA: Wadsworth Group / Thomson Learning.
sixteen different personality types. By definition,Lamond, David. (2005) On the value of management
knowing these personality types helps you to betterhistory: Absorbing the past to understandthe present
negotiate your way through the situation in order toand inform the future. Management Decision,
attain the maximum output desired (Anastasi, 1998).incorporating the Journal of
Running in concert to Jung's ideas are those of HenryManagement History, 43, 10.
Mintzberg. Mintzberg stipulates that much hasLussier, Robert N. & Achua, Christopher F.
changed since Fayol's assessment in 1916; gone are(2007). Leadership: Theory, application, &
the days when the "picture of a manager was askilldevelopment, 3e. Mason, OH: Thomson Higher
reflective planner, organizer, leader, and controller"Education.
(Pavett & Lau, 1983). Mintzberg breaks theMcClelland D. & Burnham, D. H. (1995) Power is
manager's job into ten roles, divided into three areas:the great motivator. Harvard Business
interpersonal, informational, and decisional (2004):Review, January, 81(1), p117-126.
Interpersonal RolesMintzberg, H. (2004, August). Leadership and
Informational Rolesmanagement development: An afterword.
Decisional RolesAcademy of Management Executive, 18(3), 140-142.
FigureheadPavett, C., & Lau, A. (1983, March). Managerial
Monitorwork: The influence of hierarchical level andfunctional
Entrepreneurspecialty. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1),
Leader170-177
DisseminatorSafferstone, Mark J. (2006). Organizational Leadership:
Disturbance handlerClassic Works and Contemporary
LiaisonPerspectives.
SpokespersonWittmeyer, C. (2003, August). The Practice of
Resource allocatorManagement: Timeless Views and Principles.