Management And Leadership Example

Management And Leadership Example Management And Leadership â€" Essay Example > IntroductionA review of ‘leadership’ and ‘management’ literature reveals the two concepts are different yet still overlap. Two different views explain the overlap. Robbins et al (1998) provides the first view, which perceives leadership to be a superior form of management. In which case, leadership is essentially management that has been effectively executed. Hanold (2014) also provides the second perspective, which originates from the standpoint that management entails what persists within an organization. To this end, leadership and management overlap, as leadership is in essence a vital management skill. Therefore, the reasoning that management contains some principles of leadership is sensible because of the overlap. Still, it could as well be reasoned that making a distinction between the two terms is crucial; otherwise, organizations would be set for failure. One reason for this is demonstrated by Hanold (2014) in his argument that failure to differentiate them leads to a situation where management potential denigrates while leadership is exalted. Hanold (2014) also argues that confusing the two terms leads individuals to perceive leadership as capable of remedying all forms of dilemmas in organizations. This is perilous, as leadership and management all play fundamental roles in an organisation. It is based on this reasoning that this paper describes the difference between leadership and management before commenting on the manner in which leadership and management is practised at a given school. It further examines three leadership types: ethical leadership, strategic leadership and transformational leadership. 1. (a) The difference between leadership and managementFirst, a manager is an action character while a leader is a visionary. In Lopez’s (2014) view, the difference between management and leadership is inherent in the roles of a manager and a leader. While a manager is an action character, a leader is a visionary. Nayar (2013) descr ibed the roles of a manager as intrinsically possessing stereotypically decision-making roles, and indicating a definite form of status. Hanold (2014) agrees with such an observation and posits that a manager does the decisional roles, including allocating resources and tackling disturbances. At this juncture, the implication of status, or hierarchy, denotes that unlike leaders, managers do have subordinates, who have to work under them to set things right within an organizational setting. In which case, their power and authority over others is in terms of a formal authority (Robbins et al. , 1998). From this perspective, it becomes clear that managers have a transactional and authoritarian role. In a current school scenario, the dean of the faculty is a manager, as he has a formal authority vested in him by the university, while his subordinates comprise the lecturers and other members of the faculty staff, who work for the dean and largely follow directions given or preferred by the dean. His management style is also transactional, in a sense that he directs the lecturers and other members of the faculty staff on what to do, while they in turn do this as they have been promised a reward, including a salary. Second, management is concerned with ensuring the survival of an organization while leadership is concerned with people development. Hanold (2014) views the difference between management and leadership in term of ethics. He asserted that leaders tend to be more vital than managers due to their ethical behaviour. He argues that management lacks definite moral or ethical dimension, while merely seeking to serve the interests of certain groups, such as the shareholders. What this shows is that management’s chief concern is organisational survival. Therefore, when ethics is removed from the concept of leadership, then management would be left. Essentially, much of the literature surveyed appeared to focus on a single aspect of managerial work that is con cerned with action. They attempted to define management as intended to do things in the right way, plan and budget, control, solve problems, and generate results that can satisfy stakeholders.