Introduction
As the world of academia expands and transforms itself, the realm of business operations finds itself bombarded with the re-invention of concepts such as leadership and management. While both are undeniably important for companies to grow and make profits, it is evident that these two notions often lead to confusion as to how exactly they are different from one another. After all, leaders and managers are figures of authority who operate teams to ensure they are efficient and successful. This paper aims to examine the concepts of leadership and management, including their theoretical and historical frameworks, to identify the primary differences and similarities between the two. On the one hand, managers and leaders operate within different functional constructs. However, on the other hand, both have the goal of organizational accomplishment and are inextricably intertwined, as a leader typically performs both leadership and management responsibilities and vice versa. Furthermore, the paper aims to observe leadership and management through the lens of reframing by applying Bolman and Deal’s four organizational frames.
Defining Leadership
Firstly, it is crucial to define what leadership is exactly, primarily in the constraints of the business setting. Leadership is the practice of motivating a group of individuals with the aim of encouraging them to act toward a common purpose or a clearly defined goal. Chief Executive Officers or company presidents essentially direct their subordinates utilizing a strategy designed to meet short- or long-term organizational needs. Effective leadership depends upon communicating quick-impact ideas to the team in an effort to engage its members enough to act in a certain way. Northouse (2012) defines the concept as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.” Thus, it is apparent that leadership implies exercising influence by uniting individuals around a common purpose. Rost (1991) adds that true leaders “intend real changes that reflect they’re [those of leaders and followers] mutual purposes.” These definitions help to extract the core foundation of the concept, which stands on six main pillars. They include process, influence, group, goal, following, and ethics.
History of Leadership
It is crucial to recognize that the very concept of leadership has transformed significantly over the years. Thus, a pre-World War II leader had to accomplish tasks using ethically questionable forces of coercion and manipulation. First came the Philosopher-King akin to Solomon, who was determined to seek justice and maintain balance. Then, Christianity slowly seeped its way into leadership, establishing God as the ultimate leader to restore men by His Grace.
The core of leadership for the next archetype, a Prince, was inadvertently evil as the main goal of such an individual was to seek and maintain power and influence at any cost. As some were theorizing about the role of the social construct in leadership, others supported the notion of the Great Man, a Hero who comes when they are needed as a holder of the inherent right to lead others. Following World War II, people’s perception of great leadership shifted, which led to the development of the behavioral style theory. It argues that the behavior of the leader is the primary determinant of long-term success, according to Stigdill, Halpin, and Hemphill (1948). Leadership came to be regarded as contentious, collective, purposeful, and causative (Burns, 1978). Depending on the end objectives, leadership can be either transactional or transformative. The works of Burns (1978) and Bennis and Nanus (1985) helped to re-conceptualize leadership and make the main point of focus shared values and a vision. Therefore, the modern understanding of leadership involves empowerment, motivation, and even compassion.
Defining Management
As for management, it is evident that any workplace depends highly on those professionals who fill management positions. Managers ensure that the chain of communication between senior leadership and junior workers is efficient in delivering the latest updates on the company’s goals and overall mission. Therefore, management is the practice of coordination and administration of tasks with the aim of accomplishing pre-determined organizational objectives. Rost (1991) defines it as “an authority relationship between at least one manager and one subordinate who coordinate their activities to produce and sell particular goods and services.” This requires a variety of skills, such as communication, leadership, scheduling, planning, and creative thinking.
History of Management
As for management, the term has also changed throughout time, which resulted in the formal categorization of management conceptualization into three groups of approaches, classical, behavioral, and modern. A classical approach developed during the early stages of the industrial revolution. Management was essentially divided into scientific, administrative, and bureaucratic, while its main elements included organizing, planning, coordinating, commanding, and controlling (Fayol, 1916). A behavioral approach centers around individual attitudes of managers and their subordinates, emphasizing the importance of the behavioral process. It operates on the assumption that the main purpose of any organization is to serve human needs and individuals require organizations just as much as organizations require individuals. Drucker (1954) identified the five primary managerial roles: goal-setting, performance assessment, motivation, communication, and human resource development. In regards to the modern approach, it acknowledges that an organization operates within a system designed to reach a common goal.
Applying Organizational Frames
Transformational and transactional leadership are not the only modern forms of leadership, as the world of academia has recently introduced situational leadership. It is essentially an approach to leading, which requires different strategies for unique situations. Therefore, a leader must be accustomed to adapting their techniques quickly and initiating change efficiently. Hickman (2009) defines change as “a collective effort by participants to intentionally modify, alter, or transform human social systems.” Thus, leaders have the responsibility of driving internal change in an effort to generate an effective response to the external shifts. Kotter (1996) further notes that change is an ultimate requirement for achieving a company’s vision. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that transformation is a process far too complex to be controlled. Thus, the task of a leader is to create a culture of change and to examine various challenges in more than one way, which is why the notion of reframing has gained prominence.
Modern understanding of successful leadership implies constant reframing, which includes the destruction and reconstruction of collective mental models, as well as rethinking. The four primary organizational frames are structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. The structural frame focuses on the rational realm, emphasizing organizational objectives, communication channels, coordination, policies, technology, and hierarchies. Thus, when a change is required, leaders who take into consideration the structural frame invest in reorganization and redesign. For instance, McDonald’s is a highly centralized organization which functions based on standardized procedures and protocols. When applying this frame, it is evident that the bigger and older the company, the more complex and formal it actually is. The reason for that is the fact organizations are constantly trying to make themselves more efficient by introducing assessment plans and standards of operations, which allow them to dominate the market and oversee a massive workforce.
The human resources frame centers around the workforce and each individual’s strengths, weaknesses, and personal goals. It exists upon the assumption that an organization is akin to an extended family. However, regarding companies in this way can be exceptionally nuanced and inefficient as a leader tries to remain compassionate and understanding while ensuring the organization reaches its objectives. An example of applying the human resources frame would be the efforts of management to reward employees accordingly, to provide development opportunities to workers, and to encourage autonomy.
The political frame offers an approach based on the assumption that organizations exist in a competitive realm of limited resources and competing interests. Therefore, leaders have to be prepared to resolve potential conflicts or engage with competitors through bargaining, partnerships, coalitions, negotiation, or even coercion. Thus, the political frame requires leaders to be true politicians and accumulate as much influence as possible. It implies that change is a potential challenge leading to disempowerment, which is why the solution lies in renegotiation and partnerships. An example of applying the political frame would be to identify primary agents of influence in the market and to mobilize strategies to foster a productive relationship with them.
Lastly, the symbolic frame emphasizes the importance of meaning and faith behind any organizational process. Indeed, the determinant of organizational success is the strength of its corporate culture, which stands on such pillars as ceremonies, myths, rituals, and stories. When applying this framework to change, it is apparent that what a company might really need is transition rituals, which would allow it to both appreciate the past as well as celebrate the prospects of the future. An example of applying the symbolic frame would be to design a specialized language for cohesive internal communication or to reinforce collective identity through corporate storytelling.
Perspectives on the Leadership-Management Relationship
The confusion surrounding leadership and management is not a modern phenomenon. According to Yuki (2013), it’s notable there is “a continuing controversy about the difference between leadership and management.” Five of the perspectives on the leadership-management relationship were clearly defined by Simonet and Tett (2012). The first view posits that managers and leaders are qualitatively different (Zeleznik, 1977). They stand in polar opposition in terms of core values, personal characteristics, temperament, and developmental processes. Unidimensionality implies that management and leadership are essentially interchangeable (Drucker, 1954). On the other hand, bidimensionality is based on the idea that leadership and management are two completely separate processes which often complement each other, according to Bennis and Nanus (1985). While Kotter (1990) is a proponent of this view and regards leadership and management as two recognizable systemic activities, Bass (1985) posits that management is often merely a part of the broader leadership strategy. Lastly, Minitzberg (1973) offers a completely opposite perspective by arguing that management indeed dominates over leadership. Thus, academia has presented a number of perspectives on the relationship between leadership and management.
Leadership vs. Management: Similarities and Differences
No matter the view on the leadership-management relationship one prefers from the ones mentioned above, it is evident that the two concepts are both similar and different. In regards to similarities, it is crucial to note that both processes rely on one’s ability to exercise influence and efficiently communicate with people in an effort to accomplish common organizational objectives. As for differences, Bass and Bass (2008) argue that while both practices are intertwined, they remain independent as there are clear distinctions in functions and typical managerial versus leadership activities and practices. Despite that, it is important to acknowledge that leaders can play the role of a manager, and vice versa, which explains why managers and leaders seem to be always connected to one another.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident that the conceptualization of leadership and management is a decades-long process that creates an ever-expanding theoretical and practical framework for organizations. There has been a great deal of confusion surrounding the concepts of leadership and management, with some arguing that the two are mutually exclusive or interchangeable. While leaders and managers influence others to achieve common goals, there are distinctions in managerial and leadership roles and responsibilities. However, the two constructs often overlap, which makes them connected to one another. The modern business environment requires leaders and managers to ensure their organizations are highly adaptable as the competition grows and marketing tools become more available. This can be achieved through reframing, which implies the analysis of potential and existing challenges the company might face. In order to do that, leaders must apply the structural, human resources, political, or symbolic frames.