Leadership and Management

I N M Y V I E W . . . 0 M MY V D E O 0 O

Personal perspectives to stimulate thinking, change,...and even controversy

Leadership Versus Management: What's the Difference? James Kotterman

Is there a real difference between leadership and management,

or are they just different styles?

Whereas leaders are seen as charismatic and often are admired and held in high esteem, managers frequently are thought of as the organization's taskmasters with a whip in one hand and a bullhorn for screaming out orders in the other hand. Is there really a difference between these two terms, or are the perceived differences simply a matter of style? Even if there is a difference, does that difference truly affect the day-to-day workplace?

Is it important to differentiate between leadership and management? Many people think it is, as evidenced by academic debates and Internet searches. Virtually all organizations, including large corporations, military branches, government agencies, and academia, as well as MBA programs, organizational development consul- tants, industrial psychologists, leadership theorists, and human resources professionals are concerned about the difference and believe it is important. This article discusses research on how leadership and management differ, how they are the same, and why those differences and similarities are important in the workplace.

Measuremerat Framework Conceptualizing and defining leadership and man-

agement have always been difficult. The two terms often are used interchangeably in the workplace, creating confusion. Many leadership theorists have noted that there are nearly as many definitions for leadership as attempts to characterize it (Bass, 1990; Kotter, 1990, 1999; Terry, 1993; Zaleznik, 1998).

In order to make useful comparisons, a reliable measurement system is necessary. In this case, which was associated with a dissertation program, the origi- nal intention was to correlate workplace leadership performance with leaders' personality traits. It quickly became apparent that research on leadership and management performance was fraught with problems. Ultimately, it was determined that measurement should be in terms of effectiveness, as rated by sub- ordinates. This decision was based on historical empirical research that indicated subordinates often were identified as the determinant success factor in leadership and management success (Bass, 1990; Eden and Leviatan, 1975; Gordon and Yukl, 2004; Yukl,

1989; Zaccaro and Horn, 2003), so this measurement approach seemed reasonable.

Historical Perspective Management is a fairly new phenomenon. The

emergence of large, complex organizations in the last century generated the need for a system to regulate work and deal with authority and control issues. This resulted in the modern workplace manager who was expected to reduce the internal chaos of those more complicated organizations. Managers brought order and consistency to the multitude of workplace processes. Since that time, the duties of workplace management and its associated processes have been researched, refined, and improved significantly in the past century (Kotter, 1990, 1995).

On the other hand, leadership is one of the world's oldest preoccupations, serving as both a hot topic and an important driver of innovation for thousands of years (Bass, 1990). Effective leadership remains one of the most misunderstood human phenomenons and comprises one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition (Wren, 1995).

Why do the experts believe it is important to differentiate between leadership and management? Fundamentally, ifyou can't define leadership or man- agement, you can't measure, test, make assessments, or consistently hire or promote for them. Yet, they are both important to a successful workplace. The ongoing debate as to whether or not a clear distinction exists between leadership and management generally remains unresolved (Gardner, 1990; Gordon and Yukl, 2004).

Research Barriers Theories of workplace leadership and management

continue to emerge and be refined, but lack of a parsi- monious taxonomy and a unifying theory of leadership have made progress slow and fraught with conflicting empirical results (Gordon and Yukl, 2004; Humphreys and Einstein, 2004; Yukl, Gordon, and Tabor, 2002). Transformational leadership, as originally theorized by James McGregor Burns (Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978/1995) and later researched by Bass (1990), has become increasingly popular; however, it has not achieved the status of a unified leadership theory (Stone, Russell, and Patterson, 2004). When leadership is researched.

www.asq.org 13

therefore, the definition or construct theory used to define its characteristics varies significantly for each study and can make a huge difference in the results. Fortunately, however, some commonality about the aggregate functions of leadership and management are beginning to emerge.

Another barrier in leadership and management research is the fundamental disparities between academic research and empirical research. Academic research, which is also called basic, fundamental, or pure research, focuses on the advancement of knowledge and the theoretical understanding of the relations among variables. It attempts to structure and identify new problems or develop new solutions to problems. Empirical or applied research, however, bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality, evaluating the feasibility of an existing solution to a problem (Wikpedia, 2006).

Two ofthe reasons for this disparity are differences between the research methodologies and theory constructs used. Additionally, there may be a lack of research rigor on the part of practitioners, a lack of empirical rigor on the part of academics, and differ- ences in the research goals (Gordon and Yukl, 2004). Unfortunately, a diverse array of conceptualizations and understandings concerning management and lead- ership exist within academia, empirical research, and in the workplace; thus, it has been very difficult to add collectively to the overall knowledge on this subject.

A review of leadership and management performance literature reveals a wide array of definitions, usages, and results. Although most leadership theorists believe there are distinct differences, the two terms are so often used interchangeably in the workplace that the differences become blurred (Kotter, 1990, 1999; Terry, 1993; Zaleznik, 1998). Participants in research studies have shown many inconsistencies concerning work- place leadership and management understanding. It is common to hear leadership terms co-mingled with workplace management terms and frequently in a manner that contradicts the way researchers use them (Bass, 1990; Gardner, 1990, 1995).

Bass (1990) believes that the legitimacy of a leader depends upon the acceptance of his/her subordinates. Eden and Levitan (1975) concluded that leadership is in the mind ofthe follower. Yukl (1989) points out that leadership is very often defined in ways that include fol- lowers' perceptions. Since workplace subordinates play such an important role in the leadership/management

equation, their understanding of these terms and their conceptualization of leadership and management is vitally important to research outcomes.

Contemporary research literature does little to clar- ify what criteria subordinates use to rate their leaders' performance. Research suggests followers may rate superiors based on one or more leadership attributes or on perceived management ability. Additionally, ratings may result from just one or more salient situations, the supervisor's outward behavior, his or her personality traits, or some uniquely subjective combination (Bass, 1990; Lord, 2000; Yukl et al., 2002). To understand and define leadership and management from the perspective of subordinates, it is, therefore, important to conduct further research using better definitions, constructs, controls, and preparation of participants (Barbuto, 2000; Yukl and Falbe, 1993).

All this confusion of terms undoubtedly has created a significant level of factor confounding, which has cer- tainly reduced the accuracy and precision of leadership and management research (Gordon and Yukl, 2004; Zaccaro and Horn, 2003). Researchers hypothesize that if effective workplace management is some combina- tion of leadership and management, the approach used by effective managers to accomplish objectives may be much different from that of ineffective managers. Both will certainly have profound and important affects on those they manage (Madzar, 2001; Valikangas and Okumura, 1997; Varma, Srinivas and Stroh, 2005).

Research Findings Zaleznik (1998) asserts, as does Kotter (1990), that

although leadership and management may be similar in a few ways, they have many very distinct differences. Both leaders and managers may have involvement in establishing direction, aligning resources, and motivat- ing people. Managers, however, plan and budget while leaders establish direction. Managers have a narrow purpose and try to maintain order, stabilize work, and organize resources. Leaders seek to develop new goals and align organizations (Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik, 1998). Managers control and problem solve while lead- ers motivate and inspire. Finally, managers produce standards, consistency, predictability, and order. Leaders produce the potential for dramatic change, chaos, and even failure (Kotter, 1990).

Gardner (1990) wrote that the term manager often suggests an individual who holds a directive post in an organization, a person who organizes functions, allocates resources, and makes the best use of people.

14 THEJOURNAL FOR QUALITY & PARTICIPATION Summer2006

Figure 1: Comparison of Management and Leadership Process Differences in the Workplace

Process

Vision Establishment

Human Development and Networking

Vision Execution

Vision Outcome

Management

• Plans and budgets • Develops process steps and sets timelines • Displays impersonal attitude about the vision and goals

• Organizes and staffs • Maintains structure • Delegates responsibility • Delegates authority • Implements the vision • Establishes policy and procedures to implement vision • Displays low emotion • Limits employee choices

• Controls processes • Identifies problems • Solves problems • Monitors results • Takes low-risk approach to problem solving

• Manages vision order and predictability

• Provides expected results consistently to leadership

and other stakeholders

Leadership

• Sets the direction and develops the vision • Develops strategic plans to achieve the vision • Displays very passionate attitude about the vision

and goals

• Aligns organization • Communicates the vision, mission, and direction • Influences creation of coalitions, teams, and

partnerships that understand and accept the vision • Displays driven, high emotion • Increases choices

• Motivates and inspires • Energizes employees to overcome barriers to change • Satisfies basic human needs • Takes high-risk approach to problem solving

• Promotes useful and dramatic changes, such as new

products or approaches to improving labor relations

Unfortunately, when compared to a leader, the work- place manager is often generalized as an "unimagina- tive clod." Gardner (1990) noted that every time he had encountered a first-class manager, the manager turned out to possess a lot of leadership ability. The difference was that the manager's focus was different from that of the leader.

For Gardner, the differences between a workplace leader and a workplace manager are not as distinct as they are for Kotter and Zaleznik (Bass, 1990; Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik, 1998). Gardner contrasts between what he calls the leader-manager and the routine manager. The leader-manager is concerned with thinking longer term, developing an organizational vision, reaching longer-term goals and values, and motivating others. The routine manager is more strongly associated with the organizational structure; he/she thinks and acts in the shorter term, accepting and maintaining the status quo (Bass, 1990; Gardner, 1990).

An abundance of taxonomies have been developed to identify and differentiate the role differences between leaders and managers. The conclusion reached by Bass (1990) is that the vast amount of research into leadership versus management indicates that sometimes leaders manage and sometimes managers

lead. The research resulting from diaries, observations, interviews, questionnaires, and surveys suggests that both leadership and management exhibit considerable variation but little co-variation, where the hypothe- sized cause must correlate with the observed effect. In other words, the demands of each vary consider- ably, exhibit some overlap, but they are much more different than they are the same.

Nebeker and Tatum (2002) suggest that manage- ment is continually planning, organizing, supervising, and controlling resources to achieve organizational goals. Planning is associated with providing what the customer wants and developing a way to provide it. Organizing and supervising involves developing an organizational structure, reward systems, and a performance management system. Controlling involves measuring processes and product character- istics, sustaining production processes, reducing variation, providing customer satisfaction, and antici- pating short-term needs. Managers take responsibility for those processes and are constantly seeking to improve them. Leaders, on the other hand, are look- ing into the future from 50,000 feet in anticipation of the organization's global needs and long-term future.

www.asq.org 15

There is obviously more to leadership than man- aging and more to managing than just planning, controlling, and supervising. Leaders and managers may be differentiated by competencies, attitudes, and values, but that's not all. Leaders and managers who occupy the same position in the same organization may differ in the models and techniques they use to perform the requirements of the position and in the styles they use (Bass, 1990). Terry (1993) noted that when voted on at leadership panel discussions, one- third of the group usually voted in favor of distinct differences and two-thirds in favor of an overlap. Terry believes Kotter (1990) persuasively argues for distinct differences, but even Kotter (1990) states that when the two are compared side by side they clearly exhibit many similarities. To this end, Kotter (1990) developed a management versus leadership summary illustrating how leaders and managers differ. Zalesnick (1998) developed a similar list of leader versus manager dif- ferences. Figure 1 presents a blending of how Kotter (1990) and Zalesnick (1998) view leadership versus management functions.

There is a general acceptance that the functions of leaders and managers are conceptually different, but no universal acceptance of what those functional differences are is apparent. Gordon and Yukl (2004) along with Zaccaro and Horn (2003) believe one common misconception that divides academics from practitioners is that workplace leadership and man- agement are mutually exclusive, when, in fact, they are complementary. For his research, Yukl (1989) prefers not to separate management from leadership and uses the term managerial leadership. Kotter (1990, 1995, 1999) and Zalesnick (1998), however, see the two functions as occasionally blended, complementary, but definitely as two different functions. Kotter (1995) sees management as dealing with procedures, practices, and complexity and leadership as dealing with change. In a nutshell, management is tactical and all about coping with the here and now while leadership is strategic and primarily about coping with the future.

Conclusions It is unusual for one person to have the skills to

serve as both an inspiring leader and a professional manager. In large, complex organizations, these two distinct roles are even more difficult to assimilate in one person, and the tendency is to set leadership skills aside in favor of managing the workplace. Too often, senior managers believe they are leading when in fact

they are managing. Kotter (1995) points out that most U.S. corporations are typically over-managed and under-led.

Although organizations must have a mix of leaders and managers to succeed, there is little understanding of differences between the two roles and what is their optimal ratio. Since management and leadership are so misunderstood, most companies believe they need many leaders when in fact what they really need is a few great leaders and many first-class managers.

In reality, managers in most organizations are rarely in a position to lead. Companies often hire expensive leadership consultants to teach leadership development classes and develop leadership assessments. When the newly trained leaders attempt to lead, they quickly discover they aren't allowed to do so; they actually are expected to manage. This creates frustration, apathy, and discontent.

In fact, as the old saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth. In the case of modern organizations, too many leaders will spoil their effectiveness. Multiple leaders with different visions not only can confuse but also can decrease subordinates' motivation. Additionally, if everyone is focused on leading, then no one is managing the processes or doing the work.

This does not mean that managers cannot demon- strate leadership qualities. Managers may lead by example or lead a project or team, but they still end up performing the functions of management. Successful management is a really tough, challenging, and very important job. It should be given its due respect.

Real leadership is tough, too, but it should not be confused with management. Agreeing to a relatively simple taxonomy of what a leader is and what a manager does may save corporations some resources, improve both leadership and management perfor- mance, and help academics and practitioners come to a consensuses that could benefit everyone.

In the final analysis, it appears that the debate will continue in academic circles, corporations will continue to ask for leaders but need managers, and consultants will continue to supply leadership devel- opment and assessment.

For practical purposes in the workplace, managers supervise nearly everything. Rarely will a plant manager, production manager, quality manager, or training man- ager actually lead. He/she will manage the processes and the people to produce the status quo or an improved version of the status quo. That, however, is a good

16 THE JOURNAL FOR QUALITY & PARTICIPATION Summer 2006

thing because the status quo is what companies make and what they sell. A deviation from the status quo is usually called nonconforming material; it can produce unhappy customers and create lost revenue.

On the other hand, virtually every employee has the opportunity to show leadership at some point. When given the opportunity to lead, it is essential to lead well. Understanding the differences between leadership and management can ensure that employees know when and how to apply each set of characteristics for given processes.

References J.E. Barbuto Jr., "Influence Triggers: A Framework for Under- standing Follower Compliance," Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11, 2000, pp. 365-387. Retrieved January 5, 2002, from Academic Search Elite database.

B. M. Bass, Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, (3rd Ed.), Free Press, 1990.

J.M. Burns, "The Crisis of Leadership," in J. T. Wren (Ed.), The Leader's Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages, Free Press, 1978/1995, pp. 8-10.

D. Eden and U. Levitan, "Implicit Leadership Theory as a Determinant of the Factor Structure Underlying Supervisory Behavior Scales," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, 1975, pp. 736-741. Retrieved August 17, 2004, from ProQuest database.

J.W. Gardner, On Leadership, The Free Press, 1990.

J.W, Gardner, "Leaders and Followers," in J. T. Wren (Ed.), The Leader's Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages, The Free Press, 1995, pp. 185-192.

A. Gordon and G. Yukl, "The Future of Leadership Research: Challenges and Opportunities," German Journal of Human Resource Research, Vol. 18, 2004, pp. 359-365. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from ProQuest database.

J. H. Humphreys and W.O. Einstein, "Leadership and Tempera- ment Congruence: Extending the Expectancy Model of Work Motivation," yo«rnd/ of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 10, 2004, pp. 58-79. Retrieved July 27, 2005, from ProQuest database.

J.P. Kotter, Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management, The Free Press, 1990.

J. P. Kotter, "What Leaders Really Do," In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The Leaders Companion, The Free Press, 1995, pp. 114-123.

J.P. Kotter, "John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do," Harvard Business Review, 1999.

R.G. Lord, "Thinking Outside the Box by Looking Inside the Box: Extending the Cognitive Revolution in Leadership Theory," Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11, 2000, pp. 551-579. Retrieved January 5, 2002, from Academic Search Elite database.

S. Madzar, "Subordinates' Information Inquiry: Exploring the Effect of Perceived Leadership Style and Individual Differences," Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, 2001, pp. 221-232. Retrieved January 29, 2002, from Academic Search Elite database.

D. M. Nebecker and B.C. Tatum, "Understanding Organizational Processes and Performance," In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Consulting Psychology, Jossey-Bass, 2002, pp. 668-691.

A.G. Stone, R.F. Russell, and K. Patterson, "Transformational Versus Servant Leadership: A Difference in Leader Focus," Leadership & Organizational Development, Vol. 25, 2004, pp. 349-361.

R.W. Terry, Authentic Leadership, }ossey-Bass Publishers, 1993.

L. Valikangas and A. Okumura, "Why do People Follow Leaders? A Study of a U.S. and Japanese Exchange Program," Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8, 1997, pp. 313-337. Retrieved December 29, 2001, from Academic Search Elite database.

A. Varma, E.S. Srinivas, and L.K. Stroh, "A Comparative Study of the Impact of Leader-Member Exchange in U.S. and Indian Samples," Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 12, 2005, pp. 84-95. Retrieved July 16, 2005, from ProQuest database.

Wikpedia, "Research," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research. Updated May 31, 2006.

J.T. Wren, Preface. J. T. Wren (Ed.), The Leader's Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages, The Free Press, 1995, pp. ix-xii.

G. Yukl, "Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research," Journal of Management, Vol. 15, 1989, pp. 254-289. Retrieved August 12, 2005, from ProQuest database.

G. Yukl, A. Gordon, and T. Taber, "A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behavior: Integrating a Half Century of Behavior Research,"/o«ntd/ of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9, 2002, pp. 15-32. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from ProQuest database.

G. Yukl and CM. Falbe, "Patterns of Influence Behavior for Managers," Group and Organizational Management, Vol. 18, 1993, pp. 5-29. Retrieved February 11, 2002, from Academic Search Elite database.

S.J. Zaccaro and Z.N.J. Horn, "Leadership Theory and Practice: Fostering an Effective Symbiosis," Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, 2003, pp. 769-806. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from PsycINFO database.

A. Zaleznik, "Managers and Leaders: Are They DifFerent?" Harvard Business Review on Leadership, Harvard Business School Press, 1988.

James Kotterman has worked in domestic and interna-

tional locations for Harborquest, Inc., International Truck

and Engine Corporation, ARAMCO, and Dow Chemical.

He investigated the similarities and differences between

leadership and management as part of his doctorate in

industrial and organizational psycholop from Capella

University. He can be reached via e-mail [email protected]

www.asq.org 17