What is Leadership?
How is it different from Management?
Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena. It
is complex, multifaceted, and has defied precise description long before the term
came into existence in the 1700s. Probably more has been written and less
known about leadership than ony other topic in business.
What is leadership?
There are many, sometimes conflicting definitions of leadership. It has been described
as: a skill or ability; an action or behaviour; a responsibility; a process; a function
of management; an experience; an influencing relationship; a position of authority;
a trait or characteristic; a style… and many more. But, there is one similarity
across the majority of definitions – they focus on the
process of influencing the activities of others.
Incorporating this important similarity of influence to action, one definition of
leadership then is, “Leadership is the capacity for collective action to vitalize”.
While defining leadership is difficult, the confusion around leadership is compounded
by the fact that the word ‘leadership’ is used in two very different ways. Sometimes
it refers toa process that helps direct and mobilize
people and their ideas. At other times it refers to
a group of people in formal positions where leadership is expected.
The latter usage contributes greatly to the confusion since most of the people who
are in positions of “leadership” today are called managers. It suggests that leadership
and management is the same thing. It is not.
Leadership and management is different
Because leadership is used to describe both a process and a position, it is useful
to remember that the distinction is between leadership and management, not leaders
and managers. While some may excel at one more than the other, most
persons in positions of responsibility within an organization, whether described
as 'leaders' or 'managers', execise both leadership and management
in their roles.
There are some similarities between leadership and managment - both involve deciding
what needs to be done, creating networks of people and relationships that can accomplish
an agenda and trying to ensure that thsoe people actually get the job done.
They are both complete action systems; neither is simply one aspect of the other.
Each has its own distinctive purpose and characteristic activities. People
who think of management as being only the implementation part of leadership ignore
tht fact that leadership has its own implementation processes.
Leadership is different from management, but not for th reasons that most people
think. It is not the province of a chosen few. Nor is leadership necessarily
better than managment or a replacement for it. In business, the substantive
difference between leadership and managment is the focus.
Management means setting objectives and focusing on consistently producing key results
through planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, and contrlling and problem-solving.
Leadership focuses on potential - creating and supporting change to bitalize thorganiztion
by establishing direction, aligning people, and motivation and inspiring.
The benefit of management is handling complexity and ensuring efficiency, allowing
the organization to meet ist short-term targets. This does not mean that management
is never associated with change; in tandem with effective leadership, it can help
produce a more orderly change proceess. Nor does this mean that leadership
is never associated with order; in tandem with effectrive management, an effective
leadership process, the benefit of which is th evision to anticipate the big changes,
can help produce the changes necessary to bring a chaotic situation under control.
They are not mutually exclusive = both are necessary in today's increasingly
complex and turbulent business environment.
|
The Difference Between Leadership & Management
|
|
|
Management
|
Leadership
|
|
Creating an agenda
|
Planning and Bugeting
- establishing detailed steps
- allocating necessary resources
- focus on the short-term, details
- eliminating risks
|
Establishing Direction
- developing a vision & strategies for change
- focus on the long-term
- taking calculated risk
|
|
Devloping a human network for achieving the agenda
|
Organizing & Staffing
- establishing structure
- staffing, delegating
- providing policies/procedures
- creating processes/systems
- focus on specialization
- compliance
|
Aligning People
- communicating direction by words & deeds
- influencing the creation of teams and coalitions
- focusing on integration
- creating commitment
|
|
Execution
|
Controlling & Problem Solving
- monitoring results vs. plan
- identifying deviations
- organizing to solve problems
- focus on containment & control
- getting right person for the job
|
Motivation and Inspiring
- energizing people
- satisfying higher-level needs
- focusing on empowerment
- creating environment for development
|
|
Outcomes
|
Predictability and Order
- consistently producting key results expected by various stakeholders
|
Change
- producing (often dramatic) change to become more competitive
|
|
Source: Adapted from John Kotter, A Force of Chane: How Leadership Differs from
Management, 1990
|
Both
leadership and management are crucial
Any combination other than strong leadership and strong management has
thepotential for producing unsatisfactory results. Strong leadership
without much management can produce change for change's sake - even if movement
is in a totally unsound direction. Strong management without much
leadership can turn bureaucratic and incapable of dealing with important changes
in the market. This is all too often seen in corporations today,
especially in large and mature ones. Under these circumstances,
performance deteriorates over time, although lowly, if the firm is large and
ahas a strong market position.
Why the distinction is important
It is important for organizations to realize the distinction and balance between
leadership and management because toaday's and tomorrow's marketplace will
demand firms to both thrive on challenges and deliver consistent results, to
address both the magnitude of change and the complexity of the environment.
The net result of the many forces increasing the change and complexity in the
business invironment is that doing what was done yuesterday, or doing it 5%
bette, is no longer a formula for success. Organizational success today
requires skills and stategies that most people did not need in the relatively
benign 1950s, 60s and 70s. Firms do not appear to have the requisite
leadership development practices mostly because until recently organizations did
not need that many people to handle their leadership challenges. More
change always demands more leadership, balanced with effective management.
The Relationship of Change and
Complexity to the Amount of Leadership and Management Needed in a Firm
(John Kotter)
|
Amount of change needed in the operation (due to instability, rapid growth,
etc.) |
HIGH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOW |
Considerable leadership but not much managment required
(start-up business) |
Considerable leadership & managment requried
(most businesses & other organizations today) |
Little managment or leadership required
(most organizations until this century) |
Considerable management but little leadership required
(many successful corporations in the 1950s, 60s and 70s) |
|
|
LOW -----------------------------------------------------------HIGH
The complexity of the operation (due to size,
technology, gepgraphical dispersion, the
number of products or sevices, etc.) |
Balance
is achieved by ensuring that there are persons with leadership and management
strengths in positions of responsibility. Successful corporations develop
their top people to provide both. Unfortunately, organizations in the last
two decades have concentrated more on management and much less on leadership.
As a result, research strongly suggests that most firms today have insufficient
leadership, and that many corporations ore "over-managed" and "under-led"
Senior executives consistently report leadership strength as a top concern for
their organizaitons. As an example, only 54% of companies surveyed by the
Conference Board of Canada in 1996 said they had the leaders needed to respond
to change effectively.
Companies need to develop their capacity to execise leadership. As we
shift to a knowledge economy, leadership means leveaging juman capital to an
even greater extent than ever before. Successful companies don't wait for
leaders to come along. They actively develop them. However, evidence
suggests that findingpeople with leadership potential and then nurturing that
potential is much togher than finding people with managerial potential and then
developing those skills.
Conclusion
In order to prosper in today's environment characterized by both change and
complexity, organizations requre a balance between leadership and managment.
They must ensure that there is an abundance of both strengths. This means
recognizing that people have the potential to be leader-managers, effective in
both leadership and management, although perhaps to varying degrees.
Regardless of how this balance is achieved, it si clear tha the challenges
and opportunities corporations face now and going forward in the 21st century
demand more leadership.
By Anika Vinkovic in consutation with Sandy Wise
This article was based on the work of John Kotter, inluding his book
A Force for Change: How Leadership
Differs from Managment (Free Press, 1990) |
|