Management and leadershipRegardless

Management and leadership
Regardless of the difficulty in identifying what managers do or how they should do it,
there has been a long-held belief that the major factor which distinguishes successful
organisations from their less successful counterparts is the presence of dynamic and
effective leadership (Jones et al, 2000). However, as Yukl (2002: 5) observes, ‘… there
is a continuing controversy about the difference between leadership and manage-
ment.’ For some writers, such as Nahavandi (2000) – see Table 16.1, management
and leadership are seen as being distinctly different activities. Nahavandi sees the
process of management as essentially concerned with achieving stability. On the other
hand, he sees leadership as essentially being concerned with bringing about change.
Nahavandi (2000: 13) comments that:
Whereas leaders have long-term and future-oriented perspectives and provide a vision for
their followers that looks beyond their immediate surroundings, managers have short-term
perspectives and focus on routine issues within their own immediate departments or groups.
Bennis and Namus (1985: 21) take this argument further by associating manage-
ment and leadership with different types of people: ‘… managers are people who do
things right and leaders are people who do the right thing’. Though it is conceptually
appealing to separate people into one of two mutually exclusive types, managers or
leaders, there is little empirical evidence for this view (Yukl, 2002). It is also a view
that, in a rapidly-changing world, tends to imply that visionary leaders are superior to
their stick-in-the-mud managerial counterparts. On the other hand, there are many
writers who, whilst distinguishing between management processes and leadership
processes (as in Table 16.1), do not assume that leaders and managers are different
types of people (Bass, 1990; Hickman, 1990; Mintzberg, 1973; Rost, 1991; Yukl,
2002). Indeed, Vroom and Jago (1988) specifically argue that managers can and do
possess both managerial and leadership skills, which they swap between depending
on the situation.

504
Chapter 16 • Management – roles and responsibilities
Table 16.1 Management v leadership
Managers
Focus on the present
Maintain status quo and stability
Implement policies and procedures
Remain aloof to maintain objectivity
Use the power of their position
Source: adapted from Nahavandi (2000)
Leaders
Focus on the future
Create change
Create a culture based on shared values
Establish an emotional link with followers
Use personal power
Though the topic of leadership, its definition, promotion and difference from man-
agement, has dominated the management literature for over 40 years, it still remains
an elusive concept. Even in the 1950s, when there had been much less research on the
subject than now, Bennis (1959: 259) commented:
Always it seems that the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to
taunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented a proliferation of
terms to deal with it ... and still the concept is not sufficiently defined.
Now, at the beginning of the third millennium, we are faced with a greater prolifer-
ation of articles and books on the subject than ever before, yet the topic appears more
fragmented and confusing than ever. As Thomas (2003: 25) comments in relation to
the question ‘What is management?’:
The inquisitive reader seeking an answer to this question will find not only differences but
complete contradictions and may well be inclined to beat a hasty retreat …
Nevertheless, it is possible to divide researchers on leadership and management into
three main groups: those who focus on the personal characteristics and process of
leadership; those who concentrate on the leader–follower situation; and those who
attempt to relate leadership and management styles to the overall organisation con-
text and climate.
■ The personal characteristics–trait approach to effective leadership
Early investigations into leadership tended to concentrate on such factors as personal
qualities (intelligence, age, experience), or personality traits (extroversion, domi-
nance). Consequently, regardless of the task or situation, if a person did not possess
the appropriate personal attributes, then he or she was deemed unlikely to be a good
manager. The numerous studies of leadership failed, however, to reveal any consistent
pattern of traits or characteristics related to leadership (Arnold et al, 1998; Gibb,
1969; Yukl, 1994).
In an effort to breathe new life into this approach, attempts were made to view
leadership as a process, and the focus moved to examining the interaction between
leaders and followers, and how leaders influence individuals and groups to pursue the
achievement of a given goal. This view, that leadership behaviour rather than attrib-
utes may more effectively predict leadership success, has been advanced in a variety of

Management and leadership
505
approaches. Fleishman (1953, 1969) identified two separate classes of behaviour as
important in determining effective leadership:
1 Consideration – the quality of the interpersonal relationship between the leader
and his or her subordinates, and in particular the degree to which a leader shows
trust of subordinates, respect for their ideas and consideration for their feelings.
2 Initiating structure – the degree to which leaders define and structure their own
and their subordinates’ roles towards achieving set goals. It also covers the extent
to which a leader directs group activities through planning, communication, infor-
mation, scheduling, trying out new ideas, and praise and criticism.
Another related dimension of leadership behaviour that received much attention in
the 1950s and 1960s was participation – whether the leader leans towards an auto-
cratic or democratic style of management. As was noted in Chapters 2 and 8, both
the Human Relations school and proponents of Planned change believed that, in the
aftermath of the Second World War, participation and democracy would prove to be
essential components of organisational effectiveness. It was not a coincidence that
those studying leadership and those studying organisational change should develop
similar views on participation and democracy. Much of the work on leadership at this
time was influenced by a series of ground-breaking studies into leadership styles by
Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt and Ralph White (Marrow, 1969). These studied three
styles of leadership – democratic, autocratic and laissez faire, and found that demo-
cratic leadership produced the best results (Lewin, 1999b; Lippitt and White, 1960).
According to Gastil (1994), there are three key elements of democratic leadership:
■
■
■
maximising participation and involvement of group members;
empowerment;
facilitating group decision-making.
In the 1950s and 1960s, this stress on leadership characteristics gave rise to a number
of ‘universal theories’ of effective leader behaviour – which is to say, researchers
began to argue for a ‘one best way’ approach to leadership (see for example Argyris,
1964; Likert, 1967; McGregor, 1960). These theories postulated that the same style
of leadership is optimal in all situations (Yukl, 1994).
Perhaps the best known and most influential of these ‘universal theories’ is Blake
and Mouton’s (1969, 1985) Managerial Grid – later re-named the Leadership Grid
(Blake and McCanse, 1991). The Grid has two critical dimensions: concern for
people – similar to consideration; and concern for production – similar to initiating
structure. By examining how these two dimensions interact, in both their strong and
weak states, Blake and Mouton identified five different styles of management, which
they labelled as follows:
■
■
Team management. This arises from a high concern for people and a high concern
for production. The objectives are to achieve high levels of both performance and
job satisfaction by gaining subordinates’ willing commitment to achieving their
assigned tasks.
Country club management. This occurs when concern for production is low but
concern for people is high. The main concern of this approach is to achieve the
harmony and well-being of the group in question by satisfying people’s social and
relationship needs.

506
Chapter 16 • Management – roles and responsibilities
■
■
■
Middle-of-the-road management. This situation comes about where there is moder-
ate concern for production and moderate concern for people. Managers who
follow this approach tend to have a ‘live and let live’ philosophy and tend to avoid
difficult or contentious issues.
Task management. This can be defined as a high concern for production but a low
concern for people. The objective is to achieve high productivity by planning,
organising and directing work in such a way that human considerations are kept to
a minimum.
Impoverished management. This ensues from a low concern for both production
and people. This form of managerial behaviour centres on exacting the minimum
effort from subordinates in order to achieve the required result.
Though Blake and Mouton (1985) identify these five styles of management, for them
the most effective is team management, where leaders are both task- and people-ori-
entated – the so-called ‘high–high’ leader. They also argue that whilst managers have
a dominant or preferred style of leadership, many managers are capable of switching
from one style to another or of combining styles if they encounter a situation where
their preferred style does not work. In a significant departure from other adherents of
the personal characteristics approach, Blake and Mouton also argue that a person’s
dominant style is influenced not only by their personal values and personal history
but by the nature of the organisation in which they are operating, and chance – the
types of management situations and styles they have

Kết quả (Anh) 1:

Management and leadershipRegardless of the difficulty in identifying what managers do or how they should do it,There has been a long-held belief that the major factor which distinguishes successfulorganisations from their less successful counterparts is the presence of dynamic andeffective leadership (Jones et al, 2000). However, as Yukl (2002:5) observes, ' ... thereis a continuing controversy about the difference between leadership and manage-ment. ' For some writers, such as Nahavandi (2000)-see Table 16.1, managementand leadership are seen as being distinctly different activities. Nahavandi sees theprocess of management as essentially concerned with achieving stability. On the otherhand, he sees leadership as essentially being concerned with bringing about change.Nahavandi (2000:13) comments that:Whereas leaders have long-term and future-oriented perspectives and provide a vision fortheir followers that looks beyond their immediate surroundings, managers have short-termperspectives and focus on routine issues within their own immediate departments or groups. Bennis and Namus (1985:22) take this argument further by associating manage-ment and leadership with different types of people: ' ... managers are people who dothings right and leaders are people who do the right thing '. Though it is conceptuallyappealing to separate people into one of two mutually exclusive types, managers orleaders, there is little empirical evidence for this view (Yukl, 2002). It is also a viewthat, in a rapidly-changing world, tends to imply that visionary leaders are superior totheir stick-in-the-mud managerial counterparts. On the other hand, there are manywriters who, whilst distinguishing between management processes and leadershipprocesses (as in Table 16.1), do not assume that leaders and managers are differenttypes of people (Bass, 1990; Hickman, 1990; Mintzberg, 1973; Rost, 1991; Yukl,2002). Indeed, Vroom and Jago (1988) specifically argue that managers can and dopossess both managerial and leadership skills, which they swap between dependingon the situation. 504Chapter 16 • Management – roles and responsibilitiesTable 16.1 Management v leadershipManagersFocus on the presentMaintain status quo and stabilityImplement policies and proceduresRemain aloof to maintain objectivityUse the power of their positionSource: adapted from Nahavandi (2000)LeadersFocus on the futureCreate changeCreate a culture based on shared valuesEstablish an emotional link with followersUse personal power Though the topic of leadership, its definition, promotion and difference from man-agement, has dominated the management literature for over 40 years, it still remainsan elusive concept. Even in the 1950s, when there had been much less research on thesubject than now, Bennis (1959: 259) commented:It always seems that the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form totaunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented a proliferation ofterms to deal with it ... and still the concept is not sufficiently defined. Now, at the beginning of the third millennium, we are faced with a greater prolifer-ation of articles and books on the subject than ever before, yet the topic appears morefragmented and confusing than ever. As Thomas (2003:25) comments in relation tothe question ' What is management? ':The inquisitive reader seeking an answer to this question will find not only differences butcomplete contradictions and may well be inclined to beat a hasty retreat.Nevertheless, it is possible to divide researchers on leadership and management intothree main groups: those who focus on the personal characteristics and process ofleadership; those who concentrate on the leader-follower situation; and those whoattempt to relate leadership and management styles to the overall organisation con-text and climate.■ The personal characteristics-trait approach to effective leadershipEarly investigations into leadership tended to concentrate on such factors as personalqualities (intelligence, age, experience), or personality traits (extroversion, domi-nance). Consequently, regardless of the task or situation, if a person did not possessthe appropriate personal attributes, then he or she was deemed unlikely to be a goodManager. The numerous studies of leadership failed, however, to reveal any consistentpattern of traits or characteristics related to leadership (Arnold et al, 1998; Gibb,1969; Yukl, 1994). In an effort to breathe new life into this approach, attempts were made to viewleadership as a process, and the focus moved to examining the interaction betweenleaders and followers, and how leaders influence individuals and groups to pursue theachievement of a given goal. This view, that leadership behaviour rather than attrib-Utes may more effectively predict leadership success, has been advanced in a variety of Management and leadership505approaches. Fleishman (1953, 1969) identified two separate classes of behaviour asimportant in determining effective leadership:1 Consideration-the quality of the interpersonal relationship between the leader and his or her subordinates, and in particular the degree to which a leader shows trust of subordinates, respect for their ideas and consideration for their feelings.2 Initiating structure-the degree to which leaders define and structure their own and their subordinates ' roles towards achieving set goals. It also covers the extent to which a leader directs group activities through planning, communication, infor- mation, scheduling, trying out new ideas, and praise and criticism. Another related dimension of leadership behaviour that received much attention inthe 1950s and 1960s was participation – whether the leader leans towards an auto-cratic or democratic style of management. As was noted in Chapters 2 and 8, boththe Human Relations school and proponents of Planned change believed that, in theaftermath of the Second World War, participation and democracy would prove to beessential components of organisational effectiveness. It was not a coincidence thatthose studying leadership and those studying organisational change should developsimilar views on participation and democracy. Much of the work on leadership at thistime was influenced by a series of ground-breaking studies into leadership styles byKurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt and Ralph White (Marrow, 1969). These studied threestyles of leadership – democratic, autocratic and laissez faire, and found that demo-cratic leadership produced the best results (Lewin, 1999b; Lippitt and White, 1960).According to Gastil (1994), there are three key elements of democratic leadership:■■■maximising participation and involvement of group members;empowerment;facilitating group decision-making.In the 1950s and 1960s, this stress on leadership characteristics gave rise to a numberof ‘universal theories’ of effective leader behaviour – which is to say, researchersbegan to argue for a ‘one best way’ approach to leadership (see for example Argyris,1964; Likert, 1967; McGregor, 1960). These theories postulated that the same styleof leadership is optimal in all situations (Yukl, 1994). Perhaps the best known and most influential of these universal ' theories ' is Blakeand Mouton's (1969, 1985) Managerial Grid – later re-named the Leadership Grid(Blake and McCanse, 1991). The Grid has two critical dimensions: concern forpeople-similar to consideration; and concern for production-similar to initiatingstructure. By examining how these two dimensions interact, in both their strong andweak states, Blake and Mouton identified five different styles of management, whichthey are labelled as follows:■■Team management. This arises from a high concern for people and a high concernfor production. The objectives are to achieve high levels of both performance andjob satisfaction by gaining subordinates ' willing commitment to achieving theirassigned tasks.Country club management. This occurs when concern for production is low butconcern for people is high. The main concern of this approach is to achieve theharmony and well-being of the group in question by satisfying people's social andrelationship needs. 506Chapter 16 • Management – roles and responsibilities■■■Middle-of-the-road management. This situation comes about where there is moder-ate concern for production and moderate concern for people. Managers whofollow this approach tend to have a ' live and let live ' philosophy and tend to avoiddifficult or contentious issues.Task management. This can be defined as a high concern for production but a lowconcern for people. The objective is to achieve high productivity by planning,organising and directing work in such a way that human considerations are kept toa minimum.Impoverished management. This ensues from a low concern for both productionand people. This form of managerial behaviour centres on the the exacting minimumeffort from subordinates in order to achieve the required result.Though Blake and Mouton (1985) identify these five styles of management, for themthe most effective team management, where leaders are both task-and people-ori-entated-the so-called ' high-high ' leader. They also argue that whilst managers havea dominant or preferred style of leadership, many managers are capable of switchingfrom one style to another or of combining styles if they encounter a situation wheretheir preferred style does not work. In a significant departure from other adherents ofthe personal characteristics approach, Blake and Mouton also argue that a person'sdominant style is influenced not only by their personal values and personal historybut by the nature of the organisation in which they are operating, and chance-thetypes of management situations and styles they have