There is an ongoing dialog
regarding the relationship of the disciplines of "leadership" and "management." Many
view leadership and management as polar opposites in guiding the efforts of subordinates. Management is often seen as
task-oriented, autocratic, domineering and insensitive to people's needs while leading is associated with being emotionally-engaging,
motivating and visionary. In this context managers are seen primarily as following established processes to accomplish
organizational objectives in which people are treated simply as another organizational resource. Leaders on the
other hand, are perceived as innovators who reinvent processes to put people first and who empower and inspire them toward
the achievement of their organization's vision. Managers are said to have subordinates while leaders are said
to have followers. The clear implication in such comparisons in today's business environment is that
a leadership style is enlightened, progressive and productive while a management style is oppressive, stifling
and inefficient.
For
others, there is little or no difference between leadership and management, and the terms are often used synonymously.
They see a leader as being simply the highest ranking executive in an organization
without regard to the extent to which such an individual actually exhibits leadership behaviors. This view characterizes leadership as a position at the top of an organization.
At Symbiont Performance Group we reject the
characterizing that management is any less worthy or desirable a discipline than leadership and believe that doing so does
a great disservice to the ranks of the many great managers who run our organizations today. The work of managers is not just
the mundane monitoring of daily operations. We see management and leadership as being neither the same
nor opposites. We feel that most of the popular distinctions that are made between “leaders”
and “managers” are distinction that would be more accurately applied to the functional differences that generally
exist between upper and mid-level management.
Upper management is primarily focused on setting and describing organizational vision and mission and is, therefore,
characterized as leadership. Middle and line managers are usually charged with implementation responsibilities
and are typically referred to as managers.
We categorize leadership as a function rather than a position and view leading as just one
of the fundamental functions of management along with planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling.
We consider directing and leading as parallel management functions for achieving the
essentially the same outcome, i.e., moving people to take action. Here then, is where an accurate and valid
distinction can be made—comparing directing to leading. Comparing leading to managing on the other
hand is like comparing apples to fruit. It is an inappropriate comparison and only serves to confuse and
complicate the discussion.
The basic distinction between directing and leading
is that a director’s power is authority-based while leader’s power is derived from his or her own persona.
Both directors and leaders motivate others to act, but they do so in different ways. Directors motivate
through the use of rewards and consequences. In such a situation subordinate generally do what they are
told because of the benefits they receive by doing so (salary, praise, promotion, etc.) or to avoid the negative consequences
of not doing so (being fired, being demoted or being otherwise penalized). Leaders motivate through non-authoritarian
means to move people to act in a specific manner by aligning an individual's internal desires for
the satisfaction and fulfillment of personal needs with the accomplishment of a common organization goal. see internal motivation. see needs theory.
Leadership is strictly informal influence.
Leaders motivate people to act by persuading them to want to do what needs to be done.
Viewed in this way, there is no such thing as autocratic leadership. Because leaders are not dependent on authority for their power, they are capable of influencing
individuals at any level of an organization whether they be superiors or subordinates as well as individuals
outside of any formal organizational boundaries. In fact, a person can be a leader without having any managerial
authority whatsoever. This is evidenced by some of our great social and political
leaders.
Since management and leadership are not mutually exclusive, an executive can be both and should
be both. There will be times when a directing approach may be more effective and times when a leadership
approach will be. Not all managers need be leaders, but managers who possess leadership skills are likely
to be more successful overall. Furthermore, being an effective leader can often compensate for deficiencies
in other management functions. Many senior managers reach high executive levels by virtue of their leadership
skills more than because of any other factors. However, to remain in such positions, senior managers must also demonstrate
proficiency in the other management disciplines to produce sustainable organizational results.
