Leadership vs. Management
There are numerous differences between leadership and management. First, the leader revolutionizes while the manager controls. This proves that the leader is the one who develops and implements new concepts and transfers the rest of the organization into a progressive stage. This individual has to continually keep his or her eyes on the prospects and elaborate on new approaches and strategies. The leader has to be well-informed about the newest tendencies, studies, and expertise (Simonet and Tett 202). There is a substantial difference between the individuals who are just going to do their job in preference to thinking about backgrounds and outcomes of their activities and the individuals that are the so-called “leaders.” Conversely, a manager preserves what has previously been recognized. This individual has to keep his or her eye on the end product and uphold control or else there might be complex issues within the company.
Second, the leader stimulates confidence while the manager counts on control. It has repeatedly been said that a leader is someone who motivates other individuals to be the best version of themselves and sees how to set the rhythm and pace for the whole team properly. And if individuals agree to keep going with the movement because a person encouraged them, then it proves that this person has formed a pledge of belief within the organization, which is indispensable particularly if the business is quickly fluctuating and requires staff to have faith in its assignment (Simonet and Tett 204). As for managers, their primary task is to preserve control over individuals by helping them discover their own resources and making them notice their supreme aptitudes. To do this efficiently, the manager has to know the individuals he or she is working with and recognize their interests and desires. The manager’s priority is to form a crew out of his or her people, through choices on salary, assignment, promotion, and his or her communications with the squad. On a bigger scale, managing a project is completely different from encouraging those who are involved in it.
Third, the leader and the manager ask their teams two different sets of questions. The leader questions “what” and “why” while the manager needs to know the answers to “how” and “when.” So as to question “what” and “why” the leader has to be capable of questioning others why definite activities are going on – and occasionally this encompasses inspiring his or her bosses. The managers accept the present circumstances and are more like soldiers in the army. They realize that instructions and tactics are critical and their mission is to keep their vision on the organization’s existing objectives. The challenge raised by the conceptual difference between managers and leaders is that managers are repeatedly perceived as superintendents, not leaders (Simonet and Tett 208). It is contingent on how we outline leadership. In this particular case, the connotation of leadership is to encourage new organizational objectives and approaches. It does not correlate with having more rights and powers than the other employees in the organization. Management presupposes having accountability for individuals and other possessions with the aim of accomplishing the objectives as proficiently as possible. The aim of the manager is to implement the commands endorsed by the leader.
Another challenge is that managers do not differ from leaders if one pays close attention to their behaviors or approaches. Leaders are not just more energetic, compelling, or empowering managers. Any manager can become a kind of leader by encouraging innovative approaches. Managers may be as inspirational as leaders, but when they produce their best effort aimed at getting things done proficiently, they try to motivate workers to advance performance more willingly than help them revolutionize directions as leaders do. Both managers and leaders can impact softly or by illustration without being fascinating. Soft persuasion can be as influential as a supporter’s passion. Management is just a type of character, not a category of activities. If we assess management as a role, it is easy to understand that it is something every person does on a daily basis. On every occasion when individuals set their priorities, plan the day, manage occupations or funds, they are managing themselves. There is nothing adverse about management regarded in this way. Hence, managers should not be viewed as monitoring or deficient in leadership capability merely by characterization. This is an out-of-date predisposition against them that is completely groundless.
There are numerous examples of when leaders were seen as managers and vice versa. Leaders constantly establish the standard for ethical conduct and pledge to the organizational assignment and ideals through their actions and opinions. An aptitude for switching properly between leadership styles contingent on changing circumstances, while being recurrently open in an individual’s communiqué and respecting others illustrates the best of leadership. Real-life instances of leadership contain the CEOs of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, who represent a transformational type of leadership, inspiring modernization, and originality. While high efficiency and working engagement prosper within this type of leadership, a long-standing accomplishment also necessitates an emphasis on the particulars of managing a profitable business. The co-founder and ex-managing director of Southwest Airlines, Herb Kelleher, illustrates a decent instance of a leadership style concentrated on helping others and empowering the crew to lead collaboratively. A leadership tactic such as Kelleher’s can lead to optimistic morale and gratified staff, but may fade when swift choices are compulsory.
Imminent leaders realize that it is critical to apply a holistic approach in order to be both a manager and a visionary. Knowing the strategy and the big picture may be rather helpful because they will recognize how to ensure that the team puts in work and gets everything done. To be able to do so, leaders have to be managers that can connect with people discretely. There are three main reasons for associating leadership with management, strategy, and tactics:
- Any leader has to be self-aware and outline challenges for themselves while keeping in mind the realization of team strengths
- A leader that is also a manager has to make sure that they are able to complete intricate tasks dependent on intelligence.
- Any leader that also wants to be a manager has to possess the ability to connect with a diverse set of followers that display different behaviors and thinking patterns.
Evidently, there are numerous competencies and variables that underline the connection between management and leadership. The most important idea about the concept of leaders as effective managers revolves around the fact that the foundation of a leader is built on self-awareness and a natural ability to connect with their followers. Nonetheless, in order to be able to support this capability, any given leader has to rely on a multifaceted approach model and an extensive set of leadership-management skills.
The discussion on the balance between the demands of both leadership and management can be supported by the idea that leaders that want to be effective managers have to utilize their strengths carefully. So as to balance between strategy and leadership, these individuals have to moderate their natural preferences in order to be able to raise awareness in terms of behaviors and requirements of their followers. Therefore, this connection is highlighted by the actions and communication practices of the members of the team. For example, one of the ways to protect the balance between management and leadership is to put one’s faith in a custom framework developed to facilitate the process of making complex decisions. This will lead to a situation where better ideas and relationships are identified and associated with the positions of both a leader and a manager. The balance between the two demands significantly depends on the effectiveness and efficiency of the leader. The latter can also signify the level of understanding acquired by the leaders. In other words, there is a direct connection between the tasks of a manager and a leader that cannot be completed without fitting talents. However, the most important part about the balance between managerial and leadership demands in real life is that outstanding results are only probable in the case where talents are brought out and cultivated appropriately.
The Leader and the Organization’s Vision
A vision statement is a description of where and what a company desires to be in the future. It typically remains untouched for a long period of time. All the vision statements are a vital part of the executive structure. Nevertheless, vision statements do not automatically render into activities. The leader has to have a rich vision of the organization’s future. The problematic mission is transmitting that vision with clearness and desire so as to encourage and stimulate individuals to get going (Sarros and Cooper 300). A visionary leader who evidently and fervently transfers his or her vision can inspire workers to perform with desire and determination, thereby guaranteeing that everyone is helping the organization reach a common objective. The outcome is that every person subsidizes the organization’s advancing motion. Great leaders utilize vision as an instrument to encourage and persuade, not to command (Krogh et al. 270). They do not provide employees with the manual for realizing the vision but let them control the methods and tactics for achieving the goal.
A decently composed vision statement would work well if it provided reasonable directions for the organization or an individual. If one has the right directions, it will be easy to navigate through the current business trends and find ways to resolve the issues that appear during the development. A rather important example of this advantage is that vision statements might help to resolve conflicts. In this situation, the attention of those involved in the conflict switches to the vision statement and helps the parties calm down. Moreover, a clear vision statement is an effective instrument in decision-making as it acts as a framework for the team leaders and managers. Nevertheless, the key disadvantage of a vision statement may be the fact that it focuses on internal short-range issues, and often it is not extendable. On a bigger scale, this might end up in major losses (financial and human resources) or the downfall of the organization. A successful vision statement should be in compliance with the overall goals of the organization and encourage the managers to take into consideration the critical success aspects.
When it comes to the role of leaders in terms of the creation and communication of a vision, one should realize that their responsibility revolves around the fact that these concepts should rely on employees’ opinions. Leaders should be held responsible for creating a place where all employee interests are incorporated into the vision regardless of how vague or precise the latter is. One of the leader’s main responsibilities is the establishment of specific dreams and goals that would lead to a better organizational future. A leader’s role presupposes that they will create a vision that is realistic and attractive at the same time. Moreover, the outcomes of their vision should be observable and promising in order to underline its importance for the organization. In this case, the leader should be responsible for keeping the vision within the limits – it has to be not too difficult to achieve and not too removed from reality. Also, the role of a leader includes the necessity to integrate the statement of purpose and operating values so that they are in line with the organizational activities. The role of a leader consists in the infusion of vision in the corporate culture. The vision has to be omnipresent in order to change the structure of corporate beliefs and impact organizational outlooks. Any given leader has to articulate the vision so as to create a certain organizational image and then align it with the management style and corporate culture.
The Impact of Empowerment
Staff empowerment is the procedure of offering front-line workers the control to make choices once set aside exclusively for managers (Menon 154). It has turned out to be an imperative topic at the beginning of the past decade of leadership as training style administration has become more common. Organizations are now largely functioning with a less demanding style of management and trying to get staff enthusiastically involved in business procedures. Empowerment carefully lines up with the leadership issue of designation (Menon 155). The designation is leaders giving followers errands to work on and timeframes in which to accomplish them. The designation has normally been around for more time than empowerment. Empowerment is more about permitting personnel to make choices in certain conditions or front-end circumstances when a manager is not there to help. Fundamentally, the designation is characteristically more task-focused while empowerment is more expertise- and result-focused (Menon 155). Organizations and leaders have progressively employed empowerment because of the welfares of empowered workers.
Employees naturally feel a robust sense of possession and value when trusted to make significant decisions (Humborstad and Perry 340). This, in sequence, makes them more prolific in their areas. Client benefits are also substantial. For instance, clients who are irritated or on the lookout for resolution for an issue archetypally want that problem to be solved as rapidly as possible and get upset when told that a manager is not accessible to assist them. The main advantage of empowering a team of employees is the improved ability to attain the team objectives (Humborstad and Perry 340). Teams typically recognize what has to be done and when it is required to be completed. By empowering the crew, choices can be made immediately, and enhancements to the procedures can be made when needed. The employees still have to realize what they should be targeting to accomplish. The goals that the leader sets should be outcome-oriented as they are more supportive than lists of monotonous errands as they reflect only the outcomes that are predictable, without verbalizing how they should be attained (Humborstad and Perry 341). This gives workers the independence to state their own responsibilities.
Charismatic Leadership vs. Transformational Leadership
Charismatic leadership is defined as the skill to impact others founded on supernatural aptitude and attractive authority. Charisma is described as a positive quality controlled by a person which puts him or her aside from regular people and is treated as if gifted with extraordinary assets or authorities (Avolio and Yammarino 99). The incidence of a social calamity, an occasion to put emphasis on an ethical goal, or an alleged requirement for change, will provoke the appearance of a leader with exceptional traits and a fundamental vision. This fundamental vision, philosophy, objectives, and concepts will entice followership with a robust trust. Charismatic leaders are repeatedly alluded to as those who have captivating effects on their supporters to an oddly high grade. These supporters see the leader’s views as truthful and accept him or her without any doubt. They are friendly towards the leader and are expressively tangled in the assembly or organization’s assignment.
Charismatic leaders are perceived as fervent, ambitious, and are capable of imaging a convincing vision. They are thought to show such characteristics as the aptitude to motivate, have a leading nature, a need for inspiration, robust belief in their own principles, confidence, high level of dynamism and interest, outstanding communicative skills, and aptitude to attract followers (Avolio and Yammarino 156). Their power draws from the trust in the charismatic leader’s archetypal feature, high grade of admiration and approval, exceptional performance outlooks, and profound affection. For instance, some of the famous charismatic leaders are John F. Kennedy, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Martin Luther King.
It should be noted that self-belief, energy, and commitment allow charismatic leaders to show that they have a clear focus. However, it is crucial that the first two domains are not that significant as the latter one. In particular, energy and self-belief are not connected with the way leaders solve managerial issues. They are important for motivating employees and may be utilized as the internal resource of a leader that helps them to inspire others to reach their goals (Avolio and Yammarino 156). Nevertheless, commitment is the only aspect, which ensures that managers can delegate their vision to other workers. John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King are great examples of charismatic leadership capable of modifying the environment in the country. Nonetheless, it may be argued that commitment played a major role in achieving their goals while their personal energy and self-belief were the supporting factors rather than the leading ones.
The other developing leadership viewpoint is transformational leadership. This type of leadership is labeled as the aptitude to stimulate and inspire. These individuals believe that there is always a way to improve the current state of affairs and do things better. Transformational leaders interact with their followers to concentrate on the critical needs of higher importance, increase awareness about the implications of definite outcomes and new methods in which they could be accomplished. They adopt the capacity to change and inspire greater levels of an individual pledge from supporters to organizational aims (Avolio and Yammarino 180). The two of the most renowned transformational leaders are Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa. On the other hand, some of the charismatic, transformational leaders are connected to some of the nastiest slaughters the globe has ever seen (Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin).
In terms of transformational leadership, personal energy, self-belief, and commitment play a different role in motivating employees. In particular, such leaders may experience both positive and negative consequences of exhibiting these characteristics. If a person employs these managerial resources wisely, they will be able to lead others by example while channeling positive energy to their co-workers. These traits were indeed pronounced in such individuals as Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa. Importantly, if leaders utilize their energy and self-belief incorrectly, it can transform into a resource with a negative connotation, which will produce a reverse effect on employee motivation (Avolio and Yammarino 211). Nevertheless, commitment is as important for transformational leaders as it is for charismatic managers since it serves as a source of empowerment.
The charismatic leader is accountable for setting the vision and acquiring a pledge and promise to it. In contrast, the transformational leader is exposed to the contribution and influence of the supporters to the vision, and this endorses power division. With transformational leaders, there is a reciprocated promotion and inspiration between leader and devotee. The implementation of the vision comprises both leaders and supporters. In the case of the charismatic leader, accomplishment of the vision is contingent on the leader motivating followers. While the charismatic leader inclines to have a necessity to seem “big” or preserve a comfortable remoteness from supporters so as to gain respect, the transformational leader is not restricted by such criteria as demonstrated by Mother Teresa and Gandhi who were always seen among their followers. The transformational leadership style does not put up or display self-glorification, as proposed and adopted by charismatic leaders. Similarly, the adverse connotation of the need for authority and connection being dominant to the charismatic leadership is not present in the transformational leadership prototype. The anxiety and emphasis of the transformational leader are on the supporters (Avolio and Yammarino 211). It is the duty of charismatic leaders to stay motivating and envisioning their supporters. Then again, the transformational leaders presuppose that their followers are visionaries and just require circumstances where that vision can emerge.
The common origin for both charismatic and transformational leadership philosophies is the aptitude of both methods to impact followers and trigger changes in society. The inspiration methods used by both are dissimilar, and there is constant debate about the discrepancy between the two tactics. Not a single leadership style fits all circumstances. Consequently, it is vital to understand the diverse leadership contexts and approaches. The leader can adjust his or her approach to be acceptable for the present conditions. The two leadership styles display communication between the leader and follower and it takes time for such affairs to progress.
When reaching the organizational objectives, the practical value of the leadership style is hard to undervalue. Most of the complications are encountered for the reason of incompatibility of the leadership style and the team’s vision and principles. This means that the leader should be able to switch between the leadership approaches and be as flexible as possible. In other words, the leader should carefully choose an appropriate leadership style when dealing with various issues within and outside the team. An efficient leader is able to become an emergent leader (Mark Zuckerberg), situational leader (Abraham Lincoln), or a pacesetter (Elon Musk) for his or her employees. Moreover, there are numerous situations when situational variables might influence the choice of leadership style. These include personal background/ issues, ethical differences, impartiality, and dishonesty. When selecting (or keeping) the leadership style, the leader should be aware of the current state of affairs within the team. The indifference towards the situational variables might cause conflicts within the team or even the crew breakdown which is not an acceptable outcome. The current leadership practices allow switching styles effortlessly without impacting the team chemistry.
When evaluating the practical value of a leadership style to a manager in achieving organizational objectives, one should always keep an eye on the impact of leadership practices on employee performance and determination. It is rather important to focus on creating and fostering organizational efficiency if the leader expects to achieve any of the organizational objectives set through the planning stage. This means that the impact of leadership styles on the attainment of organizational objectives can be described as a direct link to employee performance and participative leadership. Also, there will be no possibility to achieve any objectives when there is no efficient delegation of responsibilities and power so a decent leadership practice can significantly contribute to the process of enhancing service delivery and improving employee performance. The practical value of leadership also includes leadership incentives aimed at helping the leader’s followers to recognize the importance of achieving organizational objectives. Moreover, leadership practices can inextricably relate to communication practices that can be enhanced by proper leadership. The latter can also contribute to a better workflow. In order to implement this, the leader can make the best use of communication gadgets and convey the organizational objectives remotely as well. A manager that applies leadership styles correctly may be able to help their employees to meet up schedules and goals that were set prematurely. Some of the long-term outcomes of appropriately applied leadership practices include improved salary and working conditions in addition to numerous other incentives related to organizational objectives and performance.
In the case of the influence of situational variables on the choice of an appropriate leadership style, there are several key points that have to be relied on within any given organization that realizes the probable impact of leadership on each member of the team and the majority of organizational outcomes. One of the most impactful situational variables is the relation between the members of the team and the leader. It influences the workplace atmosphere and the level of confidence and loyalty that are fostered in the company’s clients. Another situational variable is task structure. It is critical to take into consideration because it is responsible for the development of a concise direction for the organization that includes the solutions for the task as well. Consequently, the inability to follow this situational variable will lead to detrimental errors that will take a lot of time to correct. The last variable is the position of power. In terms of leadership, it provides the leader with a possibility either to reward or punish any member of the team. Nonetheless, this situational variable can be practically useless in the case where the leader either does not possess a required level of authority or does not know how to apply the latter correctly.
Avolio, Bruce, and Francis Yammarino. Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead. Amsterdam: JAI, 2012.
Humborstad, Sut, and Chad Perry. “Employee Empowerment, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment.” Chinese Management Studies 5.3 (2011): 325-44. Web.
Krogh, Georg, Ikujiro Nonaka, and Lise Rechsteiner. “Leadership in Organizational Knowledge Creation: A Review and Framework.” Journal of Management Studies 49.1 (2011): 240-77. Web.
Menon, Sanjay. “Employee Empowerment: An Integrative Psychological Approach.” Applied Psychology 50.1 (2011): 153-80. Web.
Sarros, James, and Brian Cooper. “Leadership Vision, Organizational Culture, and Support for Innovation in Not‐for‐profit and For‐profit Organizations.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32.3 (2011): 291-309. Web.
Simonet, D. V., and R. P. Tett. “Five Perspectives on the Leadership-Management Relationship: A Competency-Based Evaluation and Integration.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 20.2 (2012): 199-213. Web.