Leaders and Managers the Points

Leaders and Managers

The points of differentiation between leaders and managers have been debated for decades. Zaleznik (1977) argued that the main difference was that managers were focused on rationality and control, with a strong orientation towards goals, resources and structures. Leaders, by contrast, focus their energies towards inspiration and motivation. Zaleznik notes that without leadership, managers may not achieve desired results, and instead may perpetuate group conflicts by virtue of their emphasis on structures and resource deployment. These definitions may be diametrically opposite each other, yet it seems reasonable that leadership and management lie on opposite ends of the same continuum. They both have roughly the same objectives, but the degree to which their methods depend on inspiration and motivation or on the implementation of structure and control will determine whether they are viewed as a manager or as a leader. It is also considering that the business environment has changed significantly since this debate was initiated, resulting in a re-framing of the argument towards this continuum perspective.

Gary Yukl (2001) took this continuum perspective and applied to it a number of different dimensions: leader vs. follower-centered approaches; descriptive vs. prescriptive; and universal vs. contingency. The executives, managers and board members each fall at a specific place on the continuum. The continuum has been explained most effectively by contingency theory. The ideal form of leadership -- that is to say the ideal place on the continuum -- is dependent on the situation facing the leader. Earlier ideas about leadership held that individual leaders do not change their style of leadership, however, which contrasts with contingency theory. This can be reconciled by considering that even when leaders do not change their style, the organization can change its leaders. Contingency theory relates to leadership effectiveness, indicating that an organization's choice of leader is important when leaders cannot adapt. Some leaders, however, have proven able to adapt, such as visionary entrepreneurs who went on to lead their firms through years of stability that called for a more transactional style, for example Bill Gates or Fred Smith.

Contingency theory therefore does not distinguish between leadership and management. Orthodox management roles such as planning, directing and evaluating are combined with elements of motivation and inspiration where needed (Fielder, 2006). The function of motivation has become systemic in itself, as managers calculate the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards needed to orient the behaviors of their workforce towards specific goals.

When leaders and managers are viewed to be on the same continuum, the question is raised as to how a manager can move along the continuum towards an increased level of leadership, or vice versa. When a clean split is determined between management and leadership, it typically flows along the lines of management being scientific and leadership being psychological. That modern leadership study has moved towards the continuum view is a reflection of the fact that psychology itself is scientific. The concepts of leadership -- charisma for example -- become subject to academic study and analysis. This ultimately produces insight into particular leadership types and understanding of the nature of those types (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). Managers, therefore, can become leaders by adopting more of the traits of leaders.

Any split that remains between management and leadership therefore rests on the assumption that some of the traits associated with leadership are not imitable. The manager cannot move along the continuum beyond a certain point. Likewise, a leader may not be able to move fully to the realm of scientific management either, if he or she cannot develop the necessary skill set. Charisma remains as yet unquantified.

A manager is by definition a leader. Both roles bear the same basic function with regards to marshalling resources towards specific objectives. The continuum reflects only the approach that the manager/leader takes towards this task. The orthodox view of the manager derives from the core managerial functions of the early 20th century as identified by Taylor and Fayol. Leadership at the time was largely viewed as a separate matter. In practice, however, the two have come together over time. Increasing levels of competition have demanded that leaders learn some of the functions of managers and vice versa. It is through this progression that we have come to understand the two as being opposite sides of the same continuum. A manager of even a small group of people within a large organization can act as a leader. A leader of even the largest organization must act as a manager, identifying those who must be in charge of marshalling the resources -- those in charge are themselves resources being marshaled.