Sample Essay On Leadership Versus Management; Is The Debate Justified?
We have observed the roles of leadership and management to be slightly different from one another but establishing which role is important for the efficiency of an organization is a matter of immense complexity. Leadership refers to an individual’s ability to motivate, influence and encourage others to contribute to the well-being of an organization within which they operate. Management, on the other hand, is known for the ability of a person to direct and control a group of individuals towards the accomplishment of certain defined goals. Apart from the nature of their respective roles, there are also a few other differences that draw boundaries between management and leadership. Where a leader is concerned about leading people and is people oriented, managers’ main concern is the managing of work, and they are task-oriented. Where the leaders are accustomed to taking risks and show innovation when guiding their disciples, managers believe in taking the safe route and do not take great many risks. Leaders derive their power through Influence that they have on people while management roles take root from authority. That is why where leaders have followers, managers have subordinates.
We saw earlier how leaders and managers derive their respective roles from influence and authority respectively, and it is because of this distinction that a leader is followed willingly by his/her group whereas a manager is obeyed. This does not however mean that a single person cannot fulfill both responsibilities because a leader can have management qualities just like a manager might possess good leadership qualities. The two concepts have gained enormous popularity and are, therefore, applicable to roughly every field of study counting engineering, business studies, management, and accounting. These roles mostly exist simultaneously in pretty much all organizations and both positions present support to one another.
Discussing theories of Leadership and Management
The theory of corporate governance
The corporate theory of governance grew in the aftermath of the corporate scandals and were for this reason concerned majorly with these areas of governance. The ideas that fall under this leadership theory are particularly beneficial to very small organizations as well as the largest ones. The theory offers beneficial perspectives that apply to leadership, authority, wealth creation, greed, risk and morality and explains how these dimensions reunite and how they are inconsistent with the dynamics of the organization, the markets, the needs of the society, quality of life and also with many other variables.
The theory of Psychological Contract
This theory applies mainly to the relationships that emerge within the workplace and also to the human behavior. Many theorists have added to the theory ever since it was developed and still continue to do so. The concept is not limited when it comes to a wide variety of interpretations and can also be explained by a wide range of subjects.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs
This theory uses fundamental human needs as the driving factor in followers. We humans have basic needs that have progressed over time. Maslow’s theory uses these human requirements as motivation for making efforts towards organizational goals and the theory states that we should fulfill every human need one at a time starting with the most basic needs that are essential for survival. The foundations of the theory lie in the fact that a person can only be motivated towards fulfilling secondary goals like the needs to influence others and development of oneself only if the lower order needs that are the most basic needs have been fulfilled.
Love and spirituality in management and business
Love for the organization or the business where the person works encourages the participants to formulate decisions that benefit the business or the organization and every action of the person is directed towards the well-being of that organization that he/she works for. We have not seen a great deal of love and spirituality in the business of the present day, even though, there are many advantages that we could gain from this type of leadership and management.
Organizational change, Training, and learning
The organizations today are seeing a shift in such a way that the focus is moving towards the training and development of the employees. The organizations that make use of this principle hold integrity above results and people above profit. This approach does not keep profit and results aside rather operates on the theory that when integrity and people are made the main focus of the organizations, advantages like results and profit come naturally.
Different people see the two terms leadership and management differently. Some regard the two terms as synonymous to one another while others who are at the other extreme consider both concepts to be very different from one another and see not similarities between the two. Since leaders arise from within groups and become influential on the basis of certain qualities, leaders can be seen in all organizations, and the importance of responsibilities that they deal with cannot be denied. Leaders are known to motivate their followers, and because they are followed by choice, leaders are mostly expected and seen to bring about changes that sometimes even surpass the goals of the organization.
However, since leadership operates more on the taking of risks, it is a phenomenon that can also fail on occasion. In an instance like these, organizations need stability and direction which is brought about by managers. Because managers do not take risks, they only follow a strict set of rules and rarely deviate from them. This may not encourage innovation to a great extent, but the responsibility of the managers is the fulfillment of goals and, for this reason, they have to make decisions that are safe and take minimum possible risks.
This is why managers and leaders both are roles that are essential for all organizations. Where leaders take risks, the gap of occasional failure is filled by the role of managers and where managers do not work outside the box; leaders bring innovations and change to the organizations. Both go hand in hand, and one role cannot see a great deal of success without the other. This is one very important reason why separating the two phenomenon is not fair.
In organizations where there is a healthy balance between the roles of managers and those of leaders, the managers acknowledge the strategic directions that are shared by leaders and lay down rules and manage their subordinates towards fulfilling those visions. Leaders in successful organizations tend to communicate clearly and honestly. The managers in these organizations accept directions from the leaders and make improvements to those directions. Using their ability to strategize and plan, the managers find ways to attain the visions presented by the leaders and in case of failures, communicate with the leaders of success or failure so that their visions could be kept in line with reality.
The situation in organizations that have poor organizational culture is pretty much the opposite. In these organizations, leaders and managers do not enjoy sound relationships, and these relationships seem to break down from time-to-time. The leaders either fail to envision effective strategies or they fail to communicate these visions effectively with those in the organization who fit with management roles. The reasons for the poor culture in the organization may also be reverse and the managers might be telling the leaders what they think they would want to hear, or they might simply be ham-fisted for the roles that are expected from them. In order to operate in a healthy organizational culture, it is essential that the managers and leaders enjoy unassailable relationships within the organization.
W e also find people in an organization who fulfill both roles, that of leaders, as well as managers. These people are mostly found at the executive levels in the organizations, and they are fulfilling dual roles because they have to manage the employees and also coordinate budgets and reports. For these types of roles, the organizations cannot afford to employ managers who cannot lead and leaders who cannot manage.
List of References
Diffen. (2014). Leadership vs. Management. Retrieved from Diffen: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Leadership_vs_Management
Gillikin, J. (2015). Management Vs. Leadership in a Healthy Organizational Culture. Retrieved from Small Business: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/management-vs-leadership-healthy-organizational-culture-178.html
Manoj Kumar Sharma, M. S. (2013). Leadership Management: Principles, Models, and Theories. Global Journal of Management and Business Studies, 309-318.