Management and leadership are two words that are often used interchangeably in our modern day vernacular, especially when referring to someone in a “power position” within an organization. However, although some of the attributes may be complementary or even appear similar at times, there is a distinct differentiation between the two. Understanding these differences is crucial to any organization.
By understanding the different concepts associated with management and leadership, an organization will become increasingly effective. While management focuses on producing consistent results, leadership concentrates on producing movement (p. 361). These two mindsets, no matter how connected, are worlds apart when it comes to implementation. It is important to understand the dangers of an imbalance in application, as well as focusing on one without the other, as this will typically produce negative results.
Management, which often consists of planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem solving, adds order to an organization. Subsequently, when order is restored, an organization has the ability reproduce results (p. 361). As important as positive results are, it is even more imperative that those results be reproducible.
On the other hand, leadership establishes the direction and future vision, and aligns the organization to that vision. Ultimately this motivates and inspires the organization to reach those goals (p. 361). An inconsistent balance of management and leadership, where management tips the scale, leads to an organization that is over managed and under-led. This is an incongruity which leads to deficiencies in an organization’s long range vision and sustainability (p..365). Leadership includes a realistic assessment of the competition and variations in the industry. On the other hand, an organization that is over-led will have difficulty in stabilizing the deliverables. Nevertheless, there are some overlapping qualities and roles between management and leadership which are often discounted. These include:
- Deciding what needs to be done
- Identifying resources to carry out the plan
- Ensuring that the goal is reached
This highlights the importance of remembering that it is imperative that there be a proper balance between the two (p. 362). Consequently, there are two important points that can remind us of their distinct characteristics (p. 363):
- Leadership alone will not control time or budget
- Management alone will never lead to useful change
Many organizations believe that their management-to-leadership ratios are unbalanced. They have admitted to stifling the growth and development of leadership qualities, often based on a misunderstanding of their concepts. For example, one of the attributes of leadership is the ability to take calculated risks. From a management perspective, this is often discouraged, as it is contrary to a process that produces consistency. Subsequently, many organizations have acknowledged that they have not actively mentored their staff in a way that would foster leadership growth.
The evolution of business that necessitated a greater need for leadership was in direct response to the increase in global competition. As technology and economic volatility increased, so did the need to expand the capabilities of managers to become leaders. The status quo of planning, organizing, and controlling operations was no longer sufficient. Managers were now required to develop a greater strategic vision, as well as the ability to communicate that vision. A large part in positively achieving success also included the ability to motivate and mentor employee performance (p. 369).
One might assume that this transition would be a somewhat straightforward process. However, “evidence suggests that finding people with leadership potential – is much harder than finding people with managerial potential” (p. 371). So the search is on the find this magical formula, or pixie dust if you will, to sprinkle upon all managers, transforming them into leaders. The problem is that no one agrees upon the formula.
Some have suggested that management should be exchanged for leadership, which as alluded to above, is a danger in itself. This brings us full circle as to the need for a balance between management and leadership, each with specific qualities that enhance each other, the business, and most importantly the employees.
As businesses transform and expand in an ever volatile and competitive market place, understanding where the need for leadership evolved is extremely important. Not simply in order to tell the difference between the two, but as a reminder that a willingness to change is an important aspect of success. Many organizations still struggle with a misunderstanding of where the dividing lines are between management and leadership. A lack of these base principles can be devastating to an organization and its employees.
In my experience this is one of the greatest deficiencies in many organizations. Not only does this affect the productivity and efficiency of a team, department, and organization, but it also tends to decrease the morale among the employees. We often find that people are promoted to management positions through attrition based on seniority. Although this may be a favorable policy within an organization, it is often done with little or no management training. Equally so, an understanding of the necessary leadership qualities are rarely taken into consideration.
Reference
Natemeyer, W.E ., Hersey, P. (2011). Classics of Organizational Behavior (Section 4, Chapter 6 – Management and Leadership). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
