Exploring power assumptions in the leadership and management debate

Introduction

This paper develops a conceptual framework for the leadership and management debate by
examining power assumptions in the literature. It discusses the confusion surrounding the conceptual
underpinnings of leadership and management and offers a framework to help differentiate between
the two. The framework expands on the assumption that leadership is a subset of management and
introduces the idea of management as a non-positional construct. This perspective has not been
explored in leadership studies but is recognized in the general management literature. The paper
concludes by offering the framework as a contribution to the field of leadership studies and a means
to frame future research.

Relating leadership and management

The literature on leadership and management has been described as an enigma, with theories
ranging from them being the same to being mutually exclusive or connected. Recent distinctions
based on transactional and transformational leadership, emotional engagement, culture, or problem-
solving offer little help in understanding the practical experiences within organizations. These
distinctions still demarcate the difference based on basic notions of change in organizations and do
not recognize the assumptions about power that underlie how leadership and management are
constructed in theory and practice.

Exploring underlying power assumptions

This paper explores the assumptions regarding power in the leadership and management debate. The
literature on leadership and management has been criticised for lacking discussion regarding
underlying assumptions about power. The concept of leadership has the potential for confusion
based on different underlying power constructs. Similarly, the writing on management has suffered
criticism for a lack of discussion regarding underlying assumptions about power. Management can
also be viewed from two perspectives, a positional power or assigned perspective and a personal or
emergent perspective. The paper proposes a four-part conceptual framework that takes into account
these different perspectives.

Framing the leadership and management debate through power perspectives

The paper highlights that assumptions about power can lead to confusion when discussing leadership
and management. A four-part conceptual framework has been developed to represent these
assumptions, including managers “doing” leadership, managers “becoming” leaders, “being” leaders
and managers, and leaders “doing” management. The framework aims to bring greater clarity to the
discussion and differentiate or connect the concepts of leadership and management.

Quadrant 1 – managers “doing” leadership

Quadrant 1 explores the traditional view of leadership as a set of behaviors required to be an

effective manager. It represents management as a position of responsibility and leadership as
something the manager needs to earn through personal influence. The literature on trait theory, style
theory, situational or contingency theory, LMX, and transformational and transactional leadership
reflect attempts to understand managers "doing" leadership. The growing interest in distributed
leadership may illustrate a shift in the literature away from researching managers "doing" leadership,
but it still positions leadership within assumptions about hierarchy and domination. This quadrant
suggests the need to understand distributed leadership alongside power, knowledge, ethics, society,
and community.

Quadrant 2 – managers “becoming” leaders

Quadrant 2 sees both management and leadership as positions of responsibility, with a discourse that
suggests leadership is a higher position. Leadership has traditionally been viewed as a figurehead role
at the top of an organization, and much research in this area has focused on hierarchical assumptions.
Future research could explore what distinguishes a manager from a leader in an organization, and the
process of becoming a leader. The concept of "organizational becoming" may shed light on the
complexities of organizational change. This challenges the clichéd generalizations about leadership
and management and suggests that leadership can also involve resistance to change.

Quadrant 3 – “being” managers and leaders

Quadrant 3 is about "being" managers and leaders, derived from an emergent perspective.
Management is seen as a coping mechanism for uncertainty reduction, not just in organizations but
also in one's personal life. Leadership is also described as emergent and free from organizational
authority, but it's unclear how it differs from management. This quadrant is a fertile area for research,
and self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-coping are seen as contributory to the identity of being
a "leader." Further discussion and empirical research based on the notion of "being" in organizations
appear warranted.

Quadrant 4 – leaders “doing” management

Quadrant 4 is about leaders "doing" management and management "getting by". This quadrant has
not been extensively researched, but there has been an increase in interest in biographies of
successful leaders in both business and politics. Ethnographic research and autobiographical accounts
could provide insights into personal management ability and how it contributes to assuming top-level
positions in organizations. The literature on how managers learn to lead may also be helpful in better
understanding this quadrant.

Implications for further research

Implications of the leadership and management framework include the need for researchers to be
clear on which construct they are studying, the potential for further research on the transition
between "doing" and "being" a leader or manager, and the need for more research on Quadrants 2-4.
Further research is needed to understand power constructs in more detail, including charismatic
power, gender, and ecological control power, as well as sociological, post-structural, and critical
perspectives on power. Additionally, the framework has relevance to the area of distributed
leadership and could extend our understanding of leadership in organizations.

Conclusions

This paper proposes a four-part framework for conceptualizing leadership and management, which
clarifies the assumptions about power underlying each construct. The framework reduces confusion
and complexity in the literature and offers potential for meaningful connections between
psychological and sociological approaches. This paper fills a "missing link" in the leadership literature
by recognizing assumptions about power related to management from a personal perspective. It
concludes that this framework can provide a common method for categorizing leadership research
within management studies.