Words: 1438
What is the difference between leadership and management? Not many people understand what the “leadership” or “management” term means. Many people thing that they are similar or interchangeable. I was one of those a few years ago. Honestly, it was not easy to understand and recognize the roles of a leader and of a manager because both exist within the same department or organization. In fact, the leadership and management roles need to be differentiated and clarified.
The roles’ clarification not only helps the employees to address their concerns to the appropriate higher-level “boss”, but also is crucial in making the organization’s strategies successful. This paper presents the historical definition of leadership and management as well as the differences between the two. Historical definition of leadership There were many conceptions in the past that have described the leadership.
To many people, a person that could change the world by inscribing that world with his/her own human action and an imagination fraught with struggle of the inner voices is considered “leader” (Bose, 2001 For a deep understand of leadership, I present some viewpoints of Dry. James R. Bean from the Lock Haven University. Dry. Bean discusses four conceptions of leaders and leadership in his book, “Leadership Theories and Skills”, that was published in 2001. Those four concepts are: 1/ Hero theory; 2/ Puppet of Historical Forces; 3/ Cultural Symbol or Totem; and 4/ Cybernetic. According to Dry.
Bean, these concepts are considered the historical definitions of leadership. The four concepts are briefly discussed in the next paragraph. “Hero” theory is maybe the most commonly visualized by many people and attached to the term “leadership” where “leaders are seen as major forces in society, able to make changes for good or for bad and leave indelible marks on story’. However, it depends on the views of the followers that the leaders could be heroes or devils because these leaders have the ability to move or convince the reluctant followers into their ways of doing or thinking.
Examples of these leaders are Napoleon, Gandhi, Martin Luther, and many others. According to the “puppet” theory, the leadership came from the inevitable development of social institutions through many stages of the history. Those stages started with the primitive groups in the human-being history, then, were led to the tribal chief leadership, to feudalism, capitalism, and socialist democracy. Leaders “are not the true causes of these historical events”. They “respond to the forces” of each stage. In other words, the forces of history shape what the leaders do.
The ‘Totem” theory symbolizes the leaders as group leaders who are seen as “carrying the royal line or genetic perfection of that group (i. E. Monarch descendants) or maybe the “reincarnation of a dead ancestors (i. E. The Dalai Dam or other spiritual leaders). Finally, Dry Bean explains that the last theory, Cybernetic, suggests the “leadership is major part of the control system group, a kind of guidance system. Those leaders lead the groups on the track what they have pointed out and guide the group members to succeed the adaptability and survivability (Bean, 2001). Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one’s blue blood or genes” (Exaggerators, 2007). Tim Barnett also introduced his research about historical development of leadership. According to him, there were three types of approaches: trait approach (sass and sass), behavioral approach (sass and sass), and contingency or situational approach (sass and sass). The main or universal definition is still a topic for many people ho choose to pursue the leadership theories and studies. Nowadays, the theory or definition of leadership has changed as results of the social, economic, and political changes.
Leadership is now seen as ‘transformational. ” It means, “Once the transformation is established, the leaders relinquish their status based on ranks and maintain their status by adhering the principles of emergent” (Inn, 2005). Historical definition of management The verb “manage” comes from the Italian mangier (to handle), which in turn derives from Latin man’s (hand). The French word management (later management) influenced the development in meaning of the English word management in the 17th and 18th centuries (Wisped, 2007).
Management can also refer to the person or people who perform the acts of management. If leadership is the evolutionary mechanism that gear organizations towards future prosper, management is “the function that organizes the execution of today’s business” (Micron, 2007). Management is the process of getting activities completed efficiently and effectively with and through other people. The functions of a manager include planning, organizing, staffing, directing, irradiating, reporting, and budgeting.
In other words, management comprises directing and controlling a group of one or more people for the purpose of coordinating and harmonize them towards the expected completion of a job assignment, or a goal. Management often encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological resources, and natural resources. Management simply is to make the best use of all resources even when we manage ourselves. The aim of management is to deliver results cost effectively in line with customer expectations and profitably, in the ease of commercial organizations.
In the modern world, management has a primary function of satisfying all the stakeholders by making profits for the shareholders, producing high-quality products at an affordable price for the customers and being able to provide employment opportunities and career development to the employees. Differences between leadership and management Management differs from leadership but is just as important. The first difference is about the involvement or interaction with the people within an organization or a group. The leaders have followers.
The managers have the employees or immediate (direct) staff. The leaders can induce people to change even with no direct involvement over the people who are needed to take the hope for action. Leaders align members of one group and even align small groups into the goals of the whole big group and inspire them to maintain the focus of achieving those goals. Managers are involved in daily operations of an organization: providing instructions or guidance to each individual of the organization, coordinating to bring the right people together for the best return of the resources use.
Managers divide the work of a given project into small tasks r jobs and assign to their direct employees. After assigning tasks, they check on if the work is completed and if done well as expected. The size of management can range from one individual to multi-layer management of a larger organization. The second difference is the roles of a leader and of a manager. In fact, leadership and management roles within an organization are different and varied certain periods. The role of leadership is to provide inspiration, create and seek opportunities, change organizational rules, provide a vision to believe in and strategic alignment.
In addition, it motivates employees by satisfying basic human needs, inspire achievement, create self-leaders and power them. On the other hand, the management’s role is to react, control risks, enforce the organization rules, seek and then follow direction. Then it controls employees by pushing them in the right direction, coordinate efforts and provide instructions. In a broader visualization, the functions of the managers will include planning, organizing, directing, and controlling. The managers are responsible to establish the short-term and long-term objectives for each of their direct employees.
They have the authority to make the decision that is necessary to achieve the organization’s stability and growth. The third difference between managers and leaders is the way that they motivate people who work or follow them, and this sets the tone for most aspects of what they do. Conclusion The difference between the two is not as sharp as the saying would suggest, and both are required for effective corporate growth. Leadership risk creates opportunities while management strictness turns them into tangible results. In simpler words, leadership is about setting a new direction and/or new strategies or a company or an organization.
Leaders need to have a broader vision of how and what the changes are. Management is about directing, controlling, and managing towards the established goals. Managers need managerial skills. Those skills are communication skills, human skills, computer skills, time management skills, and technical skills. Although there are differences between leadership and management, a leader can be a manager and a manager can be a leader. However, a good leader may not be a good manager and a manager may not be a good leader.