Management Vs Leadership Session 2 Sem1 Assignment

Management Vs Leadership
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT VS LEADERSHIP:..........................................................................................................................2
MANAGEMENT :...............................................................................................................................................................2
Historical development...........................................................................................................................................2
19th century............................................................................................................................................................3
20th century............................................................................................................................................................3
21st century.............................................................................................................................................................5
Nature of managerial work....................................................................................................................................6
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS:...............................................................................................................................................7
Levels of Management :..........................................................................................................................................7
BASIC ELEMENTS OF MANAGEMENT......................................................................................................................................8
IF I AM A MANAGER, HOW CAN I MANAGE THE THINGS IN AN ORGANIZATION:........................................................................10
Different Theories of Management:......................................................................................................................11
LEADERSHIP :............................................................................................................................................................12
TYPES OF LEADERSHIP.....................................................................................................................................................13
Role of Leadership in an Organization :..............................................................................................................13
Leadership cycles :...............................................................................................................................................14
What makes Effective Leadership :......................................................................................................................15
Suggested qualities of leadership.........................................................................................................................16
Leadership "styles" (per House and Podsakoff)...................................................................................................19
Leadership and vision...........................................................................................................................................21
Leadership's relation with management...............................................................................................................22
Leadership by a group..........................................................................................................................................25
Co-leadership......................................................................................................................................................26
Divided leadership................................................................................................................................................26
HISTORICAL VIEWS ON LEADERSHIP..................................................................................................................................27
Leadership development.......................................................................................................................................28
Principles of Leadership (Be, Know, Do) :...........................................................................................................28
Factors Affecting Leadership : ............................................................................................................................29
LEADERSHIP MODELS.....................................................................................................................................................30
Four Framework Approach
..............................................................................................................................................................................31
Managerial Grid...................................................................................................................................................32
THE PROCESS OF GREAT LEADERSHIP...............................................................................................................................35
LEADERSHIP VS MANAGEMENT :.......................................................................................................................35
MANAGERS HAVE SUBORDINATES.......................................................................................................................................35
Authoritarian, transactional style.........................................................................................................................35
Work focus............................................................................................................................................................36
Seek comfort.........................................................................................................................................................36
LEADERS HAVE FOLLOWERS..............................................................................................................................................36
Charismatic, transformational style.....................................................................................................................36
People focus..........................................................................................................................................................37
Seek risk................................................................................................................................................................37
IN SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................................37
Why do we differentiate leadership from management?.......................................................................................41
Group C Assignment 1
Management Vs Leadership:
As far as the management is concerned, it has to do with the power by position where as leadership
involves power by influence. So we would discuss accordingly what are the similarities and differences
between them.
Management :
The verb manage comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle — especially a horse), which in turn
derives from the Latin manus (hand). The French word mesnagement (later ménagement) influenced the
development in meaning of the English word management in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Management comprises of directing and controlling a group of one or more people or entities for the
purpose of coordinating and harmonizing them towards accomplishing a goal. Management often
encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological
resources, and natural resources. Management can also refer to the person or people who perform the
act(s) of management.
Historical development
Difficulties arise in tracing the history of management. Some see it (by definition) as a late modern (in the
sense of late modernity) conceptualization. On those terms it cannot have a pre-modern history, only
harbingers (such as stewards). Others, however, detect management-like activities in the pre-modern
past. Some writers [Who?]
trace the development of management-thought back to Sumerian traders and to
the builders of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. Slave-owners through the centuries faced the problems of
exploiting/motivating a dependent but sometimes unenthusiastic or recalcitrant workforce, but many
pre-industrial enterprises, given their small scale, did not feel compelled to face the issues of
management systematically. However, innovations such as the spread of Hindu-Arabic numerals (5th to
15th centuries) and the codification of double-entry book-keeping (1494) provided tools for management
assessment, planning and control.
Given the scale of most commercial operations and the lack of mechanized record-keeping and recording
before the industrial revolution, it made sense for most owners of enterprises in those times to carry out
management functions by and for themselves. But with growing size and complexity of organizations,
the split between owners (individuals, industrial dynasties or groups of shareholders) and day-to-day
managers (independent specialists in planning and control) gradually became more common.
19th century
Some argue [citation needed] that modern management as a discipline began as an off-shoot of economics in the
19th century. Classical economists such as Adam Smith (1723 - 1790) and John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
provided a theoretical background to resource-allocation, production, and pricing issues. About the
same time, innovators like Eli Whitney (1765 - 1825), James Watt (1736 - 1819), and Matthew Boulton
(1728 - 1809) developed elements of technical production such as standardization, quality-control
procedures, cost-accounting, interchangeability of parts, and work-planning. Many of these aspects of
management existed in the pre-1861 slave-based sector of the US economy. That environment saw 4
million people, as the contemporary usages had it, "managed" in profitable quasi-mass production.
By the late 19th century, marginal economists Alfred Marshall (1842 - 1924) and Léon Walras (1834 -
1910) and others introduced a new layer of complexity to the theoretical underpinnings of management.
Joseph Wharton offered the first tertiary-level course in management in 1881.
20th century
By about 1900 one finds managers trying to place their theories on what they regarded as a thoroughly
scientific basis (see scientism for perceived limitations of this belief). Examples include Henry R. Towne's
Science of management in the 1890s, Frederick Winslow Taylor's Scientific management (1911), Frank and
Lillian Gilbreth's Applied motion study (1917), and Henry L. Gantt's charts (1910s). J. Duncan wrote the
first college management textbook in 1911. In 1912 Yoichi Ueno introduced Taylorism to Japan and
became first management consultant of the "Japanese-management style". His son Ichiro Ueno pioneered
Japanese quality-assurance.
The first comprehensive theories of management appeared around 1920. The Harvard Business School
invented the Master of Business Administration degree (MBA) in 1921. People like Henri Fayol (1841 -
1925) and Alexander Church described the various branches of management and their inter-
relationships. In the early 20th century, people like Ordway Tead (1891 - 1973), Walter Scott and J.
Mooney applied the principles of psychology to management, while other writers, such as Elton Mayo
(1880 - 1949), Mary Parker Follett (1868 - 1933), Chester Barnard (1886 - 1961), Max Weber (1864 - 1920),
Rensis Likert (1903 - 1981), and Chris Argyris (1923 - ) approached the phenomenon of management
from a sociological perspective.
Peter Drucker (1909 – 2005) wrote one of the earliest books on applied management: Concept of the
Corporation (published in 1946). It resulted from Alfred Sloan (chairman of General Motors until 1956)
commissioning a study of the organisation. Drucker went on to write 39 books, many in the same vein.
H. Dodge, Ronald Fisher (1890 - 1962), and Thornton C. Fry introduced statistical techniques into
management-studies. In the 1940s, Patrick Blackett combined these statistical theories with
microeconomic theory and gave birth to the science of operations research. Operations research,
sometimes known as "management science" (but distinct from Taylor's scientific management), attempts
to take a scientific approach to solving management problems, particularly in the areas of logistics and
operations.
Some of the more recent developments include the Theory of Constraints, management by objectives,
reengineering, and various information-technology-driven theories such as agile software development,

as well as group management theories such as Cog's Ladder.
As the general recognition of managers as a class solidified during the 20th century and gave perceived
practitioners of the art/science of management a certain amount of prestige, so the way opened for
popularised systems of management ideas to peddle their wares. In this context many management fads
may have had more to do with pop psychology than with scientific theories of management.
Towards the end of the 20th century, business management came to consist of six separate branches,
namely:
• Human resource management

• Operations management or production management
• Strategic management
• Marketing management
• Financial management
• Information technology management responsible for management information systems
21st century
In the 21st century observers find it increasingly difficult to subdivide management into functional
categories in this way. More and more processes simultaneously involve several categories. Instead, one
tends to think in terms of the various processes, tasks, and objects subject to management.
Branches of management theory also exist relating to nonprofits and to government: such as public
administration, public management, and educational management. Further, management programs
related to civil-society organizations have also spawned programs in nonprofit management and social
entrepreneurship.
Note that many of the assumptions made by management have come under attack from business ethics
viewpoints, critical management studies, and anti-corporate activism.
As one consequence, workplace democracy has become both more common, and more advocated, in
some places distributing all management functions among the workers, each of whom takes on a portion
of the work. However, these models predate any current political issue, and may occur more naturally
than does a command hierarchy. All management to some degree embraces democratic principles in that
in the long term workers must give majority support to management; otherwise they leave to find other
work, or go on strike. Hence management has started to become less based on the conceptualisation of
classical military command-and-control, and more about facilitation and support of collaborative activity,
utilizing principles such as those of human interaction management to deal with the complexities of
human interaction. Indeed, the concept of Ubiquitous command-and-control posits such a
transformation for 21st century military management.
Nature of managerial work
In for-profit work, management has as its primary function the satisfaction of a range of stakeholders.
This typically involves making a profit (for the shareholders), creating valued products at a reasonable
cost (for customers), and providing rewarding employment opportunities (for employees). In nonprofit
management, add the importance of keeping the faith of donors. In most models of
management/governance, shareholders vote for the board of directors, and the board then hires senior
management. Some organizations have experimented with other methods (such as employee-voting
models) of selecting or reviewing managers; but this occurs only very rarely.
In the public sector of countries constituted as representative democracies, voters elect politicians to
public office. Such politicians hire many managers and administrators, and in some countries like the
United States political appointees lose their jobs on the election of a new president/governor/mayor.
Some 2500 people serve at the pleasure of the United States Chief Executive, including all of the top US
government executives.
Public, private, and voluntary sectors place different demands on managers, but all must retain the faith
of those who select them (if they wish to retain their jobs), retain the faith of those people that fund the
organization, and retain the faith of those who work for the organization. If they fail to convince
employees of the advantages of staying rather than leaving, they may tip the organization into a
downward spiral of hiring, training, firing, and recruiting. Management also has the task of innovating
and of improving the functioning of organizations.
Management Functions:
Levels of Management :
In management, it has three basic levels
• Top-level Management
• Middle-level Management
• Lower level Management
Top-level management
• Top-level managers require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills.

• They have to be very aware of external factors such as markets.
• Their decisions are generally of a long-term nature.
• They are responsible for strategic decisions.
• They have to chalk out the plan and see that plan may be effective in future
Middle management
• Mid-level managers have a specialised understanding of certain managerial tasks.

• They are responsible for and carrying out the decisions made by top-level management.
• They are responsible for tactical decisions
Lower management
• This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans taken by the other two are carried out.
• Lower-level managers' decisions are generally short-term ones.
Basic elements of management
Management operates through various functions, often classified as planning, organizing,

leading/motivating and controlling.
• Planning:
deciding what needs to happen in the future (today, next week, next month, next year, over the next five
years, etc.) and generating plans for action.
Planning is the first tool of the four functions in the management process. The difference between a
successful and unsuccessful manager lies within the planning procedure. Planning is the logical thinking
through goals and making the decision as to what needs to be accomplished in order to reach the
organizations’ objectives. Managers use this process to plan for the future, like a blueprint to foresee
problems, decide on the actions to evade difficult issues and to beat the competition. (Bateman, Snell,
2007). Planning is the first step in management and is essential as it facilitates control, valuable in
decision making and in the avoidance of business ruin.
Wyeth has a global vision to lead the way to better health. Employees at Wyeth are committed to
excellence and through Wyeth’ s clearly written Mission and Vision Statement, Wyeth must live by its
values which clarify the company’s objectives and goals. Quality in the results that are achieved and how
the results are reached doing what is right, respect for others, value those that lead and take pride in all
they do, and the value of teamwork to reach common goals. The continuous use of a plan is imperative
as Wyeth has divisions throughout the world. Planning allows Wyeth to be at the top of the
pharmaceutical industry and a healthcare leader.
• Organizing:
making optimum use of the resources required to enable the successful carrying out of plans.
In order to reach the objective outlined in the planning process, structuring the work of the organization
is a vital concern. Organization is a matter of appointing individuals to assignments or responsibilities

that blend together to develop one purpose, to accomplish the goals. These goals will be reached in
accordance with the company’s values and procedures. A manager must know their subordinates and
what they are capable of in order to organize the most valuable resources a company has, its
employees.This is achieved through management staffing the work division, setting up the training for
the employees, acquiring resources, and organizing the work group into a productive team. The
manager must then go over the plans with the team, break the assignments into units that one person
can complete, link related jobs together in an understandable well-organized style and appoint the jobs
to individuals.
Organization is strong at Wyeth with the ability to be flexible, except change and search for new
products, Wyeth’ s leadership provides needed direction for staff to achieve personal success that leads
to organizational success. Managers at Wyeth are responsible for keeping communication lines open
between departments to eliminate any issues from forming. Wyeth would not be a healthcare leader if
there was little or no organization.
• Leading/Motivating:
exhibiting skills in these areas for getting others to play an effective part in achieving plans.
Organizational success is determined by the quality of leadership that is exhibited. "A leader can be a
manager, but a manager is not necessarily a leader," says Gemmy Allen (1998). Leadership is the power
of persuasion of one person over others to inspire actions towards achieving the goals of the company.
Those in the leadership role must be able to influence/motivate workers to an elevated goal and direct
themselves to the duties or responsibilities assigned during the planning process
Leadership involves the interpersonal characteristic of a manager's position that includes communication
and close contact with teammembers.
Managers at Wyeth are there to motivate workers to fulfill the goals of the company and out-perform
their competitors. They as leaders have day to day contact with workers using open communication and
are able to give direction individually as well as within teams, departments and divisions. Management
is there to inspire subordinates to ‘step up to the plate’ and find innovative means to solve department
problems. Authorizing staff to have the capability to deal with situations is a significant part of leading.
• Controlling:monitoring--
checking progress against plans, which may need modification based on feedback.
The process that guarantees plans are being implemented properly is the controlling process. Gemmy
Allen stated that ‘Controlling is the final link in the functional chain of management activities and brings
the functions of management cycle full circle.’ This allows for the performance standard within the
group to be set and communicated. Control allows for ease of delegating tasks to team members and as
managers may be held accountable for the performance of subordinates, they may be wise to extend
timely feedback of employee accomplishments
Department meetings are daily at Wyeth. Meetings are used to review the daily schedule, prevent
problems and to ascertain when problems do exist in order to address and solve those that occur as
quickly and as efficiently as possible. Control is the process through which standards for performance of
people and processes are set, communicated, and applied. Controls are placed on Wyeth employees by
requiring the completion of daily responsibilities and adherence to Wyeth’s SOP’s and guidelines, by
possibly taking disciplinary action when necessary. Managers and supervisors are given work
performance evaluations that are a form of control as it connects performance assessments to rewards
and corrective actions. Evaluating employees is a continual process that takes place regularly within the
company.
If I am a Manager, how can I manage the things in an

Organization:
Management is not seen to be as glamorous as leadership. Organizations today need to be dynamic, not
mechanistic. Management is said to be mechanistic. But all organizations need efficiency as much as
innovation. Today's profits are needed to fund tomorrow's growth. It is the manager's task to invest all
resources wisely to obtain the best possible return and performance. Management is like investment -
allocating and nurturing all resources to obtain maximum value in relation to a given objective.
What do I want to do?

Perhaps the first thing you need to do is to figure out what you want your people to accomplish. A
mission statement is a short document that tells your people, your customers (internal and external), and
your suppliers what you are about. It makes it easier for everyone to pull together if everyone knows
what the objective is. How to Draft a Mission Statement lists twelve things you can do to start drafting a
mission statement for your group.
How should I set it up?
After you figure out where you are going and you write up your mission statement, you need to look at
whether your organization supports that objective. If your organization does not support your objective,
you need to change it so it does. When you have rearranged your organization so it does support your
objective, you need to communicate that organization structure to everyone involved. This is done
through an organization chart, an org chart for short. How to Build an Org Chart is a quick guideline on
how to draw an org chart for a department. You can easily expand it out for an entire company.
How does this look?

If anyone in your organization deals with the public, you should have a dress code for all employees. A
dress code is a simple document that tells people in various functions what is appropriate work attire,
and why. How to Set a Dress Code guides you through the steps of creating a workable dress code for
your company.
Different Theories of Management:
Scientific theories
Scientific, or classical, approaches to management emerged at the turn of the 20th century and promote
hierarchies based on performance and productivity. The idea is to hire and train employees based on
their unique skills, and to promote their growth within a narrowly defined job description.
Contingency theories
A contingency approach to management, also known as a situational approach, is designed to be flexible;
different problems are solved using different strategies and success relies on shared goals and values
rather than power structures.
Behavioral theories
The behavioral theory of management, or the human approach, became important during the Great
Depression and proposes that employee job satisfaction hinges not only on salary, but also on working
conditions and attitudes. Everything from friendly peer groups to clean office space influences employee
happiness and productivity.
Contemporary theories
Modern management theories include the collaborative approach, whereby organizations rely on their
political power and influence to form external alliances; the systems approach, where managers keep an
entire organization in mind when making management decisions; and chaos theory, which managers use
to find patterns in seeming chaotic business situations. One of the most widely used management
theories is Total Quality Management. TQM's goal is ever-improving products and always satisfied
customers.
Leadership :
The word leadership can refer to The process of leading, Those entities that perform one or more acts of
leading, The ability to affect human behavior so as to accomplish a mission designated by the leader.
House defines leadership in accordance to organiations as the ability of an individual to influence,

motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of
which they are members.
Organizationally, leadership directly impacts the effectiveness of costs, revenue generation, service,
satisfaction, earnings, market value, share price, social capital, motivation, engagement, and
sustainability.] Leadership is the ability of an individual to set rules for others and lead from the front. It
is an attitude that influences the environment around us.
According to Michael Baylor, leadership means promoting new directions as opposed to managing
people. It is shifting from position to knowledge. Anyone with critical knowledge that could alter
business direction can show leadership. This is thought leadership. It can be bottom-up as well as top-
down. It can even come from outside. Leadership can be shown between organizations too as in market
leadership. Only management is a formal role. Leadership is an occasional ACT, like creativity, not a role
or position. Those at the top sometimes lead, sometimes just manage. Other times they operate as
venture capitalists investing in the best ideas (leadership) emerging from below.
Types of leadership
leadership is a quality a person may have. One can categorize the exercise of leadership as either actual
or potential:
• actual - giving guidance or direction, as in the phrase "the emperor has provided satisfactory leadership".
• potential - the capacity or ability to lade, as in the phrase "she could have exercised effective leadership";
or in the concept "born to lead".
In both cases, as a result of the constancy of change some people detect within the late 20th and early
21st centuries, the act of learning appears fundamental to certain types of leading and leadership. When
learning and leadership coalesce, one could characterize this as "learnership".
Leadership can have a formal aspect (as in most political or business leadership) or an informal one (as
in most friendships). Speaking of "leadership" (the abstract term) rather than of "leading" (the action)
usually implies that the entities doing the leading have some "leadership skills" or competencies.
Role of Leadership in an Organization :
According to Timothy Warneka in Leading People the Black Belt Way,
“In leadership, as in the martial arts, your stance is critical to your success. If you have a weak stance,
then every way you lead will be fundamentally flawed. For example, if you have a weak stance in your
emotional life, then you will have significant difficulties when you attempt to lead other people
relationally. Recalling that we are embodied beings, I do not mean the word stance to be understood
only metaphorically. I am also using the word stance in the literal sense, in terms of how leaders actually
carry themselves physically when they lead others. Learning embodied stance will deepen your capacity
for experiencing your own emotions, and better equip you to cope with the emotions of others, from the
lighthearted to the highly conflicted. Your stance, you will learn, has a very literal, not to mention
enormous impact on your ultimate success as a leader.”
Leadership cycles :
If a group or an organization wants or expects identifiable leadership, it will require processes for
appointing/acquiring and replacing leaders.
Traditional closed groups rely on bloodlines or seniority to select leaders and/or leadership candidates:
monarchies, tribal chiefdoms, oligarchies and aristocratic societies rely on (and often define their
institutions by) such methods.
Competence or perceived competence provides a possible basis for selecting leadership elites from a
broader pool of potential talent. Political lobbying may prove necessary in electoral systems, but
immediately demonstrated skill and character may secure leadership in smaller groups such as gangs.
Many organizations and groups aim to identify, grow, foster and promote what they see as leadership
potential or ability - especially among younger members of society. See for example the Scouting
movement. For a specific environment, see leadership development.
The issues of succession planning or of legitimation become important at times when leadership
(particularly individual leadership) might or must change due to term-expiry, accident or senescence.
What makes Effective Leadership :
In comparing various leadership styles in many cultures, academic studies have examined the patterns
in which leadership emerges and then fades, other ways in which it maintains its effectiveness,
sometimes by natural succession according to established rules, and sometimes by the imposition of
brute force.
The simplest way to measure the effectiveness of leadership involves evaluating the size of the following
that the leader can muster. By this standard, Adolf Hitler became a very effective leader for a period —
even if through delusional promises and coercive techniques. However, this approach may measure
power rather than leadership. To measure leadership more specifically, one may assess the extent of
influence on the followers, that is, the amount of leading. Within an organizational context this means
financially valuing productivity. Effective leaders generate higher productivity, lower costs, and more
opportunities than ineffective leaders. Effective leaders create results, attain goal, realize vision, and
other objectives more quickly and at a higher level of quality than ineffective leaders.
James MacGregor Burns introduced a normative element: an effective Burnsian leader will unite
followers in a shared vision that will improve an organization and society at large. Burns calls leadership
that delivers "true" value, integrity, and trust transformational leadership. He distinguishes such leadership
from "mere" transactional leadership that builds power by doing whatever will get more followers. [6]
But
problems arise in quantifying the transformational quality of leadership - evaluation of that quality
seems more difficult to quantify than merely counting the followers that the straw man of transactional
leadership James MacGregor Burns has set as a primary standard for effectiveness. Thus
transformational leadership requires an evaluation of quality, independent of the market demand that
exhibits in the number of followers.
Current assessments of transformational and transactional leadership commonly make use of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), developed by Bass and Avolio in 1990 and revised in 1995.
It measures five dimensions of transformational leadership:
1. idealized influence - attributions
2. idealized influence - behaviors

3. inspirational motivation
4. individualized consideration
5. intellectual stimulation
The three dimensions of transactional leadership measured by the MLQ cover:
1. contingent reward
2. management by exception (active)
3. management by exception (passive)
The functional leadership model conceives leadership as a set of behaviours that helps a group perform a
task, reach their goal, or perform their function. In this model, effective leaders encourage functional
behaviors and discourage dysfunctional ones.
In the path-goal model of leadership, developed jointly by Martin Evans and Robert House and based on
the "Expectancy Theory of Motivation", a leader has the function of clearing the path toward the goal(s)
of the group, by meeting the needs of subordinates.
Some commentators use the metaphor of an orchestral conductor to describe the quality of the
leadership process. An effective leader resembles an orchestra conductor in some ways. He/she has to
somehow get a group of potentially diverse and talented people - many of whom have strong
personalities - to work together toward a common output. Will the conductor harness and blend all the
gifts his or her players possess? Will the players accept the degree of creative expression they have? Will
the audience enjoy the sound they make? The conductor may have a clear determining influence on all of
these questions.
Suggested qualities of leadership
Studies of leadership have suggested qualities that people often associate with leadership. They include:
• Guiding others through modeling (in the sense of providing a role model) and through willingness to
serve others first (compare followership)
• Technical/specific skill at some task at hand
• Initiative and entrepreneurial drive
• Charismatic inspiration - attractiveness to others and the ability to leverage this esteem to motivate
others
• Preoccupation with a role - a dedication that consumes much of leaders' life - service to a cause
• A clear sense of purpose (or mission) - clear goals - focus - commitment
• Results-orientation - directing every action towards a mission - prioritizing activities to spend time
where results most accrue
• Cooperation-work well with others
• Optimism - very few pessimists become leaders
• Rejection of determinism - belief in one's ability to "make a difference"
• Ability to encourage and nurture those that report to them - delegate in such a way as people will grow
• Role models - leaders may adopt a persona that encapsulates their mission and lead by example
• Self-knowledge (in non-bureaucratic structures)
• Self-awareness - the ability to "lead" (as it were) one's own self prior to leading other selves similarly
• With regards to people and to projects, the ability to choose winners - recognizing that, unlike with
skills, one cannot (in general) teach attitude. Note that "picking winners" ("choosing winners") carries
implications of gamblers' luck as well as of the capacity to take risks, but "true" leaders, like gamblers but unlike
"false" leaders, base their decisions on realistic insight (and usually on many other factors partially derived from
"real" wisdom).
• Understanding what others say, rather than listening to how they say things - this could partly sum this
quality up as "walking in someone else's shoes" (to use a common cliché).
The approach of listing leadership qualities, often termed "trait theory", assumes certain traits or
characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal,
difficulties may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents frequently challenge this approach. The
"strongest" versions of trait theory see these "leadership characteristics" as innate, and accordingly labels
some people as "born leaders" due to their psychological makeup. On this reading of the theory,
leadership development involves identifying and measuring leadership qualities, screening potential
leaders from non-leaders, then training those with potential.
David McClelland, a Harvard-based researcher in the psychology of power and achievement, saw
leadership skills, not so much as a set of traits, but as a pattern of motives. He claimed that successful
leaders will tend to have a high need for power, a low need for affiliation, and a high level of what he
called activity inhibition (one might call it self-control).
Situational leadership theory offers an alternative approach. It proceeds from the assumption that
different situations call for different characteristics. According to this group of theories, no single optimal
psychographic profile of a leader exists. The situational leadership model of Hersey and Blanchard, for
example, suggest four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the
model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of followership-development. In
this model, leadership behaviour becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of
the characteristics of followers as well. Other situational leadership models introduce a variety of
situational variables. These determinants include:
• the nature of the task (structured or routine)

• organizational policies, climate, and culture
• the preferences of the leader's superiors
• the expectations of peers
• the reciprocal responses of followers
The contingency model of Vroom and Yetton uses other situational variables, including:
• the nature of the problem

• the requirements for accuracy
• the acceptance of an initiative
• time-constraints
• cost constraints
However one determines leadership behaviour, one can categorize it into various leadership styles. Many
ways of doing this exist. For example, the Managerial Grid Model, a behavioral leadership-model
developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964, suggests five different leadership styles, based on
leaders' strength of concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.
Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and R. K. White identified three leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic,
and laissez-faire, based on the amount of influence and power exercised by the leader.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader’s effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational
contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favourableness (later
called "situational control").
Leadership "styles" (per House and Podsakoff)
In 1994 House and Podsakoff attempted to summarize the behaviors and approaches of "outstanding
leaders" that they obtained from some more modern theories and research findings. These leadership
behaviors and approaches do not constitute specific styles, but cumulatively they probably[citation needed]
characterize the most effective style of today's leaders/managers. The listed leadership "styles" cover:
1. Vision. Outstanding leaders articulate an ideological vision congruent with the deeply-held values of
followers, a vision that describes a better future to which the followers have an alleged moral right.
2. Passion and self-sacrifice. Leaders display a passion for, and have a strong conviction of, what they
regard as the moral correctness of their vision. They engage in outstanding or extraordinary behavior
and make extraordinary self-sacrifices in the interest of their vision and mission.
3. Confidence, determination, and persistence. Outstanding leaders display a high degree of faith in
themselves and in the attainment of the vision they articulate. Theoretically, such leaders need to have a
very high degree of self-confidence and moral conviction because their mission usually challenges the
status quo and, therefore, may offend those who have a stake in preserving the established order.
4. Image-building. House and Podsakoff regard outstanding leaders as self-conscious about their own
image. They recognize the desirability of followers perceiving them as competent, credible, and
trustworthy.
5. Role-modeling. Leader-image-building sets the stage for effective role-modeling because followers
identify with the values of role models whom they perceived in positive terms.
6. External representation. Outstanding leaders act as spokespersons for their respective organizations and
symbolically represent those organizations to external constituencies.
7. Expectations of and confidence in followers. Outstanding leaders communicate expectations of high
performance from their followers and strong confidence in their followers’ ability to meet such
expectations.
8. Selective motive-arousal. Outstanding leaders selectively arouse those motives of followers that the
outstanding leaders see as of special relevance to the successful accomplishment of the vision and
mission.
9. Frame alignment. To persuade followers to accept and implement change, outstanding leaders engage in
"frame alignment". This refers to the linkage of individual and leader interpretive orientations such that
some set of followers’ interests, values, and beliefs, as well as the leader’s activities, goals, and ideology,
becomes congruent and complementary.
10. Inspirational communication. Outstanding leaders often, but not always, communicate their message in
an inspirational manner using vivid stories, slogans, symbols, and ceremonies.
Even though these ten leadership behaviors and approaches do not really equate to specific styles,
evidence has started to accumulate[citation needed] that a leader’s style can make a difference. Style becomes the
key to the formulation and implementation of strategy[citation needed] and plays an important role in work-
group members’ activity and in team citizenship. Little doubt exists that the way (style) in which leaders
influence work-group members can make a difference in their own and their people’s performance [citation
.
needed]
(Adopted from: Robert House and Philip M. Podsakoff, "Leadership Effectiveness: Past Perspectives and
Future Directions for Research" in Jerald Greenberg (ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ., 1994, pp [citation needed] .)
Leadership and vision
Many definitions of leadership involve an element of vision — except in cases of involuntary leadership
and often in cases of traditional leadership. A vision provides direction to the influence process. A leader
(or group of leaders) can have one or more visions of the future to aid them to move a group successfully
towards this goal. A vision, for effectiveness, should allegedly:
• appear as a simple, yet vibrant, image in the mind of the leader

• describe a future state, credible and preferable to the present state
• act as a bridge between the current state and a future optimum state
• appear desirable enough to energize followers
• succeed in speaking to followers at an emotional or spiritual level (logical appeals by themselves seldom
muster a following)
For leadership to occur, according to this theory, some people ("leaders") must communicate the vision
to others ("followers") in such a way that the followers adopt the vision as their own. Leaders must not
just see the vision themselves, they must have the ability to get others to see it also. Numerous
techniques aid in this process, including: narratives, metaphors, symbolic actions, leading by example,
incentives, and penalties.
Stacey (1992) has suggested that the emphasis on vision puts an unrealistic burden on the leader. Such
emphasis appears to perpetuate the myth that an organization must depend on a single, uncommonly
talented individual to decide what to do. Stacey claims that this fosters a culture of dependency and
conformity in which followers take no pro-active incentives and do not think independently.
kanungo's charismatic leadership model describes the role of the vision in three stages that are
continuously ongoing, overlapping one another. Assessing the status quo, formulation and articulation
of the vision, and implementation of the vision. This model suggests effective leadership needs these
behaviors
Leadership's relation with management
Some commentators link leadership closely with the idea of management. Some regard the two as
synonymous, and others consider management a subset of leadership. If one accepts this premise, one
can view leadership as:
• centralized or decentralized
• broad or focused
• decision-oriented or morale-centred
• intrinsic or derived from some authority
Any of the bipolar labels traditionally ascribed to management style could also apply to leadership style.
Hersey and Blanchard use this approach: they claim that management merely consists of leadership
applied to business situations; or in other words: management forms a sub-set of the broader process of
leadership. They put it this way: "Leadership occurs any time one attempts to influence the behavior of
an individual or group, regardless of the reason. . . . Management is a kind of leadership in which the
achievement of organizational goals is paramount." (Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. : 1982 : page 3)
However, a clear distinction between management and leadership may nevertheless prove useful. This
would allow for a reciprocal relationship between leadership and management, implying that an
effective manager should possess leadership skills, and an effective leader should demonstrate
management skills. One clear distinction could provide the following definition:
• Management involves power by position.

• Leadership involves power by influence.
Abraham Zaleznik (1977), for example, delineated differences between leadership and management. He
saw leaders as inspiring visionaries, concerned about substance; while managers he views as planners
who have concerns with process. Warren Bennis (1989) further explicated a dichotomy between
managers and leaders. He drew twelve distinctions between the two groups:
• Managers administer, leaders innovate

• Managers ask how and when, leaders ask what and why
• Managers focus on systems, leaders focus on people
• Managers do things right, leaders do the right things
• Managers maintain, leaders develop
• Managers rely on control, leaders inspire trust
• Managers have a short-term perspective, leaders have a longer-term perspective
• Managers accept the status-quo, leaders challenge the status-quo
• Managers have an eye on the bottom line, leaders have an eye on the horizon
• Managers imitate, leaders originate
• Managers emulate the classic good soldier, leaders are their own person
• Managers copy, leaders show originality
Paul Birch (1999) also sees a distinction between leadership and management. He observed that, as a
broad generalization, managers concerned themselves with tasks while leaders concerned themselves
with people. Birch does not suggest that leaders do not focus on "the task." Indeed, the things that
characterise a great leader include the fact that they achieve. Effective leaders create and sustain
competitive advantage through the attainment of cost leadership, revenue leadership, time leadership,
and market value leadership. Managers typically follow and realize a leader's vision. The difference lies
in the leader realising that the achievement of the task comes about through the goodwill and support of
others (influence), while the manager may not.
This goodwill and support originates in the leader seeing people as people, not as another resource for
deployment in support of "the task". The manager often has the role of organizing resources to get
something done. People form one of these resources, and many of the worst managers treat people as
just another interchangeable item. A leader has the role of causing others to follow a path he/she has
laid out or a vision he/she has articulated in order to achieve a task. Often, people see the task as
subordinate to the vision. For instance, an organization might have the overall task of generating profit,
but a good leader may see profit as a by-product that flows from whatever aspect of their vision
differentiates their company from the competition.
Leadership does not only manifest itself as purely a business phenomenon. Many people can think of an
inspiring leader they have encountered who has nothing whatever to do with business: a politician, an
officer in the armed forces, a Scout or Guide leader, a teacher, etc. Similarly, management does not occur
only as a purely business phenomenon. Again, we can think of examples of people that we have met
who fill the management niche in non-business organisations. Non-business organizations should find it
easier to articulate a non-money-driven inspiring vision that will support true leadership. However,
often this does not occur.
Differences in the mix of leadership and management can define various management styles. Some
management styles tend to de-emphasize leadership. Included in this group one could include
participatory management, democratic management, and collaborative management styles. Other
management styles, such as authoritarian management, micro-management, and top-down
management, depend more on a leader to provide direction. Note, however, that just because an
organisation has no single leader giving it direction, does not mean it necessarily has weak leadership. In
many cases group leadership (multiple leaders) can prove effective. Having a single leader (as in
dictatorship) allows for quick and decisive decision-making when needed as well as when not needed.
Group decision-making sometimes earns the derisive label "committee-itis" because of the longer times
required to make decisions, but group leadership can bring more expertise, experience, and perspectives
through a democratic process.
Patricia Pitcher (1994) has challenged the bifurcation into leaders and managers. She used a factor
analysis technique on data collected over 8 years, and concluded that three types of leaders exist, each
with very different psychological profiles. She characterises one group as imaginative, inspiring,
visionary, entrepreneurial, intuitive, daring, and emotional, and calls them "artists". In a second
grouping she places "craftsmen" as well-balanced, steady, reasonable, sensible, predictable, and
trustworthy. Finally she identifies "technocrats" as cerebral, detail-oriented, fastidious, uncompromising,
and hard-headed. She speculates that no one profile offers a preferred leadership style. She claims that if
we want to build, we should find an "artist leader"; if we want to solidify our position, we should find a
"craftsman leader"; and if we have an ugly job that needs to get done (like downsizing), we should find a
"technocratic leader." Pitcher also observed that a balanced leader exhibiting all three sets of traits occurs
extremely rarely: she found none in her study.
Bruce Lynn postulates a differentiation between 'Leadership' and ‘Management’ based on perspectives
to risk. Specifically, “A Leader optimises upside opportunity; a Manager minimises downside risk.” He argues
that successful executives need to apply both disciplines in a balance appropriate to the enterprise and
its context. Leadership without Management yields steps forward, but as many if not more steps
backwards. Management without Leadership avoids any step backwards, but doesn’t move forward.
Leadership by a group
In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this
situation, more than one person provides direction to the group as a whole. Some organizations have
taken this approach in hopes of increasing creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. Others may see the
traditional leadership of a boss as costing too much in team performance. In some situations, the
maintenance of the boss becomes too expensive - either by draining the resources of the group as a
whole, or by impeding the creativity within the team, even unintentionally.
A common example of group leadership involves cross-functional teams. A team of people with diverse
skills and from all parts of an organization assembles to lead a project. A team structure can involve
sharing power equally on all issues, but more commonly uses rotating leadership. The team member(s)
best able to handle any given phase of the project become(s) the temporary leader(s).
For example, the Orpheus orchestra has performed for over thirty years without a conductor -- that is,
without a sole leader. As a team of over 25 members, it has drawn discriminating audiences, and has
produced over 60 recordings for Deutsche Grammophon in successful competition with other world-
class orchestras.[7]
Rather than an autocratic or charismatic conductor deciding the overall conception of a work and then
dictating how each individual is to perform the individual tasks, the Orpheus team generally selects a
different "core group" for each piece of music. The core group provides leadership in working out the
details of the piece, and presents their ideas to the whole team. Members of the whole team then
participate in refining the final conception, rehearsal, and product, including checking from various
places in the auditorium how the sound balances and verifying the quality of the final recording.
At times the entire Orpheus team may follow a single leader, but whom the team follows rotates from
task to task, depending on the capabilities of its members.
The orchestra has developed seminars and training sessions for adapting the Orpheus Process to
business.[8]
Co-leadership
As a compromise between individual leadership and an open group, leadership structures of two or
three people or entities occur commonly. Ancient Rome preferred two consuls to a single king, and the
Roman Empire grew to accommodate two Emperors - those of the East and of the West - simultaneously.
The Middle Ages saw leadership divided between the secular and spiritual realms - between Emperor
and Pope. Some groups - often left-wing or Green in orientation - employ a co-leader structure today.
Triumvirates have long served to balance leadership ambitions - notably in Rome in the first century BC,
but also as recently as in the Soviet Union troikas of the 20th century. Compare the separation of powers
(legislative, judicial and executive) formalised (for example) in the constitution of the United States of
America.
Divided leadership
Whereas sometimes one can readily and definitively identify the locus of leadership, in other
circumstances the situation remains obscured. Pre-modern Japan offers a classical example: the emperors
provided symbolic and religious leadership, but the shoguns embodied virtually all political and
administrative leadership.
Similar dichotomies appear in many places and in many periods. Any constitutional monarch has a
potentially confusing relationship with the day-to-day leader (typically a prime minister) who remains
(at least theoretically) subordinate - socially as well as politically. Regents may stand against monarchs
(and their supporters) during the minority or absence of those monarchs. Heads of state may operate at
cross-purposes with heads of government (see governmental co-habitation). Political leaders may or may
not align closely with religious leaders. And in federal-type systems, regional leadership and its
potentially different systems may cross swords with national leaders. Not to mention the potentially
conflicting leadership manifestations of boards of directors and of Chief Executives.
Historical views on leadership
Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one's blue blood or genes: monarchy
takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions against the claims of mere
aristocrats by invoking divine sanction: see the divine right of kings. Contrariwise, more democratically-
inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals
profiting from careers open to talent.
In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman
pater familias. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may damn such models as patriarchal and posit
against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance and matriarchies.
Comparable to the Roman tradition, the views of Confucianism on "right living" relate very much to the
ideal of the (male) scholar-leader and his benevolent rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial piety.
Within the context of Islam, views on the nature, scope and inheritance of leadership have played a
major role in shaping sects and their history. See caliphate.
In the 19th century, the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into
question. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back
as the 19th century.) One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an élite
group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious
leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over several
centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided
resources - human and material - and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan.
Leadership development
• The first step is to determine what you really want to develop - managers, executives or leaders.
• Most so-called leadership development is actually executive development.
• An executive occupies a multi-faceted, senior role with huge responsibilities.
• Many of these responsibilities are managerial in nature - everything to do with getting the best possible
return from all resources at the organization's disposal - money, people, material, energy and passion.
• In some industries - those that compete on cost, for instance, the managerial functions of the executive's
role are the main keys to competitive advantage.
• In other industries - especially those that compete on innovation, more leadership is required.
• However, in these cases, leadership need not come from executives. Some will, some might be shown by
various other employees at all levels. See thought leadership for more on this.
• An effective executive in this environment needs to be good at cultivating leadership in others and
providing them with a supportive culture.
• If you are signing up to a blanket leadership development process that pays no attention to the actual
leadership versus managerial needs of your organization, then you are using a shot-gun approach.
• If you are only developing leadership in senior executives or budding senior executives, then you might
want to re-visit what leadership really means. See the pages on leadership in LeadersDirect for some
ideas on this topic.
Principles of Leadership (Be, Know, Do) :

be, know, and do; (U.S. Army, 1973) follow these eleven principles of leadership
Know yourself and seek self-improvement - In order to know yourself, you have to understand your
be, know, and do, attributes. Seeking self-improvement means continually strengthening your attributes.
This can be accomplished through self-study, formal classes, reflection, and interacting with others.
1. Be technically proficient - As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid familiarity with your
employees' tasks.
2. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions - Search for ways to guide your
organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they always do sooner or later -- do not blame
others. Analyze the situation, take corrective action, and move on to the next challenge.
3. Make sound and timely decisions - Use good problem solving, decision making, and planning tools.
4. Set the example - Be a good role model for your employees. They must not only hear what they are
expected to do, but also see. We must become the change we want to see - Mahatma Gandhi
5. Know your people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and the importance of
sincerely caring for your workers.
6. Keep your workers informed - Know how to communicate with not only them, but also seniors and
other key people.
7. Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers - Help to develop good character traits that will help
them carry out their professional responsibilities.
8. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished - Communication is the key to this
responsibility.
9. Train as a team - Although many so called leaders call their organization, department, section, etc. a
team; they are not really teams...they are just a group of people doing their jobs.
10. Use the full capabilities of your organization - By developing a team spirit, you will be able to employ
your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest capabilities.
Factors Affecting Leadership :
There are four main factors that effect leadership which are given below :
Follower
Different people require different styles of leadership. For example, a new hire requires more
supervision than an experienced employee. A person who lacks motivation requires a different approach
than one with a high degree of motivation. You must know your people! The fundamental starting point
is having a good understanding of human nature, such as needs, emotions, and motivation. You must
come to know your employees' be, know, and do attributes.
Leader
You must have a honest understanding of who you are, what you know, and what you can do. Also,
note that it is the followers, not the leader who determines if a leader is successful. If they do not trust or
lack confidence in their leader, then they will be uninspired. To be successful you have to convince your
followers, not yourself or your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed.
Communication
You lead through two-way communication. Much of it is nonverbal. For instance, when you "set the
example," that communicates to your people that you would not ask them to perform anything that you
would not be willing to do. What and how you communicate either builds or harms the relationship
between you and your employees.
Situation
All are different. What you do in one situation will not always work in another. You must use your
judgment to decide the best course of action and the leadership style needed for each situation. For
example, you may need to confront an employee for inappropriate behavior, but if the confrontation is
too late or too early, too harsh or too weak, then the results may prove ineffective.
Various forces will affect these factors. Examples of forces are your relationship with your seniors, the
skill of your people, the informal leaders within your organization, and how your company is organized.
Leadership Models
Leadership models help us to understand what makes leaders act the way they do. The ideal is not to
lock yourself in to a type of behavior discussed in the model, but to realize that every situation calls for a
different approach or behavior to be taken. Two models will be discussed, the Four Framework Approach
and the Managerial Grid.
Four Framework Approach
In the Four Framework Approach, Bolman and Deal (1991) suggest that leaders display leadership
behaviors in one of four types of frameworks: Structural, Human Resource, Political, or Symbolic. The
style can either be effective or ineffective, depending upon the chosen behavior in certain situations.
StructuralFramework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a social architect whose leadership style is analysis and
design. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a petty tyrant whose leadership style is
details. Structural Leaders focus on structure, strategy, environment, implementation, experimentation,
and adaptation.
HumanResourceFramework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a catalyst and servant whose leadership style is support,
advocate, and empowerment. while in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a pushover,
whose leadership style is abdication and fraud. Human Resource Leaders believe in people and
communicate that belief; they are visible and accessible; they empower, increase participation, support,
share information, and move decision making down into the organization.
PoliticalFramework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is an advocate, whose leadership style is coalition and
building. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a hustler, whose leadership style is
manipulation. Political leaders clarify what they want and what they can get; they assess the distribution
of power and interests; they build linkages to other stakeholders, use persuasion first, then use
negotiation and coercion only if necessary.
SymbolicFramework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a prophet, whose leadership style is inspiration. While
in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a fanatic or fool, whose leadership style is smoke and
mirrors. Symbolic leaders view organizations as a stage or theater to play certain roles and give
impressions; these leaders use symbols to capture attention; they try to frame experience by providing
plausible interpretations of experiences; they discover and communicate a vision.
This model suggests that leaders can be put into one of these four categories and there are times when
one approach is appropriate and times when it would not be. Any one of these approaches alone would
be inadequate, thus we should strive to be conscious of all four approaches, and not just rely on one or
two. For example, during a major organization change, a structural leadership style may be more
effective than a visionary leadership style; while during a period when strong growth is needed, the
visionary approach may be better. We also need to understand ourselves as each of us tends to have a
preferred approach. We need to be conscious of this at all times and be aware of the limitations of our
favoring just one approach.
For an activity, see Bolman and Deal's Four Framework Approach.
Managerial Grid
The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid (1985) uses two axis:
1. "Concern for people" is plotted using the vertical axis

2. "Concern for task" is along the horizontal axis.
They both have a range of o to 9. The notion that just two dimensions can describe a managerial behavior
has the attraction of simplicity. These two dimensions can be drawn as a graph or grid:
High 9 Country Club Team Leader
P 6
E
O 5
P
L 4
E
3
1 Impovished Authoritarian
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
TASK
Most people fall somewhere near the middle of the two axis. But, by going to the extremes, that is,
people who score on the far end of the scales, we come up with four types of leaders:
• Authoritarian (9 on task, 1 on people)

• Team Leader (9 on task, 9 on people)
• Country Club (1 on task, 9 on people)
• Impoverished (1 on task, 1 on people).
AuthoritarianLeader(hightask,lowrelationship)
People who get this rating are very much task oriented and are hard on their workers (autocratic). There
is little or no allowance for cooperation or collaboration. Heavily task oriented people display these
characteristics: they are very strong on schedules; they expect people to do what they are told without
question or debate; when something goes wrong they tend to focus on who is to blame rather than
concentrate on exactly what is wrong and how to prevent it; they are intolerant of what they see as
dissent (it may just be someone's creativity), so it is difficult for their subordinates to contribute or
develop.
Team Leader (high task, high relationship)

This type of person leads by positive example and endeavors to foster a team environment in which all
team members can reach their highest potential, both as team members and as people. They encourage
the team to reach team goals as effectively as possible, while also working tirelessly to strengthen the
bonds among the various members. They normally form and lead some of the most productive teams.
Country Club Leader (low task, high relationship)

This person uses predominantly reward power to maintain discipline and to encourage the team to
accomplish its goals. Conversely, they are almost incapable of employing the more punitive coercive and
legitimate powers. This inability results from fear that using such powers could jeopardize relationships
with the other team members.
Impoverished Leader (low task, low relationship)

A leader who uses a "delegate and disappear" management style. Since they are not committed to either
task accomplishment or maintenance; they essentially allow their team to do whatever it wishes and
prefer to detach themselves from the team process by allowing the team to suffer from a series of power
struggles.
The most desirable place for a leader to be along the two axis at most times would be a 9 on task and a 9
on people -- the Team Leader. However, do not entirely dismiss the other three. Certain situations might
call for one of the other three to be used at times. For example, by playing the Impoverished Leader, you
allow your team to gain self-reliance. Be an Authoritarian Leader to instill a sense of discipline in an
unmotivated worker. By carefully studying the situation and the forces affecting it, you will know at
what points along the axis you need to be in order to achieve the desired result.
For an activity, see The Leadership Matrix.
The Process of Great Leadership
The road to great leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) that is common to successful leaders:
• Challenge the process - First, find a process that you believe needs to be improved the most.
• Inspire a shared vision - Next, share you vision in words that can be understood by your followers.
• Enable others to act - Give them the tools and methods to solve the problem.
• Model the way - When the process gets tough, get your hands dirty. A boss tells others what to do...a
leader shows that it can be done.
• Encourage the heart - Share the glory with your followers' heart, while keeping the pains within your
own.
Leadership Vs Management :
What is the difference between management and leadership? It is a question that has been asked more
than once and also answered in different ways. The biggest difference between managers and leaders is
the way they motivate the people who work or follow them, and this sets the tone for most other aspects
of what they do.
Many people, by the way, are both. They have management jobs, but they realize that you cannot buy
hearts, especially to follow them down a difficult path, and so act as leaders too.
Managers have subordinates
By definition, managers have subordinates - unless their title is honorary and given as a mark of
seniority, in which case the title is a misnomer and their power over others is other than formal
authority.
Authoritarian, transactional style
Managers have a position of authority vested in them by the company, and their subordinates work for
them and largely do as they are told. Management style is transactional, in that the manager tells the
subordinate what to do, and the subordinate does this not because they are a blind robot, but because
they have been promised a reward (at minimum their salary) for doing so.
Work focus
Managers are paid to get things done (they are subordinates too), often within tight constraints of time
and money. They thus naturally pass on this work focus to their subordinates.
Seek comfort
An interesting research finding about managers is that they tend to come from stable home backgrounds
and led relatively normal and comfortable lives. This leads them to be relatively risk-averse and they will
seek to avoid conflict where possible. In terms of people, they generally like to run a 'happy ship'.
Leaders have followers
Leaders do not have subordinates - at least not when they are leading. Many organizational leaders do
have subordinates, but only because they are also managers. But when they want to lead, they have to
give up formal authoritarian control, because to lead is to have followers, and following is always a
voluntary activity.
Charismatic, transformational style
Telling people what to do does not inspire them to follow you. You have to appeal to them, showing
how following them will lead to their hearts' desire. They must want to follow you enough to stop what
they are doing and perhaps walk into danger and situations that they would not normally consider
risking.
Leaders with a stronger charisma find it easier to attract people to their cause. As a part of their
persuasion they typically promise transformational benefits, such that their followers will not just
receive extrinsic rewards but will somehow become better people.
People focus
Although many leaders have a charismatic style to some extent, this does not require a loud personality.
They are always good with people, and quiet styles that give credit to others (and takes blame on
themselves) are very effective at creating the loyalty that great leaders engender.
Although leaders are good with people, this does not mean they are friendly with them. In order to keep
the mystique of leadership, they often retain a degree of separation and aloofness.
This does not mean that leaders do not pay attention to tasks - in fact they are often very achievement-
focused. What they do realize, however, is the importance of enthusing others to work towards their
vision.
Seek risk
In the same study that showed managers as risk-averse, leaders appeared as risk-seeking, although they
are not blind thrill-seekers. When pursuing their vision, they consider it natural to encounter problems
and hurdles that must be overcome along the way. They are thus comfortable with risk and will see
routes that others avoid as potential opportunities for advantage and will happily break rules in order to
get things done.
A surprising number of these leaders had some form of handicap in their lives which they had to
overcome. Some had traumatic childhoods, some had problems such as dyslexia, others were shorter
than average. This perhaps taught them the independence of mind that is needed to go out on a limb and
not worry about what others are thinking about you.
In summary
This table summarizes the above (and more) and gives a sense of the differences between being a leader
and being a manager. This is, of course, an illustrative characterization, and there is a whole spectrum
between either ends of these scales along which each role can range. And many people lead and manage
at the same time, and so may display a combination of behaviors.
Subject Leader Manager

Essence Change Stability
Focus Leading people Managing work
Have Followers Subordinates
Horizon Long-term Short-term
Seeks Vision Objectives
Approach Sets direction Plans detail
Decision Facilitates Makes
Power Personal charisma Formal authority
Appeal to Heart Head
Energy Passion Control
Dynamic Proactive Reactive
Persuasion Sell Tell
Style Transformational Transactional
Exchange Excitement for work Money for work
Likes Striving Action
Wants Achievement Results
Risk Takes Minimizes
Rules Breaks Makes
Conflict Uses Avoids
Direction New roads Existing roads
Truth Seeks Establishes
Concern What is right Being right
Credit Gives Takes
Blame Takes Blames
difference in personality styles between leadership versus management.
Managers - emphasize rationality and control; are problem-solvers (focusing on goals, resources,
organization structures, or people); often ask question, "What problems have to be solved, and what are
the best ways to achieve results so that people will continue to contribute to this organization?"; are
persistent, tough-minded, hard working, intelligent, analytical, tolerant and have goodwill toward
others.
Leaders - are perceived as brilliant, but sometimes lonely; achieve control of themselves before they try
to control others; can visualize a purpose and generate value in work; are imaginative, passionate, non-
conforming risk-takers.
Leadership versus management - have very different attitudes toward goals.
Managers - adopt impersonal, almost passive, attitudes toward goals; decide upon goals based on
necessity instead of desire and are therefore deeply tied to their organization's culture; tend to be
reactive since they focus on current information.
Leaders - tend to be active since they envision and promote their ideas instead of reacting to current
situations; shape ideas instead of responding to them; have a personal orientation toward goals; provide
a vision that alters the way people think about what is desirable, possible, and necessary.
leadership versus management conceptions of work.
Managers - view work as an enabling process; establish strategies and makes decisions by combining
people and ideas; continually coordinate and balance opposing views; are good at reaching compromises
and mediating conflicts between opposing values and perspectives; act to limit choice; tolerate practical,
mundane work because of strong survival instinct which makes them risk-averse.
Leaders - develop new approaches to long-standing problems and open issues to new options; first, use
their vision to excite people and only then develop choices which give those images substance; focus
people on shared ideals and raise their expectations; work from high-risk positions because of strong
dislike of mundane work.
Leadership versus management - Managers and leaders have very different relations with others.
Managers - prefer working with others; report that solitary activity makes them anxious; are
collaborative; maintain a low level of emotional involvement in relationships; attempt to reconcile
differences, seek compromises, and establish a balance of power; relate to people according to the role
they play in a sequence of events or in a decision-making process; focus on how things get done;
maintain controlled, rational, and equitable structures ; may be viewed by others as inscrutable,
detached, and manipulative.
Leaders - maintain innLeadership versus management - The Self-Identity of managers versus leaders
is strongly influenced by their past.
Managers - report that their adjustments to life have been straightforward and that their lives have been
more or less peaceful since birth; have a sense of self as a guide to conduct and attitude which is derived
from a feeling of being at home and in harmony with their environment; see themselves as conservators
and regulators of an existing order of affairs with which they personally identify and from which they
gain rewards; report that their role harmonizes with their ideals of responsibility and duty; perpetuate
and strengthen existing institutions; display a life development process which focuses on
socialization...this socialization process prepares them to guide institutions and to maintain the existing
balance of social relations.
Leaders - reportedly have not had an easy time of it; lives are marked by a continual struggle to find
some sense of order; do not take things for granted and are not satisfied with the status quo; report that
their "sense of self" is derived from a feeling of profound separateness; may work in organizations, but
they never belong to them; report that their sense of self is independent of work roles, memberships, or
other social indicators of social identity; seek opportunities for change (i.e. technological, political, or
ideological); support change; find their purpose is to profoundly alter human, economic, and political
relationships; display a life development process which focuses on personal mastery...this process impels
them to struggle for psychological and social change.
er perceptiveness that they can use in their relationships with others; relate to people in intuitive,
empathetic way; focus on what events and decisions mean to participants; attract strong feelings of
identity and difference or of love and hate; create systems where human relations may be turbulent,
intense, and at times even disorganized.
Why do we differentiate leadership from management?
• Because all organizations have two fundamentally different tasks:

o to execute today's business as efficiently as possible
o to devise new directions for future success - innovation.
• This has become increasingly obvious as more and more emphasis is placed on innovation as a major
source of competitive advantage.
• It makes sense, therefore, to align the managerial function with executing today's business and
leadership with generating new directions.
• Clearly, management is a set of responsibilities because you have to be organized and systematic to
deliver agreed outcomes and other people expect this of you.
• Conversely, leadership is an episodic act like creativity that some people will exhibit some times and not
other times - it is not a position of responsibility.
• Getting clear about this distinction is important for strategic reasons - it helps us to focus our energies
where we can gain the greatest potential payback. Executives who think they are leading when they are
only managing are blocking the leadership of others and hence potentially limiting the innovation their
organizations need to survive. They also run the risk of creating excessive dependency on themselves
among others.
• When leadership and management are clearly differentiated, you must identify areas for change and
have the courage to champion them to show leadership. No longer can you call yourself a leader simply
because you are an good manager.
• At the same time, effective, profitable execution is just as important for busines success as generating the
future. It is time to raise the profile of managers and stop the bandwagon which is compelling everyone
to call themselves leaders, as if managers are somehow lower class citizens or nonfunctional elements.
• Hence it is vital to differentiate between leadership and management - one serves the function of finding
a new direction, the other the function of getting us there efficiently.
• While one person can, in principle, perform both functions, only one person would normally be the
manager of a group.
• Conversely, leadership can be shown by all and it can shift from one person to another rapidly in any
given context
Development of Leadership versus management.
As you can see, managers and leaders are very different animals. It is important to remember that there
are definite strengths and weaknesses of both types of individuals.
Managers are very good at maintaining the status quo and adding stability and order to our culture.
However, they may not be as good at instigating change and envisioning the future. On the other hand,
leaders are very good at stirring people's emotions, raising their expectations, and taking them in new
directions (both good and bad).
However, like artists and other gifted people, leaders often suffer from neuroses and have a tendency
toward self-absorption and preoccupation.
If you are planning on owning your own business, you must develop management skills, whether they
come naturally or not. However, what do you do if you believe you are, in fact, a leader - a diamond in
the rough? What can you do to develop as a leader?
Throughout history, it has been shown again and again that leaders have needed strong one-to-one
relationships with teachers whose strengths lie in cultivating talent in order to reach their full potential.
If you think you are a leader at heart, find a teacher that you admire - someone who you can connect
with and who can help you develop your natural talents and interests.
Whether you reach "glory" status or not, you will grow in ways you never even imagined. And isn't that
what life is about anyway? So what do you aspire to improve in? How do you compare leadership
versus management?
The choices between leadership versus management are profound, and both are highly valuable to a
strong organization.
How do managers differ from leaders?
• Managers are often not seen as leaders but as administrators.

• These pages are about how all employees can be leaders.
• This page discusses how managers specifically can be leaders.

• Managers do not differ from leaders based on their personalities or their styles.
• Leaders are not just more lively, charismatic or larger than life managers.
• Any manager can lead by devising new directions.
• Managers can be as inpiring as leaders - they just do so to improve performance rather than inspire a
change in direction as leaders do.
• Both leaders and managers can influence quietly or by example without being charismatic.
• Quiet conviction can be as powerful as a cheerleader's enthusiasm.
• Management is only a role not a type of action.
• You can lead regardless of role provided you devise new directions that are compelling to others, either
in themselves or in your presentation of them

Management Vs Leadership Session 2 Sem1 Assignment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Vs Leadership Session 2 Sem1 Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Vs Leadership

reengineering, and various information-technology-driven theories such as agile software development,

• Human resource management

Nature of managerial work

In management, it has three basic levels

• Top-level managers require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills.

• Mid-level managers have a specialised understanding of certain managerial tasks.

Basic elements of management

Management operates through various functions, often classified as planning, organizing,

is a vital concern. Organization is a matter of appointing individuals to assignments or responsibilities

If I am a Manager, how can I manage the things in an

What do I want to do?

How should I set it up?

How does this look?

Different Theories of Management:

A contingency approach to management, also known as a situational approach, is designed to be flexible;

House defines leadership in accordance to organiations as the ability of an individual to influence,

Role of Leadership in an Organization :

According to Timothy Warneka in Leading People the Black Belt Way,

What makes Effective Leadership :

1. idealized influence - attributions

2. idealized influence - behaviors

The three dimensions of transactional leadership measured by the MLQ cover:

Suggested qualities of leadership

• the nature of the task (structured or routine)

• the nature of the problem

Leadership "styles" (per House and Podsakoff)

Leadership and vision

• appear as a simple, yet vibrant, image in the mind of the leader

Leadership's relation with management

• Management involves power by position.

• Managers administer, leaders innovate

Historical views on leadership

Principles of Leadership (Be, Know, Do) :

Factors Affecting Leadership :

Four Framework Approach

For an activity, see Bolman and Deal's Four Framework Approach.

1. "Concern for people" is plotted using the vertical axis

High 9 Country Club Team Leader

• Authoritarian (9 on task, 1 on people)

Team Leader (high task, high relationship)

Country Club Leader (low task, high relationship)

Impoverished Leader (low task, low relationship)

For an activity, see The Leadership Matrix.

The Process of Great Leadership

Managers have subordinates

Authoritarian, transactional style

Leaders have followers

Charismatic, transformational style

Subject Leader Manager

difference in personality styles between leadership versus management.

Leadership versus management - have very different attitudes toward goals.

leadership versus management conceptions of work.

Why do we differentiate leadership from management?

• Because all organizations have two fundamentally different tasks:

Development of Leadership versus management.

How do managers differ from leaders?

• Managers are often not seen as leaders but as administrators.

• This page discusses how managers specifically can be leaders.

You might also like