Managers and Leaders Are They Different? Harvard Business Review

Abstract

"Leadership" is unlike from "management"; many just know it intuitively only have not been able to understand this deviation clearly. These are two entirely dissimilar functions based on their underlying philosophies, functions, and outcomes. Similarly, leaders and managers are not the same people. They apply different conceptualizations and approaches to work, do different ways of problem solving, undertake dissimilar functions in the organizations, and exhibit different behaviors owing to their unlike intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Although discretely different, the terms "manager" and "leader" are often confused and used interchangeably. This paper attempts to accost this outcome at various levels, including etymological, development, conceptual distinctions, definitional complexities, functional divergence, and behavioral differences. It is argued that in lodge to be competitive, futurity organizations need to develop as many leaders equally possible, but that these leaders should also accept sufficient management noesis and capabilities. Organizations also need effective managers who possess adequate leadership skills for meliorate problem solving and overall functioning in the teams.

The literature on leadership dates back to several centuries. Aboriginal approaches to leadership comprise the writings of early philosophers and thinkers who put together their thoughts on leaders, leadership, and the demand for leadership development. Philosophers such equally Aristotle (Nichomachean Ideals and Politics), Plato (The Commonwealth), Confucius, Sun Tzu (The Art of War), Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince), Pareto (The Treatise on Full general Sociology), and many others contributed to the development of the theoretical base of leadership. By contrast, the literature on management is relatively new and dates back to the beginning of the twentieth century.

Despite the different timing of their evolution and the different contexts in which these concepts adult, leadership and management are widely used interchangeably. Although many scholars accept attempted to provide a distinction; there is a common confusion that leadership is similar to direction and leaders are similar to managers (Kotter 1990, 2006; Zaleznik 1977, 1998; Bennis and Nanus 1985). Cogliser and Brigham (2004) highlighted the growing interest of scholars in differentiating leadership from other related phenomena such equally entrepreneurship and management. Some scholars contend that leadership and direction are 2 opposing styles of employee supervision that are both popular, and are still being used in the business concern world (Kumle and Kelly 2000). Others believe that they are ii sides of the same coin (Bryman 1992) and complementary systems of action, each with its own function and feature activities (Gokenbach 2003). Mangham and Pye (1991, p. 13) go even further, saying, "It results in nothing more than than a vague feeling that managing is something rather mundane, looking afterwards the basics and bolts of the enterprise and leading is something special and precious undertaken past the really important people in the enterprise." Withal, the majority of literary arguments support the fact that leadership and direction are completely different from each other whilst leaders are distinct from managers (Zaleznik 1977; Kumle and Kelly 1999; Kotter 2006; Perloff 2004). Mowson (2001) believes that leaders may non excel at management and, what is more often the case, managers do non necessarily brand great leaders. In practice, many managers perform the leadership office, and many leaders do manage. Therefore, the debate continues and the misunderstanding over the two terms persists.

Interchangeably referring to the terms "leadership" and "management" tin engender functional complications and long-term confusions over the roles of leaders and managers. Kotter (2006) argues that blurring the difference between leadership and management will also cause difficulties in measuring, testing, assessing, hiring, developing, and promoting them. Arguably, the boundary between whole existing knowledge domains on leadership and management is rather confusing, and volition be farther inexplainable if the difference betwixt leadership and management, or leaders and managers, is not articulated. This will not only have an unfavorable impact on furthering the inquiry on both bodies of knowledge, but also in providing an understanding of the work that has already been washed. For example, researchers fence that this defoliation of terms hinders efforts to reach accuracy and precision in research on leadership and direction (Kotter 2006; Gordon and Yukl 2004; Zaccaro and Horn 2003). On a practical level, this misunderstanding might hinder programs to develop managers and leaders (Zaleznik 1998), which suggests that organizations may face difficulties in their efforts to develop the correct talent for the right jobs.

If a natural leader emerges in a group being overseen by a director, a conflict of views is likely to develop. Similarly, in the presence of a natural leader, the manager may feel uncomfortable and feel that the manager's authorization is challenged. Organizations should appreciate the talents of their personnel, and place each of them in the right positions to help reduce the risk of such conflicts. Finally, if in that location is no clear understanding of leadership and direction, organizations cannot derive benefits from complimenting with the attributes of the two functions.

"Most of what we call management consists of making information technology difficult for people to get their jobs done."

—Peter Drucker

Purpose

This newspaper attempts to elucidate the differences between leadership and direction, and to distinguish between leaders and managers. The give-and-take is undertaken nether the broad topics of etymological development, definitional complexities, conceptual distinctions, behavioral differences, and functional departure between the terms "leadership" and "direction." The paper besides discusses the intersections of the roles of leaders and managers. These two terms become clearer and easier to understand when discussed in isolation from each other. The fundamental questions considered in this paper are:

i.	How do leaders differ from managers?
2.	How does leadership differ from management? and
3.	How can leadership and direction be constructively combined to achieve ameliorate results in organizations?

Etymological Evolution

The history of the give-and-take "leadership" goes dorsum several centuries. The best etymology of the word "leadership" has been described by Grace (2003), who notes that the word evolved in the English language over the last millennium. The origins of the words "lead," "leader," and "leadership" have their roots in pre-Anglo-Saxon civilisation. Leadership comes from the word "lead," the roots of which are in "loedan" (or "lithan"), which ways "to travel." Although the give-and-take "lead" (which means "to cause to go on with oneself" or "bring or take a person or an brute to a place") appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) during 825 CE, its modern definition (that is: "to guide with reference to action and opinion; to bring by persuasion or counsel to or into a condition; to conduct by statement or representation to a conclusion; to induce to do something") appeared in the text around 1225 CE.

In the early nineteenth century, the word "leading" was explained past the concepts of influence and exercising of dominion. In the editions during that era, "leadership" was divers as "the state or condition of a leader." In the twentieth century, leadership was divers equally "the ability to lead" and later on it was used as a synonym for "manager." Here, it is important to note that the suffix "send" broadly indicates the state or condition, the qualities of a class of human beings, or rank or role. Afterward more than than a one thousand years of its kickoff use, the OED defines "leadership" every bit: "the dignity, function, or position of a leader, especially of a political party; ability to atomic number 82; the position of a grouping of people leading or influencing others within a given context; the group itself; the activeness or influence necessary for the management or organization of endeavor in a grouping undertaking."

On the other hand, the word "manage" has two singled-out sources. The outset is the Italian word "meneggiare" which (roughly translated) meant handling things—peculiarly horses. This derivation was more masculine in nature and carried the connotation of taking charge, especially in the context of war. By the showtime of the sixteenth century, this broader sense of "manage" remained the so; even so, it later got dislocated with the French give-and-take "menager" which meant careful utilise, specially in the household. The usage of "menager" was more gentle and feminine in nature. This dual grapheme of direction has remained so ever since (Mant 1977). Bavington (2005) observes that the term "management" encompasses three principal meanings: management-as-control (with roots in the Latin word "manus"), management-as-caretaking (with roots in the French word "ménager"), and management-as-coping (a modern understanding of management). The current definition of "management" in the OED is: "organization, supervision, or direction; the application of skill or intendance in the manipulation, use, treatment, or control (of a thing or person), or in the conduct of something."

This discussion shows that the give-and-take "leadership" has evolved with the underlying meanings of influence, persuasion, direction, and the power to atomic number 82 in a given context. These meanings reverberate that a leader influences others past his or her ability, persuasiveness, and vision. "One who guides others in activity or opinion; 1 who takes the lead in any concern, enterprise, or motion; one who is "followed" past disciples or adherents; the chief of a sect or political party; the foremost or most eminent member (of a profession); also, in wider sense, a person of eminent position and influence; i who leads a choir or band of dancers, musicians, or singers" (from OED). This understanding of "leader" and "leadership" was in existence over $2500\text{years}$ ago when Lao Tzu, a Chinese philosopher and poet, wrote:

A leader is best

When people barely know he exists

Non so good when people obey and acclaim him

Worse when they despise him

But of a adept leader, who talks little,

When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,

They volition say: we did it ourselves.

On the other hand, "management" is virtually controlling, supervising, application of skills, caretaking, and coping with prevailing circumstances. Therefore, a manager, co-ordinate to OED, is "a person who organizes, directs, or plots something; a person who regulates or deploys resource; a person who manages (a department of) a business, arrangement, establishment, etc.; a person with an executive or supervisory function within an system, etc."

Definitional Complexities

Goethals et al. (2004), the editors of the Encyclopedia of Leadership, argue that at that place is no single and universally accepted definition of leadership. Leadership beliefs involves detail acts in which a leader engages in the course of directing and coordinating the work to his group members (Fiedler 1967). In their Handbook of Leadership, which is often referred to as the bible on the subject, Bass and Stogdill (1990) define the leadership as, "the principal dynamic force that motivates and coordinates the organization in the accomplishment of its objectives." Burns (1978) defines leadership every bit "the reciprocal process of mobilizing by persons with certain motives and values, various economic, political and other resources, in context of contest and conflict, in gild to realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers." According to Bennis (1989), leadership is the "procedure (not a position) that involves leaders, followers, and situations." Business firm (2004), the main investigator of the biggest always study conducted on leadership, defines it 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" (Firm 2004).

Cogliser and Brigham (2004) observe that the leadership field has been aggress with conceptual or definitional challenges. Whereas it is an of import concept in various contexts such as academia, military machine, politics, business, and society, there is no commonly agreed upon definition or prepare of descriptions of leadership (Bass 1990; Kotter 1990, 1995, 1999; Terry 1993; Zaleznik 1998). Each author appears view leadership equally having an individual perception and definition. Even so, information technology is clear from the previously mentioned definitions that at the definitional level, leadership is perceived to cover certain attitudes of the leader, who inspires the followers to reach sure goals. The leader'southward power is legitimized by the followers (Bass 1990; Stogdill 1997), and the leader influences others by giving them hope, inspiring their self-efficacy, establishing their desires, and consistently following a set up of personal values (Zaleznik 1998; George and Sims 2007). People follow a leader for a mix of positive reasons such as hope of success, trust in the leader, excitement about a projection or mission, or the opportunity to stretch oneself to the limit (Maccoby 2000). However, at the same time, a number of moderating factors determine the effectiveness of leadership such as situation, followers' readiness to change, organizational context and bureaucracy, leader-follower fit (Fiedler 1967; Gardner et al. 2005).

At the definitional level, the literature on "management" offers straightforward descriptions. For example, Daft (2003) defines direction every bit "the attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, leading, and decision-making organizational resources." Levitt (1976) notes that "direction consists of the rational assessment of a situation; the systematic pick of goals and purposes; the systematic development of strategies to achieve these goals; the marshalling of the required resource; the rational blueprint, arrangement, direction, and control of the activities required to attain the selected purposes; and finally, the motivating and rewarding of people to practise the work."

Drucker (1988) notes:

[T]o be certain, the fundamental task of direction remains the same: to make people capable of joint performance by giving them common goals, common values, the right structure, and the ongoing training and development they need to perform, and to respond to modify. But the very meaning of job has changed, only considering the performance of management has converted the workforce from one composed largely of unskilled laborers to one of highly educated cognition workers.

Although at that place are several existing and emerging branches of management, the definition of "management," dissimilar that of leadership, is more or less agreed upon. Moreover, the functions of direction are well categorized and clearly defined in the literature.

Conceptual Distinctions

From the give-and-take so far, it is articulate that scholars differ in defining "leadership" but the underlying philosophy remains mainly undisputed. Conceptual foundations of "leadership" are very old, and can be traced to ancient literature generally in the context of politics, government, faith, and order. Information technology has been i of the world'south oldest preoccupations, serving as both a hot topic and an important driver of innovation for thousands of years (Bass 1990). That is, leadership is a process that involves vision, motivation, and actions of the leader that enables the followers to achieve sure collective goals. Information technology involves the leader, followers, and the situation. The purpose of leadership is to provide management and bring about alter.

On the other paw, the conceptual foundations of "direction" emerged during the period of relatively rapid economic development and industrialization of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Daft 2003). Such developments brought up the need for appropriate means of system, planning, and scheduling of available resources. The emergence of large and complex organizations in the early on twentieth century and escalation in the search for better ways of resource utilization led to the development of a rational, scientific arroyo to the written report of management, equally efforts were made to turn organizations into efficient operating machines (Kotter 2006). In brief, leadership and management are not but different at the definitional level, just likewise, their conceptual foundations have been developed from different needs and contexts. In these regards, it can be observed that leadership involves power by influence and direction involves ability by position. Leadership is about coping with change while management is near coping with complexity (Kotter 1990).

Stogdill (1997) argues that leadership cannot sally unless the members of a group assume unlike responsibilities. On the other manus, management is appointed and follows the traditional hierarchy.

Zaieznik (1977) argues that leaders and managers differ in their conception of chaos and guild, in their motivation (which results from their private personal history), and in how they think and human action. Managers are process oriented, stability and control seekers, problem solvers, and systematic in nature. On the other hand, leaders tolerate anarchy, are empowering and are trouble examiners, and by and large rebels against routine.

Maccoby (2000) notes that leaders are alter agents whereas managers are principally administrators. Leaders accept broad perspectives enabling them to peer into the future to determine needs and what changes need to be made to ensure and facilitate growth and survival, but managers are guided by a drive to handle routine in social club to produce efficiently (Perloff 2004). According to Bennis (1989), becoming a leader is synonymous with becoming yourself; however, becoming a manager is becoming what a company wants yous to go. Leaders produce the potential for dramatic change, anarchy, and fifty-fifty failure; but managers produce standards, consistency, predictability, and club (Kotter 1990). Leaders are more virtually soul (or heart) rather than mind, while managers have more of mind rather than soul (Capowski 1994).

Behavioral Differences

Zaleznik (1977) maintains that the managerial culture emphasizes rationality and control. Nurtured under this culture, managers tend to be problem solvers by instinct, and their energies are spent on finding solutions to the problems relating to organizational goals, resources, structures, and people (Zaleznik 1977; Covey et al. 1994). This is why, opposite to leaders, managers are more scientific in nature, structured and deliberate in their approach, authoritative and stabilizing in their beliefs, and persistent and tough minded in their routine. A leadership civilisation, on the other hand, is open, chatty, frank, and participative. Therefore, information technology encourages the evolution and awarding of new ideas to approach problems.

Taking the issues as opportunities, leaders seek fresh options and persuade their followers to innovatively grapple with the problems. Leaders are more rebellious in nature while managers prefer to suit to the organizational norms, rules, and hierarchy (Kumle and Kelly 1999). Therefore, most leaders challenge the status quo whereas managers adopt to take the condition quo (Bennis 1989).

George (2003) notes that skilful leaders understand their purpose, lead with center, follow their personal set up of values, plant and retain connected relationships, and demonstrate the highest sense of self-discipline in the lives. Leaders' behaviors demonstrate their deep concerns for the development of their followers, the well being of their organizations, and the welfare of gild. Whereas leaders remain original and authentic in their behavior, managers copy (Shamir and Eilam 2005; Bennis 1989). Zaleznik (1977) argues that leaders' relationships are mostly intensive and ane-to-one. On the other hand, managers establish networks and widely distributed attachments. Co-ordinate to Stogdill (1997), leaders are differentiated from others in terms of the influence they exert upon the goal-setting and goal-achievement activities of the system (Stogdill 1997). They stand up out differently, question assumptions, are usually suspicious of traditions, and are champions of innovation (Bennis 1989). Leaders' behaviors are directed past their inner values and are inspired by their future vision. On the other paw, managers' behaviors are mostly directed past others, and they are motivated by the targets they want to accomplish.

Functional/Operational Divergence

"People ask the difference between a leader and a dominate. . . . The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert. The leader leads, and the dominate drives."

—Theodore Roosevelt

Maccoby (2000) argues that leadership is a relationship (selecting talent, motivating, coaching, and building trust) between the leader and the led that tin can energize an arrangement. On the other hand, direction is a function (planning, budgeting, evaluating, and facilitating) that must be exercised in any business. Similarly, Weathersby (1999) notes that leadership involves motivating people to contribute to the vision and encouraging them to align their cocky-interest with that of the organisation. However, management is about resource allotment of scarce resources toward the attainment of an organization's objective(s), the setting of priorities, the design of work, and finally, the achievement of results. According to Kumle and Kelly (1999), in managerial culture, roles are rigidly defined within the organization. Management controls the processes through the power of a modest group—normally those members who take the orders directly from the superlative—instead of total squad input (Kumle and Kelly 1999). On the other hand, leadership culture empowers the employees by trust and gives them the freedom to fulfill their chore responsibilities. Where leadership reframes the nowadays employees of an organization through training and not rehiring, the emphasis of management is on rehiring resources, and not on reframing employees with more training (Kumle and Kelly 1999).

In order to achieve better results, direction strives to realize organizational efficiency forth with effectiveness inside the parameters of the arrangement'south mission. Nonetheless, leadership takes a dissimilar approach. Perloff (2004) argues that leadership creates and sells its visions to those who need to implement them, and evaluates whether these have been successful, along with determining what the side by side steps are. He uses an illustration of "trains" to describe the difference between leaders and managers. In his view, managers make the trains run on fourth dimension, simply it is leaders who decide the destination every bit well as what freight and passengers the trains carry. Put simply, managers are more similar tacticians, whereas leaders are strategists. Covey et al. (1994) make the same betoken in a dissimilar way: management works inside the established epitome while leadership creates new paradigms. Management operates within the established system whereas leadership improves the existing systems and establishes more and better systems.

Leaders provide vision and inspiration, and back up the people to do things, whereas managers provide the resources and expect results. Zaleznik (1977) suggests that leaders develop fresh approaches to long-continuing bug and open issues to new options; managers deed to limit choices. Whilst leaders inspire the purpose, managers are concerned most systems, controls, procedures, policies, and structure (Bennis 1989). The master role of the leaders is to fix a new direction for a group. However, managers control, guarantee discipline, and introduce lodge co-ordinate to established principles (Schumpeter 1934). Leadership is virtually knowing where the organization needs to go, whereas management is concerned with how to get there. At a further functional level, Maccoby (2000) notes that leaders recognize and select the talent, nurture the talent by motivating them, coach the talent, and retain the talent by building trust; managers are task masters of planning, budgeting, evaluating, and facilitating. Tabular array 1 presents, in the form of brusk summaries, the views of various authors on the difference between leaders and managers.

Table 1. Divergence between Leaders and Managers

How Leadership and Management Overlap

"Direction is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall."

—Stephen R. Covey

Leadership and management are interrelated, and may quondam perform a like part and achieve the aforementioned goals; however, they are different and singled-out skills (Kotter 1990; Bass 1990; Conger and Kanungo 1992; Zaleznik 1998; Bateman and Snell 1999; Yukl 1999; Perloff 2004; Hay and Hodgkinson 2006). In view of some, at that place is a sense that leadership is an aspect of managing that is overtly concerned with thinking nigh the long-term future of the arrangement and fostering support for particular ideas (Hay and Hodgkinson 2006). In this view, today's businesses need splendid leaders and bright managers, visionary leadership and high-quality management. Overemphasis on either one is neither healthy nor desirable for any kind of organization. Capowski (1994) makes substantially the same point and notes that the debate on the divergence between leadership and management has been missing an important bespeak. The point is that being a manager is non bad and being a leader is not better, although Hay and Hodgkinson (2006) observe the tendency of literature to see leadership every bit separate from management but as well superior. The current authors, however, contend that using labels such as "leader" and "managing director" does non necessarily make a difference equally to how organizations run. An effective executive needs a combination of both qualities: "what is needed is better management and better leadership (Hay and Hodgkinson 2006, p. 13). To Capowski (1994), vision without construction is likely to effect in anarchy, while structure without vision will issue in complacency and perhaps catastrophe.

Ideally, a business organization should look for a small number of good leaders and many capable managers to run it. Bass (1990) argues that sometimes leaders manage and sometimes managers lead (Bass 1990). Occasionally, these 2 functions are blended and complementary (Kotter 2006). Yukl (2002) argues that rather than seeking to constitute distinctions betwixt managers and leaders, the ii can be explained using the same processes and models. Some authors even use the terms "managerial leadership" and "leader-managing director" (see Yukl 1989; Gardner 1990). Gardner (1990) suggests that a leader-director is one who is futuristic, inspiring, and visionary. In contrast to an archetypal manager, the leader-manager empowers the employees, and values their contributions by encouraging them and by applying participatory management.

The leader-managing director inspires the followers past developing trust, attracting and nurturing talent, and by continuous coaching and education (Maccoby 2000). Yukl (2005) shares the same perspective, maintaining that both leaders and managers utilize a mix of leadership and management behaviors. This mixing of behaviors suggests they must combine the necessary skills to direct day-to-day affairs effectively (a role traditionally associated with direction), while at the same time anticipating and managing change (the principal office in leadership). Kotter (1982) seems to adhere to this same perspective and notes that primal components of the managerial process include planning, organizing, directing/leading, and decision-making. This implies that leading is indispensable for an effective manager. Other authors fence that the strategic leaders utilize planning—particularly strategic planning—as their primary focus (Boal and Hooijberg 2000; Cogliser and Brigham 2004). Mangham and Pye (1991) argue that leading is not a specialized phenomenon and an entirely distinct action, merely simply an attribute, possibly a highly salient aspect, of managing.

Some researchers contend that to run today's business organizations effectively and to ensure that they grow in a sustainable manner, some combination of management and leadership, efficient functions, and connected relationships are necessary (Maccoby 2000; Valikangas and Okumura 1997). It is logically incomprehensible that every manager in an organization insists on having his or her singled-out vision, equally there should be people at the operational and functional level, executing the plans and implementing the strategies. Bryman (1992) also maintains that many visions can be achieved only through the actions of many managers and not simply through the exhortations of private leaders (Grint 1997). While leaders are vital in determining the time to come vision and destination of an organization, managers in the front end line of the system are critical in sustaining quality, service, innovation, and financial functioning. Similarly, Sarros (1992) notes that organizations need people who are good at leading besides every bit managing if they want to become internationally competitive, and better places in which to work.

This distinction shows that leadership and direction are singled-out and leaders differ from managers. However, in order to exploit the total potential of their man and other resources, organizations volition need to develop leadership skills in their managers (Priestland and Hanig 2005) and management skills in their leaders (Weathersby 1999). There is increasingly a need for more leadership at all levels of the organization and to fulfill that need, managers have to get better in leadership.

The Way Forward

Although Kotter (2006) notes that the debate on differentiating leadership from management is likely to continue in academic circles, corporations will proceed to inquire for leaders but demand managers, and consultants will continue to supply leadership development and assessment. He argues that people get opportunities to testify leadership although their principal job may be direction. However, the current authors have a different stance. It is argued that too much emphasis on management and too trivial focus on leadership is non useful for organizations. An overly managerial surroundings hinders innovation. It routinizes operations and closes the door to new ideas and fresh approaches. In today's knowledge-based economies, competitive industries, and turbulent operating environments where information technology is necessary to unleash the talents of a highly educated workforce, conventional managers can only ho-hum down progress. Therefore, it is important that organizations develop as many leaders as possible while ensuring that these leaders too know direction aspects. The organizations demand to develop their managers into leaders in guild to stretch the performance of their human resource. Toor et al. (2007) too debate that this debate does not aim to prove that leaders are better than managers or that leadership qualities are the but solution to modern business challenges.

Some authors have argued in the literature that the terms "leaders," "managers," and "entrepreneurs" "can be seen as enactments of archetypes, embodying the different fears and hopes of those who create organizations by their daily functioning" (Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff 1991, p. 529). Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff (1991, p. 529) country: "Leadership is seen as symbolic performance, expressing the hope of command over destiny; direction as the activeness of introducing order past coordinating flows of things and people toward collective activeness, and entrepreneurship as the making of unabridged new worlds." This view shows that either of the roles, on its own, does not necessarily guarantee success. Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff (1991) advise that organizations operate in historical, economic and political circumstances and are influenced past diverse sociopolitical and economic forces, shaping of fashions, and occupational and organizational cultures.

Information technology is necessary to go on the efforts to place the differences betwixt leaders and managers, and betwixt leadership and management. In that location are several research implications here. In most studies, when researchers examine leadership, their subjects more often than not belong to the management ranks. In organizational studies, researchers treat managers as synonymous with leaders. Bryman (2004) also argues that research on leadership tends to focus on the role and leadership practices of formally designated leaders who in nigh cases are managers. Parry (in press) also shares the perspective that the person in the senior direction position is often considered a leader. He argues that the leader is someone who has a certain influence on followers. And that it is the nature of this leadership impact leadership researchers need to investigate. In this regard, inquiry on informal leadership has much to offer. Although some studies accept been conducted on breezy leadership (Rusaw 1996; Pescosolido 2002), more work needs to be washed on how leaders are selected as subjects in research studies. Also, research endeavors should be made to distinguish leadership from management. This would provide useful inputs into leadership development initiatives where there should be a articulate determination of whether the outcome should exist the creation of leaders or managers. Finally, studies can focus on how effective leaders and managers strike a good balance between leadership and direction to maximize their influence on others.

Conclusions

Much has been written on the deviation between "leadership" and "management" and betwixt "leaders" and "managers." There are hitting parallels betwixt "leadership" and "management" equally well every bit "leaders" and "managers." However, it is clear that today's organizations need both leaders and managers. They need leaders with managerial capabilities and managers with leadership qualities. Therefore, it is important that organizations adopt strategies to systematically develop their professionals into managers who are effective leaders too. These managers, in given circumstances, can then perform a leadership role. For this purpose, leadership development should be made a part of organizational strategy because it is a source of competitive advantage.

References

Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill'southward handbook of leadership, third Ed., Free Press, New York.

Bateman, T. Southward., and Snell, S. A. (1999). Management: Building competitive advantage, 4th Ed., McGraw-Colina, London.

Bavington, D. (2005). "Of fish and people: Managerial ecology in Newfoundland and Labrador cod fisheries." Unpublished dissertation, Ch.i, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, p. 4–11, online: ⟨http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_ecology⟩ (September 21, 2007).

Bennis, W. (1989). On condign a leader, Perseus, Reading, Mass.

Bennis, W. Chiliad., and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge, Harper and Row, New York.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations, Sage, London, and New York.

Bryman, A. (2004). "Qualitative research on leadership: A disquisitional just beholden review." Leadership Q., 15(half dozen), 729–769.

Boal, M. B., and Hooijberg, R. (2000). "Strategic leadership inquiry: Moving on." Leadership Q., eleven(four), 515–550.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership, Harper and Row, New York.

Capowski, G. (1994). "Anatomy of a leader: Where are the leaders of tomorrow?" Manage. Rev., 83(3), 10–fourteen.

Cogliser, C. C., and Brigham, K. H. (2004). "The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Common lessons to be learned." Leadership Q., xv(6), 771–799.

Conger, J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1992). "Perceived behavioral attributes of charismatic leadership." Canadian J. Behav. Sci., 24(i), 86–102.

Covey, S., Merrill, A. R., and Merrill, R. R. (1994). First things first: To live, to dearest, to larn, to leave a legacy, Simon and Schuster, New York.

Czarniawska-Joerges, B., and Wolff, R. (1991). "Leaders, managers, entrepreneurs on and off the arrangement." Organ. Stud., 12(4), 529–547.

Daft, R. 50. (2003). Management, 6th Ed., Dryden, London.

Drucker, P. F. (1988). "Management and the world'south work." Harvard Passenger vehicle. Rev., 66(five), 65–76.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness, McGraw-Loma, New York.

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership, Gratis Press, New York.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., and Walumba, F. O. (2005). "Can you encounter the real me? A cocky-based model of authentic leader and follower evolution." Leadership Q., 16(3), 343–372.

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

George, B., and Sims, P. (2007). True north: Detect your accurate leadership, J-B Warren Bennis Series, Wiley, San Francisco.

Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J., and Burns, J. M., eds. (2004). Encyclopedia of leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Gokenbach, V. (2003). "Infuse management with leadership." Nurs. Manage, 34(1), eight–9.

Gordon, A., and Yukl, G. (2005). "The time to come of leadership research: Challenges and opportunities." German J. Hum. Resour. Res., 18(3), 359–365.

Grace, One thousand. (2003). "Origins of leadership: The etymology of leadership." Proc., International Leadership Association Conference, Nov 6–8, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.

Grint, Thou. (1997). Leadership: Classical, contemporary and critical approaches, Oxford University Press, New York.

Hay, A., and Hodgkinson, M. (2006). "Rethinking leadership: A way forward for education leadership?" Leadership Organiz. Devel. J., 27(2), 144–158.

House, R. J. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The Earth study of sixty-two societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Kotter, J. P. (1982). "What effective general managers really do." Harvard Bus. Rev., threescore(half dozen), 156–168.

Kotter, J. P. (1990). "What leaders really exercise." Harvard Omnibus. Rev., v(3), iii–eleven.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). "What leaders actually do." The leader's companion, J. T.Wren, ed., Free Press, 114–123.

Kotter, J. P. (1999). What leaders really do, Harvard Business School Printing, Boston.

Kotter, J. P. (2006). "Leadership versus management: What's the difference?" J. Qual. Participation, 29(ii), xiii–17.

Kumle, J., and Kelly, N. J. (1999). "Leadership versus direction." Supervision, 61(four), 8–ten.

Levitt, T. (1976). "The industrialization of service." Harvard Bus. Rev., 54(v), 63–74.

Mangham, I., and Pye, A. (1991). The doing of managing, Blackwell, Oxford.

Mant, A. (1977). The rise and autumn of the British director, MacMillan Press, London.

Maccoby, M. (2000). "Understanding the difference between direction and leadership." Res. Technol. Manag., 43(1), 57–59.

Mawson, T. C. (2001). "Gear up! Aim! Inspire! Leadership in engineering." Leadership Manage. Eng., one(2), fifty–5110.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2001)1:2(l)

Parry, Grand. Westward. (in press). "Qualitative method for leadership enquiry: Now at that place'south a novel idea!" Regulatory Compliance J.

Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). "Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion." Leadership Q., 13(5), 583–599.

Perloff, R. (2004). "Managing and leading: The universal importance of, and differentiation between, ii essential functions." Talk presented at Oxford University, July 14–fifteen.

Priestland, A., and Hanig, A. (2005). "Developing outset-level leaders." Harvard Bus. Rev., 83(6), 113–120.

Robbins, S. (2002). "The difference betwixt managing and leading." Online: ⟨http://www.Entrepreneur.com/article/0,462,304743,00.htm⟩ (September 21, 2007).

Rusaw, A. C. (1996). "All God's children: Leading diversity in churches every bit organizations." Leadership Q., seven(2), 229–241.

Sarros, J. C. (1992). "What leaders say they do: An Australian example." Leadership Organiz. Devel. J., 13(five), 21–27.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). Commercialism, socialism, and democracy, Vol. 14, Harper and Row, New York.

Shamir, B., and Eilam, G. (2005). "What's your story?' A life-stories approach to authentic leadership evolution." Leadership Q., 16(3), 395–417.

Stogdill, R. . (1997). "Leadership, membership, and system." Leadership: Classical, gimmicky, and disquisitional approaches, K.Grint, ed., Oxford University Press, 112–125.

Terry, R. W. (1993). Authentic leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Toor, South. R., Ofori, K., and Arain, F. M. (2007). "Authentic leadership style and its implications in project management." Autobus. Rev., 2(1), 31–55.

Valikangas, L., and Okumura, A. (1997). "Why exercise people follow leaders? A report of a U.South., and a Japanese alter program." Leadership Q., 8(3), 313–337.

Weathersby, G. B. (1999). "Leadership versus direction." Manage. Rev., 88(v).

Yukl, G. (1989). "Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research." J. Manage., 15(2), 251–289.

Yukl, G. (1999). "An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership." Eur. J. Piece of work and Org. Psy., eight(1), 33–48.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations, 5th Ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Yukl, Grand. (2005). "Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research." J. Manage., 15, 254–289.

Zaccaro, S. J., and Horn, Z. N. J. (2003). "Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective symbiosis." Leadership Q., 14(half-dozen), 769–806.

Zaleznik, A. (1977). "Managers and leaders: Are they different?" Harvard Bus. Rev., 55(3), 67–78.

Zaleznik, A. (1998). "Managers and leaders: Are they different?" Harvard Motorcoach Rev on Leadership, Harvard Business organisation Schoolhouse Press, Boston.

Zimmerman, Due east. Fifty. (2001). "What's under the hood? The mechanics of leadership versus management." Healthcare Exec., 62(8), x–12.

Shamas-ur-Rehman Toor is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Building in the School of Design and Environment at National University of Singapore. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected] George Ofori is professor and head of the Section of Building in the School of Design and Surroundings at National University of Singapore. He can exist reached via east-mail at [email protected].

jablonskitiat1954.blogspot.com

Source: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/%28ASCE%291532-6748%282008%298%3A2%2861%29

Share this post