Role differences between managers and leaders

Leadership vs. Management: Impact on Education

What makes it important to differentiate between a manager and a leader?

There are a large number of articles, symposia and even web logs which refer to the differences. In this paper, I will attempt to differentiate between the two and beyond the elements of simple definition. Additionally, I will evaluate the importance of management vs. leadership as it applied to the business aspects of education.

No matter the organization, be it large corporations, the military or in the field of education there is debate on leadership and management. Further subtopics evaluate types of leadership and management style as well as the competencies of managers/leaders and development of style based on work environment. There is a school of thought who encourages the tailoring of leadership or management style to individual work and personality styles. The scope of this discussion is outside the bounds of this paper. This information is only provided to describe the importance of this subject in public debate, and the need for an understanding of the simplest elements. Perhaps we may find that leadership and management cannot be separated into separate entities, but instead represent two elements of factors practiced by efficient managers.

The philosophy of management started in the mid-20th century. As corporations and companies began to grow, there was a need for a regulatory system of control for the new departments required by technological and human resource issues. Managers were developed in an attempt to exert authority over the workers as well as streamline complicated systems within organizations. From that time until now, workplace management has continued to re-invent itself (Kotter, 1990, 1995). Essentially, managers were placed in positions of power over individuals, primarily due to time in position or as a default.

Leadership is considered by many to be a characteristic asset. Individuals, even those who function as managers and are characterized as leaders, are perceived in a more positive light, since by definition leadership implies followers. In most literature, leadership is defined as a possible characteristic of the manager - an attribute. Leadership may not be an innate quality. Jones and Goffee (2000) identified 4 qualities which appeared to be innate to effective leaders.

They identify these as 1) the ability to selectively reveal weakness; 2) heavy reliance on intuition to gauge timing and course of action; 3) leadership with "tough empathy," giving people what they need and not what they want; and 4) the ability to capitalize on differences and use unique personal qualities to create social difference. Leaders are able to balance the personal needs of subordinates to the needs of the mission. Leaders are also comfortable enough to allow subordinates to excel, seeing this as a positive reflection on themselves rather than a competition. A manager may engender respect from a subordinate, but leaders are agents of change who serve to work to improve the status of the organization, either through personal successes or the work of subordinates.

Within the educational setting, managers are generally trained to control centralized tasks essentially resulting in a stove piping effect to higher echelons of command and control. With the shift toward performance based accountability makes educators used scientifically-based data to manage programs, not only within the learning setting but also in the management of the program. Some educators turn from the idea of "school as business," but schools are already run as such when one considers the interaction schools must make with transportation providers, construction projects, and initiation of technology upgrades. This represents a change from the status quo. Does it also indicate that we need to train our educators as leaders? If one believes that the educational system must be run as efficiently as any large organization with outcome measures, then the answer is yes.

Education leaders note barriers to effective leadership with are unique to the educational setting. Politics and bureaucracy, fear of litigation, teacher unions and school boards are all noted by superintendents and principals as elements which hamper organizational excellence (Finn, 2002). In the same survey, leaders also noted a lack of freedom to accomplish managerial tasks, like hiring and firing or even rewarding outstanding performers. A review of job descriptions posted for superintendent and principal jobs across the United States demonstrates the wide variety of skill required for these positions. Samplings of descriptions include "experience as a principal"; "earned doctorate from an accredited institution"; there also exist a long list of complex organization and managerial tasks which accompany these basic requirements. As a result, the number of individuals completing Ed D. degrees has increased significantly. Research completed in 2007 (Baker, Orr and Young, 2007) reported the number of programs offering educational leadership doctoral programs increased by 48% between 1993 and 2003.

How should leadership preparation be managed? Bottoms and O'Neill (2001) reported that leaders should be evaluated primarily by impact on student achievement.

Proponents of standardized testing would seem to agree. A review of the literature on the connection between leadership practices and school conditions (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004) showed a higher rate of teacher satisfaction in schools which had adopted policies meant to improve school leadership via leadership preparation standards. The No Child Left behind Act (NCLB) calls for the placement of highly effective principals in high poverty rate schools, with effectiveness rated by means of principals meeting state leadership preparation requirements.

Teacher satisfaction also serves as a good indicator of leadership effectiveness, within the constraints of the leader's power. Teacher job satisfaction and the degree to which teachers are engaged with students are important quality indicators, and noted by Bossert, Dwyer et. Al (1982) as predictors of both organizational commitment and teacher retention, as well as more positive student outcomes. Teacher well being, as it relates to the work environment, is impacted significantly by job satisfaction or conversely, burnout. Teacher empowerment, or the perception of empowerment, is also positively associated with improved job satisfaction and student achievement, and are directly related to distributed leadership as well as leadership effectiveness.