Supervisory Management the Art of Inspiring Empowering and Developing

Abstract

"Leadership" is different from "management"; many merely know it intuitively just have non been able to sympathize this difference clearly. These are two entirely different functions based on their underlying philosophies, functions, and outcomes. Similarly, leaders and managers are not the aforementioned people. They employ dissimilar conceptualizations and approaches to work, exercise different ways of problem solving, undertake different functions in the organizations, and exhibit different behaviors attributable to their different intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Although discretely different, the terms "manager" and "leader" are often dislocated and used interchangeably. This newspaper attempts to address this result at various levels, including etymological, development, conceptual distinctions, definitional complexities, functional difference, and behavioral differences. It is argued that in order to be competitive, hereafter organizations demand to develop as many leaders as possible, only that these leaders should also accept sufficient management knowledge and capabilities. Organizations also demand effective managers who possess acceptable leadership skills for better trouble solving and overall functioning in the teams.

The literature on leadership dates dorsum to several centuries. Ancient approaches to leadership comprise the writings of early on philosophers and thinkers who put together their thoughts on leaders, leadership, and the need for leadership development. Philosophers such as Aristotle (Nichomachean Ethics and Politics), Plato (The Democracy), Confucius, Dominicus Tzu (The Art of War), Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince), Pareto (The Treatise on Full general Folklore), and many others contributed to the evolution 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 developed, leadership and management are widely used interchangeably. Although many scholars accept attempted to provide a distinction; in that location is a common defoliation that leadership is like to direction and leaders are like 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 as entrepreneurship and management. Some scholars contend that leadership and management are two opposing styles of employee supervision that are both popular, and are notwithstanding beingness used in the business world (Kumle and Kelly 2000). Others believe that they are ii sides of the same money (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 zip more than a vague feeling that managing is something rather mundane, looking after the nuts 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 back up the fact that leadership and direction are completely different from each other whilst leaders are singled-out 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 than often the case, managers do non necessarily make swell leaders. In practice, many managers perform the leadership function, and many leaders practise manage. Therefore, the debate continues and the misunderstanding over the two terms persists.

Interchangeably referring to the terms "leadership" and "direction" tin can 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 besides 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 further baffling if the difference between leadership and management, or leaders and managers, is not articulated. This will non simply have an unfavorable affect on furthering the enquiry on both bodies of knowledge, simply likewise in providing an agreement of the piece of work that has already been done. For example, researchers debate that this confusion of terms hinders efforts to attain accurateness and precision in enquiry 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 right talent for the right jobs.

If a natural leader emerges in a group existence overseen by a manager, a conflict of views is likely to develop. Similarly, in the presence of a natural leader, the manager may experience uncomfortable and experience that the manager's authority is challenged. Organizations should capeesh the talents of their personnel, and place each of them in the correct positions to help reduce the chance of such conflicts. Finally, if there is no articulate agreement of leadership and management, organizations cannot derive benefits from complimenting with the attributes of the ii functions.

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

—Peter Drucker

Purpose

This paper attempts to elucidate the differences between leadership and management, and to distinguish betwixt leaders and managers. The discussion is undertaken under the broad topics of etymological development, definitional complexities, conceptual distinctions, behavioral differences, and functional divergence betwixt the terms "leadership" and "management." The paper also discusses the intersections of the roles of leaders and managers. These ii terms become clearer and easier to sympathise when discussed in isolation from each other. The fundamental questions considered in this paper are:

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

Etymological Development

The history of the word "leadership" goes back several centuries. The best etymology of the word "leadership" has been described by Grace (2003), who notes that the give-and-take evolved in the English language over the final millennium. The origins of the words "lead," "leader," and "leadership" accept their roots in pre-Anglo-Saxon culture. Leadership comes from the discussion "lead," the roots of which are in "loedan" (or "lithan"), which means "to travel." Although the word "lead" (which means "to cause to continue with oneself" or "bring or take a person or an animal to a place") appeared in the Oxford English language Lexicon (OED) during 825 CE, its modernistic definition (that is: "to guide with reference to action and opinion; to bring past persuasion or counsel to or into a condition; to behave by argument or representation to a decision; to induce to practise something") appeared in the text around 1225 CE.

In the early nineteenth century, the word "leading" was explained by the concepts of influence and exercising of dominion. In the editions during that era, "leadership" was defined as "the state or condition of a leader." In the twentieth century, leadership was defined as "the ability to lead" and afterward it was used as a synonym for "manager." Here, it is of import to note that the suffix "transport" broadly indicates the state or condition, the qualities of a class of man beings, or rank or office. After more than than a k years of its outset use, the OED defines "leadership" every bit: "the dignity, role, or position of a leader, particularly of a political party; ability to pb; the position of a group of people leading or influencing others within a given context; the group itself; the action or influence necessary for the direction or organization of effort in a grouping undertaking."

On the other manus, the word "manage" has two singled-out sources. The starting time is the Italian word "meneggiare" which (roughly translated) meant handling things—especially horses. This derivation was more masculine in nature and carried the connotation of taking charge, especially in the context of war. By the beginning of the sixteenth century, this broader sense of "manage" remained the so; notwithstanding, it afterward got dislocated with the French word "menager" which meant careful apply, especially in the household. The usage of "menager" was more gentle and feminine in nature. This dual character of direction has remained then ever since (Mant 1977). Bavington (2005) observes that the term "management" encompasses 3 principal meanings: management-as-control (with roots in the Latin word "manus"), management-every bit-caretaking (with roots in the French word "ménager"), and management-as-coping (a modern agreement of direction). The electric current definition of "direction" in the OED is: "organization, supervision, or management; the application of skill or care in the manipulation, use, handling, or control (of a matter or person), or in the conduct of something."

This word shows that the give-and-take "leadership" has evolved with the underlying meanings of influence, persuasion, direction, and the ability to pb in a given context. These meanings reflect that a leader influences others past his or her ability, persuasiveness, and vision. "I who guides others in action or opinion; one who takes the atomic number 82 in whatsoever business, enterprise, or movement; one who is "followed" by disciples or adherents; the chief of a sect or party; the foremost or almost 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 agreement of "leader" and "leadership" was in being over $2500\text{years}$ ago when Lao Tzu, a Chinese philosopher and poet, wrote:

A leader is best

When people barely know he exists

Not so good when people obey and acclaim him

Worse when they despise him

But of a good leader, who talks little,

When his piece of work is done, his aim fulfilled,

They volition say: we did it ourselves.

On the other manus, "direction" is about controlling, supervising, application of skills, caretaking, and coping with prevailing circumstances. Therefore, a manager, according to OED, is "a person who organizes, directs, or plots something; a person who regulates or deploys resources; a person who manages (a department of) a business, system, establishment, etc.; a person with an executive or supervisory function within an organisation, etc."

Definitional Complexities

Goethals et al. (2004), the editors of the Encyclopedia of Leadership, argue that in that location is no single and universally accepted definition of leadership. Leadership behavior involves particular 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) ascertain the leadership equally, "the master dynamic forcefulness that motivates and coordinates the system in the accomplishment of its objectives." Burns (1978) defines leadership equally "the reciprocal process of mobilizing by persons with certain motives and values, various economic, political and other resources, in context of competition and disharmonize, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers." According to Bennis (1989), leadership is the "process (not a position) that involves leaders, followers, and situations." Firm (2004), the primary investigator of the biggest ever study conducted on leadership, defines it as the "ability of an private to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members" (House 2004).

Cogliser and Brigham (2004) detect that the leadership field has been beset with conceptual or definitional challenges. Whereas information technology is an important concept in various contexts such as academia, military, politics, business, and society, at that place is no usually 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. Nevertheless, it is clear from the previously mentioned definitions that at the definitional level, leadership is perceived to encompass certain attitudes of the leader, who inspires the followers to achieve certain goals. The leader'south 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 ready 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). Yet, at the same fourth dimension, a number of moderating factors determine the effectiveness of leadership such as situation, followers' readiness to alter, organizational context and hierarchy, 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 management as "the attainment of organizational goals in an constructive and efficient manner through planning, organizing, leading, and controlling organizational resources." Levitt (1976) notes that "direction consists of the rational assessment of a situation; the systematic option of goals and purposes; the systematic development of strategies to achieve these goals; the marshalling of the required resource; the rational design, organisation, direction, and control of the activities required to accomplish the selected purposes; and finally, the motivating and rewarding of people to do the piece of work."

Drucker (1988) notes:

[T]o exist sure, the fundamental task of management remains the same: to make people capable of joint operation by giving them mutual goals, common values, the right structure, and the ongoing training and evolution they need to perform, and to reply to change. But the very meaning of task has changed, only considering the performance of management has converted the workforce from one composed largely of unskilled laborers to ane of highly educated knowledge workers.

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

Conceptual Distinctions

From the word so far, it is clear that scholars differ in defining "leadership" only the underlying philosophy remains mainly undisputed. Conceptual foundations of "leadership" are very old, and can be traced to aboriginal literature mostly in the context of politics, authorities, religion, and order. Information technology has been one of the globe's oldest preoccupations, serving every bit 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 certain collective goals. It involves the leader, followers, and the situation. The purpose of leadership is to provide direction and bring about change.

On the other hand, the conceptual foundations of "management" emerged during the menstruum of relatively rapid economical evolution and industrialization of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Daft 2003). Such developments brought upward the need for appropriate ways of organization, planning, and scheduling of available resources. The emergence of large and complex organizations in the early twentieth century and escalation in the search for better ways of resource utilization led to the development of a rational, scientific approach to the study of management, as efforts were made to turn organizations into efficient operating machines (Kotter 2006). In brief, leadership and direction are not only unlike at the definitional level, but too, their conceptual foundations take been developed from different needs and contexts. In these regards, it can be observed that leadership involves power past influence and management involves power by position. Leadership is nigh coping with change while management is about coping with complexity (Kotter 1990).

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

Zaieznik (1977) argues that leaders and managers differ in their conception of chaos and order, in their motivation (which results from their individual personal history), and in how they call up and act. Managers are process oriented, stability and control seekers, problem solvers, and systematic in nature. On the other hand, leaders tolerate chaos, are empowering and are problem examiners, and generally rebels against routine.

Maccoby (2000) notes that leaders are change agents whereas managers are principally administrators. Leaders have wide perspectives enabling them to peer into the future to decide needs and what changes need to exist made to ensure and facilitate growth and survival, just managers are guided by a drive to handle routine in order to produce efficiently (Perloff 2004). Co-ordinate to Bennis (1989), becoming a leader is synonymous with becoming yourself; however, condign a manager is becoming what a company wants yous to become. Leaders produce the potential for dramatic change, anarchy, and even failure; simply managers produce standards, consistency, predictability, and order (Kotter 1990). Leaders are more almost soul (or heart) rather than heed, while managers take more of listen 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 arroyo, authoritative and stabilizing in their behavior, and persistent and tough minded in their routine. A leadership culture, on the other hand, is open up, communicative, frank, and participative. Therefore, it encourages the development and awarding of new ideas to approach problems.

Taking the problems as opportunities, leaders seek fresh options and persuade their followers to innovatively grapple with the bug. Leaders are more rebellious in nature while managers prefer to conform to the organizational norms, rules, and bureaucracy (Kumle and Kelly 1999). Therefore, nearly leaders challenge the status quo whereas managers prefer to accept the status quo (Bennis 1989).

George (2003) notes that good leaders understand their purpose, pb with eye, follow their personal set of values, establish 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 club. Whereas leaders remain original and authentic in their behavior, managers copy (Shamir and Eilam 2005; Bennis 1989). Zaleznik (1977) argues that leaders' relationships are by and large intensive and one-to-one. On the other hand, managers institute 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 arrangement (Stogdill 1997). They stand out differently, question assumptions, are usually suspicious of traditions, and are champions of innovation (Bennis 1989). Leaders' behaviors are directed by their inner values and are inspired by their future vision. On the other hand, managers' behaviors are mostly directed by others, and they are motivated by the targets they want to attain.

Functional/Operational Divergence

"People enquire the deviation betwixt a leader and a boss. . . . The leader works in the open up, and the dominate 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 system. On the other hand, management is a function (planning, budgeting, evaluating, and facilitating) that must be exercised in whatsoever business. Similarly, Weathersby (1999) notes that leadership involves motivating people to contribute to the vision and encouraging them to align their self-interest with that of the organization. However, management is about resource allotment of deficient resources toward the attainment of an system's objective(s), the setting of priorities, the design of work, and finally, the accomplishment of results. According to Kumle and Kelly (1999), in managerial civilization, roles are rigidly defined within the arrangement. Management controls the processes through the power of a modest group—normally those members who take the orders directly from the top—instead of full squad input (Kumle and Kelly 1999). On the other hand, leadership culture empowers the employees by trust and gives them the liberty to fulfill their chore responsibilities. Where leadership reframes the nowadays employees of an organisation through training and not rehiring, the emphasis of management is on rehiring resources, and not on reframing employees with more preparation (Kumle and Kelly 1999).

In social club to achieve better results, management strives to realize organizational efficiency forth with effectiveness within the parameters of the system's mission. However, leadership takes a different approach. Perloff (2004) argues that leadership creates and sells its visions to those who need to implement them, and evaluates whether these accept been successful, along with determining what the next steps are. He uses an analogy of "trains" to describe the departure between leaders and managers. In his view, managers brand the trains run on time, but it is leaders who decide the destination equally well equally what freight and passengers the trains carry. Put simply, managers are more like tacticians, whereas leaders are strategists. Covey et al. (1994) make the same bespeak in a unlike fashion: direction works within the established paradigm 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 practice things, whereas managers provide the resources and expect results. Zaleznik (1977) suggests that leaders develop fresh approaches to long-standing problems and open problems to new options; managers act to limit choices. Whilst leaders inspire the purpose, managers are concerned most systems, controls, procedures, policies, and construction (Bennis 1989). The main role of the leaders is to set a new direction for a group. However, managers control, guarantee subject area, and introduce order according to established principles (Schumpeter 1934). Leadership is about knowing where the organization needs to go, whereas management is concerned with how to go at that place. At a further functional level, Maccoby (2000) notes that leaders recognize and select the talent, nurture the talent past motivating them, coach the talent, and retain the talent by building trust; managers are task masters of planning, budgeting, evaluating, and facilitating. Table 1 presents, in the form of short summaries, the views of various authors on the deviation between leaders and managers.

Table i. Difference between Leaders and Managers

How Leadership and Direction Overlap

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

—Stephen R. Covey

Leadership and management are interrelated, and may quondam perform a similar function and reach the aforementioned goals; however, they are different and distinct 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, in that location is a sense that leadership is an attribute of managing that is overtly concerned with thinking about the long-term futurity of the organization and fostering support for particular ideas (Hay and Hodgkinson 2006). In this view, today's businesses need excellent leaders and brilliant managers, visionary leadership and loftier-quality management. Overemphasis on either 1 is neither healthy nor desirable for whatsoever kind of arrangement. Capowski (1994) makes essentially the aforementioned point and notes that the contend on the difference between leadership and management has been missing an of import point. The point is that beingness a manager is corking and being a leader is non better, although Hay and Hodgkinson (2006) observe the tendency of literature to see leadership as divide from management but also superior. The current authors, yet, argue that using labels such as "leader" and "manager" does not necessarily brand a deviation every bit to how organizations run. An effective executive needs a combination of both qualities: "what is needed is amend management and better leadership (Hay and Hodgkinson 2006, p. thirteen). To Capowski (1994), vision without structure is likely to upshot in chaos, while structure without vision volition consequence in complacency and perchance catastrophe.

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

The leader-managing director inspires the followers by developing trust, alluring and nurturing talent, and by continuous coaching and teaching (Maccoby 2000). Yukl (2005) shares the same perspective, maintaining that both leaders and managers employ a mix of leadership and management behaviors. This mixing of behaviors suggests they must combine the necessary skills to direct twenty-four hour period-to-day diplomacy effectively (a role traditionally associated with management), while at the same fourth dimension anticipating and managing alter (the chief role in leadership). Kotter (1982) seems to adhere to this same perspective and notes that fundamental components of the managerial process include planning, organizing, directing/leading, and controlling. This implies that leading is indispensable for an effective managing director. Other authors argue that the strategic leaders utilize planning—peculiarly strategic planning—every bit their main focus (Boal and Hooijberg 2000; Cogliser and Brigham 2004). Mangham and Pye (1991) argue that leading is not a specialized phenomenon and an entirely singled-out activity, but simply an aspect, perhaps a highly salient aspect, of managing.

Some researchers argue that to run today's business organization 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 director in an organization insists on having his or her distinct vision, as there should be people at the operational and functional level, executing the plans and implementing the strategies. Bryman (1992) likewise maintains that many visions tin can be achieved only through the actions of many managers and not simply through the exhortations of individual leaders (Grint 1997). While leaders are vital in determining the future vision and destination of an organization, managers in the forepart line of the system are disquisitional in sustaining quality, service, innovation, and fiscal performance. Similarly, Sarros (1992) notes that organizations need people who are good at leading besides equally managing if they want to become internationally competitive, and better places in which to piece of work.

This distinction shows that leadership and management are singled-out and leaders differ from managers. However, in order to exploit the full potential of their homo and other resource, organizations will 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 demand, managers have to become better in leadership.

The Way Forward

Although Kotter (2006) notes that the debate on differentiating leadership from management is likely to keep in bookish circles, corporations will go on to ask for leaders but need managers, and consultants will continue to supply leadership evolution and assessment. He argues that people get opportunities to show leadership although their principal chore may be management. Nonetheless, the current authors take a different stance. It is argued that too much emphasis on management and also lilliputian focus on leadership is not useful for organizations. An overly managerial surroundings hinders innovation. It routinizes operations and closes the door to new ideas and fresh approaches. In today'south 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 simply slow down progress. Therefore, it is of import that organizations develop every bit many leaders as possible while ensuring that these leaders as well know direction aspects. The organizations need to develop their managers into leaders in order to stretch the performance of their human resources. Toor et al. (2007) also argue that this debate does non aim to evidence that leaders are amend than managers or that leadership qualities are the only solution to modernistic business challenges.

Some authors accept argued in the literature that the terms "leaders," "managers," and "entrepreneurs" "can exist seen equally enactments of archetypes, embodying the dissimilar fears and hopes of those who create organizations by their daily performance" (Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff 1991, p. 529). Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff (1991, p. 529) state: "Leadership is seen as symbolic functioning, expressing the hope of control over destiny; management every bit the activity of introducing order by coordinating flows of things and people toward commonage action, and entrepreneurship as the making of entire new worlds." This view shows that either of the roles, on its own, does not necessarily guarantee success. Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff (1991) suggest that organizations operate in historical, economic and political circumstances and are influenced by various sociopolitical and economic forces, shaping of fashions, and occupational and organizational cultures.

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

Conclusions

Much has been written on the deviation between "leadership" and "management" and between "leaders" and "managers." There are striking parallels between "leadership" and "management" too as "leaders" and "managers." However, information technology is clear that today'due south organizations demand 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 office. For this purpose, leadership evolution should be made a part of organizational strategy considering it is a source of competitive advantage.

References

Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership, 3rd Ed., Costless Press, New York.

Bateman, T. South., and Snell, S. A. (1999). Direction: Building competitive advantage, quaternary Ed., McGraw-Hill, London.

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

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

Bennis, W. Yard., 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 but appreciative review." Leadership Q., fifteen(6), 729–769.

Boal, K. B., and Hooijberg, R. (2000). "Strategic leadership enquiry: Moving on." Leadership Q., 11(4), 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), 10–14.

Cogliser, C. C., and Brigham, Yard. H. (2004). "The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned." Leadership Q., 15(half-dozen), 771–799.

Conger, J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1992). "Perceived behavioral attributes of charismatic leadership." Canadian J. Behav. Sci., 24(1), 86–102.

Covey, South., Merrill, A. R., and Merrill, R. R. (1994). Offset things commencement: To live, to love, to learn, to get out a legacy, Simon and Schuster, New York.

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

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

Drucker, P. F. (1988). "Management and the world's work." Harvard Autobus. Rev., 66(5), 65–76.

Fiedler, F. Due east. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Gardner, J. Westward. (1990). On leadership, Free Press, New York.

Gardner, W. Fifty., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., and Walumba, F. O. (2005). "Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development." 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: Discover your authentic 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 direction with leadership." Nurs. Manage, 34(1), viii–9.

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

Grace, M. (2003). "Origins of leadership: The etymology of leadership." Proc., International Leadership Clan Conference, Nov 6–8, Guadalajara, Jalisco, United mexican states.

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

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

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

Kotter, J. P. (1982). "What constructive general managers actually practise." Harvard Charabanc. Rev., sixty(vi), 156–168.

Kotter, J. P. (1990). "What leaders really do." Harvard Bus. Rev., five(three), iii–11.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). "What leaders really practice." The leader's companion, J. T.Wren, ed., Complimentary Press, 114–123.

Kotter, J. P. (1999). What leaders really practise, Harvard Business concern School Press, Boston.

Kotter, J. P. (2006). "Leadership versus direction: What's the divergence?" J. Qual. Participation, 29(two), thirteen–17.

Kumle, J., and Kelly, N. J. (1999). "Leadership versus management." Supervision, 61(4), 8–10.

Levitt, T. (1976). "The industrialization of service." Harvard Bus. Rev., 54(5), 63–74.

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

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

Maccoby, 1000. (2000). "Understanding the difference betwixt direction and leadership." Res. Technol. Manag., 43(1), 57–59.

Mawson, T. C. (2001). "Prepare! Aim! Inspire! Leadership in technology." Leadership Manage. Eng., 1(ii), 50–5110.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2001)1:2(50)

Parry, Chiliad. W. (in press). "Qualitative method for leadership research: Now at that place's a novel idea!" Regulatory Compliance J.

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

Perloff, R. (2004). "Managing and leading: The universal importance of, and differentiation between, two essential functions." Talk presented at Oxford University, July 14–15.

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

Robbins, S. (2002). "The difference between 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 equally organizations." Leadership Q., vii(2), 229–241.

Sarros, J. C. (1992). "What leaders say they do: An Australian example." Leadership Organiz. Devel. J., 13(5), 21–27.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). Capitalism, socialism, and commonwealth, Vol. 14, Harper and Row, New York.

Shamir, B., and Eilam, Thou. (2005). "What's your story?' A life-stories approach to accurate leadership evolution." Leadership Q., xvi(three), 395–417.

Stogdill, R. . (1997). "Leadership, membership, and system." Leadership: Classical, contemporary, and critical approaches, K.Grint, ed., Oxford Academy Press, 112–125.

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

Toor, S. R., Ofori, K., and Arain, F. One thousand. (2007). "Authentic leadership manner and its implications in project management." Coach. Rev., 2(1), 31–55.

Valikangas, L., and Okumura, A. (1997). "Why do people follow leaders? A study of a U.S., and a Japanese change program." Leadership Q., 8(three), 313–337.

Weathersby, G. B. (1999). "Leadership versus management." Manage. Rev., 88(5).

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

Yukl, G. (1999). "An evaluative essay on electric current conceptions of effective leadership." Eur. J. Piece of work and Org. Psy., 8(ane), 33–48.

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

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

Zaccaro, S. J., and Horn, Z. Northward. J. (2003). "Leadership theory and do: Fostering an effective symbiosis." Leadership Q., 14(6), 769–806.

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

Zaleznik, A. (1998). "Managers and leaders: Are they different?" Harvard Passenger vehicle Rev on Leadership, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Zimmerman, E. L. (2001). "What's nether the hood? The mechanics of leadership versus management." Healthcare Exec., 62(8), 10–12.

Shamas-ur-Rehman Toor is a Ph.D. candidate in the Section of Building in the School of Blueprint and Environs at National University of Singapore. He can be reached via due east-mail service at [e-mail protected] George Ofori is professor and head of the Department of Edifice in the Schoolhouse of Pattern and Environment at National University of Singapore. He tin can be reached via email at [electronic mail protected].

stipebestudy.blogspot.com

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

Share this post