Leadership and Management: Distinctions

“Distinctions: Leadership and Management”

Leadership and management are two concepts with a thin line separating them. Many times scholars and practitioners confuse them. I could classify leadership in 3 different ways along the human historical lane and level of influence; in fact Russell (2011 September 7) a former class mate, excellently commented in his posting in a class that “leadership has evolved from influencing kings and queens like in the days of Columbus, to influencing Generals and Armies, like in Lincoln's day, to influencing and leading millions of people, not just in one's own nation but in many nations across the world, such as what Franklin D. Roosevelt did” – so there was leadership of the era preceding the wars and the great revolutions in Europe (before the 17^th century); associated with kings and queens, leadership of the 18^th century associated with the generals and commanders and now the 21^st century leadership associated with people. It is important to note that leadership can be formal, shared or informal. Formal leadership is if a person is elected, has inherited or was appointed to a position with a title. Informal leadership, as I described in my discussion post last week, is a good example of shared leadership, members do not get to inherit positions, and neither do they get to be elected or appointed to any position. Simple people simply rise as occasions demands ‘lead and later retreat back to follow other leaders’ again. In this paper, I will discuss ‘successful’ formal leadership. My understanding of leadership in this sense is influenced by Blunt, R.’s article (Ray, 2008) from which I now understand that successful leadership isn’t just about focusing on ‘the desire of the people’ supervised. It is a feeling inside our hearts particularly about what we want people and our followers to remember us for. What did I do to make a difference or cause change in whose life through the organizations I led?   - Is pretty much a question that preoccupies a successful leader. According to Blunt (2008), aspirants of ‘true successful leaders must build value of others that come behind them’. A ‘successful leader’ must derive his/her pride from successful attempts at developing skill sets, emotional intelligence and interest of his followers, team or the people he guides.   

Management on the other hand, as Roger J. Plachy (2009) puts it, is about organizational needs. He defines it as being able to identify and meet an organizational business, ‘purpose’, through understanding existing organizational ‘needs’, defining resources that would be necessary to meet these ‘needs’ vis-à-vis setting clear targets (‘goals and objectives’) that match the ‘resources’ and ‘purpose’ already defined. There are two dimensions to being a good manager – aside from managing the team to translate vision into action, a manager must manage him/herself too, he or she must take time and reflect about who he or she is and how he/she can use his/her characters to manage others. The self becomes a tool of some sort. If the self is a tool, then one must equally understand this tool. Professor Linda A. Hill of the Harvard Business School introduces a third element in addition to people and self management; “manage your net work” (Nobel, 2011). She insists that ‘being the boss’ is not just about managing “the people who report to you, but that one must manage the ‘context’ in which” the followers ‘reside’ less the followers/team would not be successful.

Most definitions of management portrays it as ‘formal authority’ and most managers believe so – far from it; “It's a common mistake to think management is defined by formal authority—the ability that comes with a title to impose your will on others… formal authority is a useful but limited tool” (Nobel, 2011, p. 2). Professor Linda A. Hill and Kent Lineback provided limits of formal authority: doesn’t elicit ‘compliance’ at all; often followers will ‘disagree’ with you; followers may have a different world view of authority and possibly may not like to be ‘bossed around’ (p. 2).

In comparing leadership and management, the article by Roger J. Plachy (2009) says it very clearly. One finds that while a leader ‘states a vision, creates excitements’ around the vision; a manager directs and sometimes forces action to accomplish that vision. Leaders will involve people in the process of achieving purpose; and managers will simply fulfill that purpose (action). In terms of authority, while leaders derive their authority from their followers, manager’s authority is granted by the organization. In all these though, one can quickly notice the complimenting role they each play to achieve the organizational goal. Leadership must depend on managership activities to achieve organizational ‘vision and values’. On the other hand, a manager must depend on leadership to ‘build rapport’. Perhaps this explains why in most organizations, the person is one, he leads and manages at the same time.

In the early 2000s, I was appointed a head of office in one of the field offices for a British charity named ACORD (Agency for Cooperation in Research and Development). Aside from the line management function I had to lead a team of eleven men and women. When conducting line management function such as performance reviews, allocating tasks or following up on previous agreements, staff did not feel easy with me, with others literally accusing me of singling them out. It was worse, if one made a mistake be it during the definitions of what needed to be done or selecting persons to fit for which job. I consulted on policy issues – for instance, the work place policy on HIV/AIDS. I had noticed how much staff time was wasted going to the hospital, funerals and realized staff needed to be helped by the organization in order to keep up with the pace of performance required by the organization. In such meetings and consultations, staffs were more energized and wanted to contribute to the discussions more than when we have to talk about work itself. I then had to use more of motivational speeches to get staff to rally around ideas that needed to be implemented. I realized management roles were more difficult especially when one had to communicate the difficult things like “I regret to inform you that your contract will not be renewed” as opposed to leadership roles where one would say something like “Your children are watching you, your people are watching you, ACORD looks up to you, why wouldn’t you complete your tasks”.

When I look back now, I can only conclude that leadership is political while management is administrative. From my experience again at this agency (ACORD), the distinction between leadership and management is one that occurs momentarily really, pretty fast. The two concepts complement each other and necessary at the same time in successful operation and change within any organization.

  

Reference

Nobel, C. (2011, January 17). Being the Boss. RESEARCH & IDEAS , pp. 1-3.

Ray, B. (2008). The successes of Leaders. Retrieved September 15, 2011, from GovLeaders: http://govleaders.org/successes_print.htm

Russell, P (2011, September 11). Leadership [Online forum content].  Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5680834&Survey=1&47=8720054&ClientNodeID=404822&coursenav=1&bhcp=1