LDR711A Homework

Wk2_Porrarticle.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >LDR711A Homework

TowardMore Inclusive LeadershipPedagogy: Expanding the Management versus Leadership Comparison Dean Porr, Kent State University, Ohio, USA

Abstract: The management versus leadership comparison is a recognized instructional tool in leadership pedagogy. Like other leadership concepts, this two- factor model has a history of controversy concerning the extent to which the terms are independent of each other and how inclusive the model is in describing various types of influence. This paper explores these deficiencies and expands the two-factor model by introducing the additional concepts of administration and operations.

Keywords: Management, Leadership, Administration, Operations

Introduction

MOSTMANAGEMENTEDUCATORS now agree that leadership is both a skilland a behavior that exhibits that skill (Doh, 2003). The comparison of skills andbehaviors linked directly to the process of management and those more closely associated with the process of leadership is an accepted tool in leadership ped-

agogy. Although many leadership theorists believe there are distinct differences between the concepts, the two terms are interchanged so often that the differences have become blurred (Kotter, 1999; Terry, 1993; Toor & Ofori, 2008; Zaleznik, 1977). This confusion has reduced the accuracy and precision of leadership and management research (Gordon & Yukl, 2004; Kotter, 2006; Zaccaro & Horn, 2003).

The definition of these terms has become an issue, as there appear to be as many ways of defining management and leadership as there are researchers in the field. If you can’t define leadership or management, you can’t measure, test, make assessments, or hire and promote for them (Kotter, 2006). The term manage means to handle (Sanborn, 1996), whereas man- agement is the process of getting things done through other persons (Fagiano, 1997). A leader is a person who is followed; however leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement (Rausch & Behling, 1984). The opportunity for confusion is apparent. This paper explores the problems associated with the management versus leadership comparison by identifying the deficiencies of the two-factor model and expanding it to be more inclusive leadership pedagogy.

Changes in Management and Leadership Perspectives Modern management instruction is routinely aided by stressing an understanding of the basic functions that make up the management process. The functions of management accepted by the academic community have changed as management research has progressed. In 1916 Fayol created a list of four primary functions of management: planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling. As management research evolved the function of directing was added, and

many management textbooks of the 1970’s dissected the subfields of management into planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling (Carlisle, 1976).

Changes in societal norms and expectations were accompanied by the development of human resource specialists. HR personnel began assuming a greater share of the responsib- ility for recruiting, hiring, transferring, promoting, and terminating employees. Scholars eventually dropped staffing as one of the functions of management when it became more of a specialist’s responsibility.

Progressive management techniques caused researchers to take a critical look at the comparatively hard term directing. As advances were made in leadership research, the function of directing was replaced with the softer term leading. By the 1980’s many manage- ment textbooks were structured around the four accepted managerial functions of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling (Griffin, 1984). This breakdown is still common today (Robbins & Coulter, 2009). A summary of the changes in the functions of management can be found in table 1.

The opportunity for confusion between the two terms is apparent when research discussing the differences between management and leadership is considered alongside research identifying leadership as a function of management. Mangham and Pye (1991) support the inclusion of leadership as a function of management, claiming that leading is not a specialized phenomenon nor an entirely distinct activity, but simply an aspect of managing. Conversely, Plachy (2009) insists that leadership is not a wiser posture than managership, or a substitute for managership, or a kind of managership.

Leadership is an increasingly ubiquitous subject in business school curricula, a theme of popular business books, and a topic for academic practice and research (Doh, 2003). Numer- ous descriptions of leadership have been created by these researchers. A well-known and relatively short list of leadership practices was created by Kouzes and Posner (1987). They

134

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

described five fundamental practices which enable leaders to get extraordinary things accom- plished. These practices serve as the basis for the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), an assessment tool widely used in leadership training (Kouzes & Posner, 1987). Their leadership practices are:

1. Model the way 2. Inspire a shared vision 3. Challenge the process 4. Enable others to act 5. Encourage the heart

The Task versus Relations Comparison An accepted leadership concept in the early twentieth century was the one-dimensional continuum between leader behaviors described as being task-oriented and those that were more people-oriented. It was acceptable to describe someone in the simplistic terms of being a task-master or a people-person. A few modern researchers continue to think in these terms. Bryman (1992) referred to leadership and management as two sides of the same coin. Plachy (2009) suggested that managing and leading form a continuum, one to the other. He felt the concepts fit together neatly.

This one-dimensional philosophy was challenged in the 1950’s by the work of scholars at Ohio State (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Stogdill, 1963) and the University of Michigan (Cartwright & Zander, 1960; Katz & Kahn, 1951; Likert, 1961). These pioneering researchers separated the concern for task and the concern for relations into separate behaviors capable of independent measurement. The findings be- came the basis for various two-dimensional grids used in other leadership theories.

Important additions have been made to the two-dimensional theories as leadership scholars build on the original model. Yukl (2004) created Tri-dimensional leadership theory, identi- fying the important concept of change into a new dimension apart from either task or relations. The task versus relations comparison has evolved from a one-dimensional continuum to numerous two-dimensional theories to expanded multi-dimensional concepts. If expanding our knowledge of task and relations has been beneficial in advancing leadership pedagogy, the same may be true for the concepts of management and leadership.

Problem Statement The two-factor model of management versus leadership is a dichotomy that provides some insights, but it oversimplifies a complex phenomenon and encourages stereotyping of indi- viduals (Yukl, 1999). This oversimplification is recognized, as scholarly interest in differen- tiating leadership from other related phenomena such as management is growing (Cogliser & Brigham, 2004). Scholars realize there are additional ways of describing the skills and behaviors of influential people that are not contained in the two-factor model.

This paper asks the question: if the task versus relations comparison can be expanded to increase our understanding of leadership, why can’t the same reasoning be applied to the management versus leadership comparison? The two-factor model is deficient in its ability

135

DEAN PORR

to adequately describe all types of influence. An initial step in this process is to investigate what is known in existing literature.

Management versus Leadership Literature Review Management and leadership have been found to be quantitatively different and mutually exclusive, requiring different skills and personality traits (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Zaleznik, 1977). Toor and Ofori (2008) concur, claiming management and leadership are entirely different functions based on their underlying philosophies, functions, and outcomes. They believe leaders and managers are not the same people, and many people just know intuitively that leadership is different than management (Toor & Ofori, 2008). Kotter (2006) insists that it is unusual for one person to have the skills to serve as both an aspiring leader and a professional manager. He also found a tendency in large organizations to set leadership skills aside in favor of managing the workplace.

Researchers have often looked at personal characteristics as a means of differentiating between the two groups. In comparison to managers, leaders have been found to be more emotional and oriented to the future (Bacon & Struggles, 2004), more flexible, innovative, and adaptive (Yukl, 2002), and more inclined toward movement and change (Kotter, 2006). From a communication perspective, leaders are more frank and participative than managers (Toor & Ofori, 2008), and more multidirectional in their influence with followers (Rost, 1991).

Managers have been described as more scientific in nature, structured and deliberate in their approach, authoritative and stabilizing in their behavior, and persistent and tough minded in their routine (Toor & Ofori, 2008). Because managers favor order and efficiency, a mana- gerial orientation seems more appropriate when the external environment is relatively stable and maintaining efficient operations is critical (Yukl, 2002). Change oriented people (leaders) seem more appropriate in times of environmental turmoil when it is necessary to make stra- tegic changes to deal with opportunities and threats (Yukl, 2002).

Another view of the management versus leadership comparison deals with the similarities between the two terms. Plachy (2009) believes leaders and managers are kindred spirits who believe in the same visions and values. Northouse (2007) stresses that both leadership and management involve influence, working with people, and effective goal accomplishment. Although some researchers view leading and managing as distinct processes, they do not assume that leaders and managers are different types of people (Bass, 1990; Hickman, 1990; Kotter, 1999; Mintzberg, 1973; Rost, 1991).

The similarities between management and leadership create a functional overlap. Manage- ment functions potentially provide leadership and leadership activities potentially contribute to managing (Bass, 1990; Zaleznik, 1977). Numerous scholars point out that leadership and management are interrelated and may sometimes perform a similar function and achieve the same goals; however they are different and distinct skills (Bass, 1990; Bateman & Snell, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1992; Hay & Hodgkinson, 2006; Kotter, 1990; Perloff, 2004; Yukl, 1999; Zaleznik, 1977).

In real life, hard management can be combined with soft leadership to provide the best of both worlds (Watson, 1983). Today’s organization needs both kinds of people; managers and leaders (Goetsch & Davis, 2001; Taffinder, 2001). This is true at all levels, from first

136

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

line supervisors to executives (Hay & Hodgkinson, 2006). A more credible view is that people can use a mix of leading and managing behaviors (Hickman, 1990; Kotter, 1990).

Expanding the Two-factor Model The influence concepts of timelines and personal choice help identify the inadequacies of the simple two-factor model. Plachy (2009) believes that the decision to manage or lead depends on whose needs are most demanding at the moment. Eden and Levitan (1975) concluded that leadership is in the mind of the follower, a basic premise of intrinsic leadership theory. People are more likely to voluntarily follow someone who they believe to be compet- ent, and that judgment of competence can vary with time.

A judgment of competence can be based on the follower’s perceptions of the leader’s specific knowledge and abilities. Two potential areas of such knowledge and abilities are administrative or operational processes. The term administration has many definitions, but the practice of implementing policy (answers.com) is brief and appropriate for this application. The term operations refers to a system that transforms inputs into outputs of greater value (Russell & Taylor, 2007). Operations are the main reason that an organization exists (Russell & Taylor, 2007), the justification for existence of the enterprise (Millett, 1967).

The addition of the concepts of administration and operations to the two-factor model of management versus leadership creates new possibilities for explaining influence. One method of understanding these additional influence considerations is to look at various types of ineffectiveness due to deficiencies in the two new areas. Figure 1 is a visual representation of the expanded four-factor model which may be helpful in understanding the examples.

Figure 1: Expanded Four-factor Model

137

DEAN PORR

Examples of Administrative and Operational Deficiencies

Example 1: Weak Administrative Skills Mary is the new Superintendent for the local public school district. She is well organized and practices many good management skills. She is considered charismatic, inspirational, with good leadership skills. As a successful former teacher, she has experience in the opera- tional portion of public education. Mary’s weakness is in the areas of administration. She was hired from out-of-state without any experience in a union environment. She has a poor knowledge of the state laws governing public schools and a poor understanding of the two union contracts with teachers and staff. She has made inaccurate comments in public and exercised poor judgment in executive meetings. Her credibility with the community and school employees is poor.

Example 2: Weak Operational Skills Bill is the manager of a local manufacturing plant. He is considered a well-organized person with many desirable management attributes. He is an inspirational speaker, constantly chal- lenging plant employees with his successful leadership style. He has created an efficient administrative network to keep abreast of new policies. Bill’s weakness is his limited under- standing of the plant’s manufacturing processes. His previous career in sales only required a superficial understanding of how the product was manufactured. Bill has very little credib- ility in his organization, from the hourly employees on the production floor to his corporate bosses.

Example 3: Excessive Concern for Administration Jane was recently promoted to manager of the Purchasing department. She worked her way up through the organization without the benefit of a formal education. Her personal perspect- ive on the position causes her to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the minor details of her department. This procedural compulsion leaves her with too little time for activities such as budgeting (management), challenging supplier quotes (leadership), or improving department efficiency (operations). Jane has less influence within her company than her peers who exhibit a more balanced perspective on job responsibilities.

Example 4: Excessive Concern for Operations John has been the manager of the Engineering department for many years. Reminiscent of when the department was much smaller, he still insists on doing a great deal of routine en- gineering work. This preoccupation with operations causes his other influence areas to suffer. He spends too little time planning (management), developing his new employees (leadership), or keeping up with new company policies (administration). John is viewed as an old-fashioned manager who prefers operational activities to more pertinent responsibilities. His influence in the company has diminished over the years.

138

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Conclusion and Recommendations Weak administrative or operational skills can reduce a person’s ability to influence others. Excessive time spent in either of these areas can also have a detrimental effect on the ability to perform well in the other areas. In addition to the traditional management versus leadership comparison, a balance between the administrative and operational areas is needed in order for a person of influence to be most effective.

Strengths in one area of influence may not be able to make up for deficiencies in another. Capowski (1994) claimed that vision without structure (leadership without management) is likely to result in chaos, while structure without vision (management without leadership) will result in complacency. The introduction of administration and operations creates addi- tional considerations. Structure and vision without knowledge of policies (administration) may result in oversights. Structure and vision without accomplishment (operations) may result in decreased competitiveness.

The need to clarify the different types of influence factors is becoming more apparent. Misunderstanding between the concept of management and leadership may cause organiza- tions to face difficulties in efforts to develop the right talent for the right job (Toor & Ofori, 2008; Zaleznik, 1977). Making these types of staffing decisions without proper regard for administrative and operational concerns could be just as harmful. One solution to this problem lies in developing more inclusive leadership pedagogy.

This paper is a pilot study, an invitation for instructors and scholars of leadership to con- sider expanding the two-factor model to include administration and operations. Discussing the skills and behaviors of these two additional concepts can improve leadership pedagogy. Future leadership students and the organizations they influence may benefit from the efforts of such expansion.

References Answers.com. (2010). “Dictionary: administration” Viewed on May 14, 2010 on http://answers.com/top-

ic/administration. Bacon, T., & Struggles, H. (2004). Developing Better Asset Management Leadership. Duango, CO:

International Institute. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, 3rd ed. New York, Free Press. Bateman, T. S. & Snell, S. A. (1999).Management: Building Competitive Advantage, 4th ed. London:

McGraw-Hill. Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harpers

& Row. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations, New York: Sage. Capowski, G. (1994). Anatomy of a leader: Where are the leaders of tomorrow?Management Review,

83(3), 10-14. Carlisle, H. M. (1976).Management: Concepts and Situations. Chicago: Science Research Associates,

Inc. Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1960). Group dynamics research and theory. Evanston, IL: Row,

Peterson.

139

DEAN PORR

Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2004) The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 771-799.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1992). Perceived behavioral attributes of charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24(1), 86-102.

Doh, J. P. (2003). Can leadership be taught? Perspectives from management educators. Academy of. Management Learning and Education. 2(1), 54-67.

Eden, D., & Levitan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure un- derlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60, 736-741.

Fagiano, D. (1997) Managers vs. leaders: A corporate fable. Management Review. 86(10), 5-9. Fayol, H. (1916). General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman. Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1-6. Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2001). Total Quality Handbook. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Gordon, A. & Yukl, G. (2004). The future of leadership research: Challenges and opportunities.German

Journal of Human Resource Research. 18, 359-365. Griffin, R. W. (1984) Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M.

Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (39-51). Columbus Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hay, A., & Hodginson, M. (2006). Rethinking leadership: A way forward for teaching leadership? Leadership and Organizational Development. 27(2), 144-158.

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (6-38). Columbus Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hickman, C. F. (1990). Mind of a manager, soul of a leader. New York: John Wiley. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1951). Human organization and worker motivation. In L. R. Tripp (Ed.), In-

dustrial Productivity. 146-171. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association. Kotter, J. P. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York: Free

Press. Kotter, J. P. (1999). John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press Books. Kotter, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: What’s the difference? The Journal for Quality &

Participation. Summer, 2006, 13-17. Kouzes, J. M.,& Posner, B. N. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things

done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Likert, R. (1961). New pattern of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mangham, I. & Pye, A. (1991). The Doing of Managing. Oxford: Blackwell. Millett, J. D. (1967). Enterprise – Operations and Administration: Some notes on a systematic theory

of organized endeavor. Public Administration Review, December 1967. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row. Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-

tions. Perloff, R. (2004).Managing and Leading: The Universal Importance of, and Differentiation between,

Two Essential Functions. Talk presented at Oxford University, July 14-15. Plachy, R. J. (2009). When to lead? When to manage? T+D , 63(12), 52-55. Rausch, C. F., & Behling, O. (1984). Functionalism: Basis for an alternate approach to the study of

leadership. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavioral and leadership. 45-62. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Robbins, S. R., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management, 10th ed., New Jersey, Pearson Prentice-Hall. Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Praeger.

140

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Russell, R. S. & Taylor, B. W. (2007). Operations management: Creating value along the supply chain, 6 th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sanborn, M. (1996). Are you a leader or a manager? American Agent and Broker, 68(12), 43-47. Stogdill, R. M. (1963).Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire form XII. Columbus:

Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. Taffinder, P. (2001). The leadership crash course: A 6 step fast-track self-development program.

London: Kogan Page Ltd. Terry, R. W. (1993). Authentic Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2008). Leadership versus management: How they are different, and why.

Leadership and Management in Engineering. 8(2), 61-71. Watson, C. M. (1983). Leadership, management and the seven keys. TheMcKinsey Quarterly, Autumn,

1983, 44-52. Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 33-48. Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. A. (2004). Tridimensional leadership theory: A road-map for flexible, adaptive leaders. In

Burke, R. J., and Cooper, C. (Eds.) Leading in Turbulent Times. Blackwell, Oxford, 75-91. Zaccaro, S. J. & Horn, Z. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective symbiosis.

Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 769-806. Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67-

78.

About the Author Dr. Dean Porr I joined Kent State University 5 years ago after spending 30 years in industry and receiving my Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership. My work experiences were quite broad, involving 8 organizations in numerous locations in the United States, Canada, and England. I teach various undergraduate management courses at a regional campus. My students are non-tra- ditional; many work full-time and represent the first generation in their family to attend college. I have established a local Community Leadership Program and provide leadership instruction to civic organizations. My research interests include various leadership projects and instructional areas that I believe will help my students. I am currently involved in creating a hybrid course delivery system that offers certain benefits over either traditional or on-line courses for regional campus students.

141

DEAN PORR

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.