In a formal setting of an organisation, managers oversee the execution of duties by other people in the organisation. The theory of management is arguable among experts. There are several theories on how to become an effective manager in an organisation.
The classical theory advocates the perspective that there is a single way to run an organisation. According to this theory, a manager either has to be a strict manager in the organisation, or has to adopt leadership as a means of guiding the organisation to its success.
The use of strict and coercive management tactics is supported by the theories regarding management styles. Two antagonistic theories analyse the concept of work, and help identify the two major styles of steering an organisation to success. One theory supposes that work is unpleasant for any individual.
This means that an individual will only work due to the necessity to fulfil personal needs, and that majority of individuals are not self-motivated enough to take on their tasks without coercion. Due to this theory, some experts maintain that strict management practices are always necessary to realise performance in any organisation (McGregor, 1960).
Another theory postulates that work is a natural phenomenon and that in the right environment humans can be motivated to work towards organisational goals without any form of coercion. This theory advocates that for people to work towards the organisational goals, they just need a leader to instil a sense of direction in them.
In that case, the leader does not provide the motivation directly, but creates a vision for the subjects he or she is leading (McGregor, 1960). In “The theory of social and economic organization”, Weber and parsons say that the organisation must gain the trust of the workers for in to get maximum output from the labour force (Weber & parsons, 1964)
The ideas in the two theories have a radical approach at execution of duties in an organisation. Application of either theory alone in organisations has often led to failure of business strategies. Annabel Beerel explores the relationship between management and leadership in her book, “Leadership and Change management.” She says that whereas leadership is capable of existing alone. Management is not capable of effective execution of its role alone (Beerel, 2009).
This necessitates the need to merge the concept of leadership and that of strict management becomes necessary. In the quest to blend the two theories, one realises that to be an effective manager in an organisation, one has to be an effective leader too. In the book, “understanding organisations,” handy says that there is importance in balancing the formal procedures and the diversity of the market and other environment (Handy, 1997)
A strict manager can solely operate in a formal setting where there is a definite structure governing the manager’s control over his subordinates. In ensuring that their wishes are honoured, strict managers use the formal authority given to them by the major stakeholders in an organisation rather than convince their subordinates to support their cause (Jones & George, 2004).
In the journal “Journal of Organizational Management Change”, Bryson says that management has to fit into the culture of the environment of the organization. For example, the management has to take into consideration the norms that the workers in an organization are used to before giving directions on a task to be performed (Bryson, 2008).
On the other hand, managers that are effective leaders can operate in a formal or informal environment. One expert, Frederick Taylor, said that a leader should cooperate with the workers to have a firm grip on the activities of an organisation. According to Taylor, a manager has to be fair to workers and other subordinate managers to be effective (Taylor, 1967).
This means that the manager does not need a definitive structure to be able to carry out his or her objectives, or to assert control over the subjects. For a person to become an effective manager there is need to merge the concept of leadership with that of management (Clemens & Dalrymple, 2005). An effective manager cannot assume a purely managerial role in an organisation. Loyalty by the subjects is required for the proper application of formal authority.
A manager needs to be popular to be able to initiate a favourable and swift response in his or her subjects. Even a manager does not have total control over the actions of the subordinates. Consequently, he or she needs to have some convincing influence over the subordinates. This calls for a manager to have some characteristics of a leader.
Thus, an effective leader needs to be an effective manager. Cameron and Quinn note that, persuasive character of a leader is necessary to instil the right attitude in the subordinates in their book, “Diagnosing and changing organizational culture” (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Charisma empathy, honesty focus, and good communication skills are all characteristics of an effective leader that an effective manager must have.
A strict manager does not have the combined characteristics of a pure manager and a leader. Depending on the setting, it is possible to differentiate a leader from a pure manager by several attributes. Both entities have definite characteristics. A leader is unique since one cannot be purely a leader, and at the same time be a manager. On the other hand, a manager may exhibit the characteristics of a leader for effective control and guidance of the organisation.
Most successful organisations have a manager who exhibits leadership characteristics such that the employees of the organisation become loyal to the leader. Bennis and Nanus have illustrated that some failing organisations are usually over-managed, while on the other hand they are being under-led (Bennis & Nanus, 1985).
In the first place, a manager must be a charismatic person. Charisma refers to the ability of a person to capture other people’s attention and maintain it. A charismatic person must be able to convince people to believe in his or her philosophy. This structuring of this philosophy should be in the interest of the subjects of the leader.
The difference between the persuading power of a leader and that of manager is that the manager is overly coercive while a leader convinces the subjects to take on the actions he or she recommends. A manager may adopt this leadership characteristic to increase the subordinates’ productivity. People respond more positively to charisma than they respond to directives. Charismatic leaders are likely to maintain their positions of power than pure managers (Glanz, 2002).
Empathy is another important characteristic of a leader that an effective manager should adopt. It is important for a leader to demonstrate the perspective of the subjects’ understanding regarding a particular matter. On the other hand, a manager must also show the subordinates that he or she respects their views. This is in addition to the consideration that the performance of a manager depends on the nature of response of subordinates to directives (Maxwell, 1999).
A pure manager may shift attention or focus from the objective of the organisation to another agenda due to the changes in the environment. Furthermore, the emergence of another more important objective may undermine the superiority of the first objective.
In such a case, the manager may issue directives for the employees to abandon the current course of action and adopt another issue as the most important agenda (Guyant & Fulton, 1996). According to Senge in the book “the fifth discipline, a manager should ensure that workers share his or her vision of the future of the organisation. This way the workers are motivated to work towards organisational goals (Senge, 1990).
A good manager and leader, shows a dynamic sense of objectivity. This means that the leader has a definite direction that that is different from other leaders. The leader should maintain this course to win the confidence of the people. A sense of direction attaches the aspect of creativity to the leader since he or she is able to formulate a unique objective for the subjects. According to Mabey and Lees, this blend creates an aura of self-importance around the manager (Mabey & Lees, 2008).
To foster an appropriate relationship with the employees of an organisation, a manager must be able to communicate with the subordinate staff and fellow managers. In addition, the manager should be able to foster good relationship with the superior staff through communication.
Communication is not primarily a virtue possessed by managers, but it is a necessary practice borrowed from leaders possessing effective communication skills. When a manager maintains minimal levels of communication with the staff, it is possible that the employees will lose focus of the organisation’s objective.
In the book, “Leadership Primal,” Daniel Goleman and Boyatzis say that if a leader fails to empathise with the concerns of his organisation’s members, the members collectively preoccupy themselves with the indifference of the leader. This eventually leads to the failure of the leader. This is called resonant leadership, a quality a manager should have to achieve good performance (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2004).
To maintain an optimistic spirit of the members of the organisation, the manager must communicate with them in a cordial, but professional manner. If a manager shows no interest in communicating, the progress of the organisation will instil a pessimistic attitude among the subordinates and the superiors. Communication is a fundamental value of management and any manager will perform poorly if he or she lacks the appropriate communication skills.
Goledman and Boyatzis refer to this as dissonant leadership (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2004) Thus, communication is critical for both management and leadership. However, good communication skills are a basic constituent of leadership. It is through communication that a leader is able to present the main agenda and beliefs of his criteria of leadership.
However, a manager can choose to maintain basic leadership skills and engage in the occasional official communication within the ranks in an organisation. This kind of operation leads to a poor performance of the company. One cannot claim to be a true leader by engaging in such kind of limited communication.
A contrast exists between the concept of leadership and that of strict management. The differences are caused by the formal structure and procedures employed in management. In management, the manager expects the subordinate to carry out their duties in a satisfactory manner. The subordinates must demonstrate to the manager that they are capable of handling their responsibilities.
The employees in an organisation feel indebted to the superior in terms of performance and prompt execution of duties. On the contrary, a leader has to fulfil the expectations of the subject. Sometimes, a leaders values are tested by the situations i n the organisations. Kouzes and Posner say that a leader has to show threat he or she is in control at all times by taking on difficult situation or by making difficult decisions (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
For the subject to believe in the leader’s ideas, the leader has to live up to his promises. A leader must fulfil his or her responsibilities towards the subject to ensure survival. The leader does not have statutory power over the subjects. Thus, the burden of responsibility in leadership is borne by the leader (Popper & Zakkai, 1994).
Another contrast between leadership and strict management is the degree of flexibility regarding the two concepts. Leadership is considerably flexible and the leader can convince the subject to focus on any realistic objective if he or she has the qualities that enable him or her to present the issue in a convincing way. This means that a leader has a variety of options in dealing with a particular issue (White, 2003).
On the other hand, strict management is governed by some specific protocol that must be followed. When a manager fails to follow the expected protocol, the other people interpret this as a breach of rules. In this essence, the manager does not have the authority to tailor a unique procedure different from the set procedure.
Democratic leadership allows the subjects to hold different beliefs from what the leader beliefs. In other words, the leader is tolerant to opposition. The supporters and the opponents of the leader’s ideas are treated equally (Armstrong, 2009). A great deal of interaction between the leader and the subject occurs. On the other hand, autocracy is another contrasting form of leadership.
In autocratic leadership, all subjects should agree to the leader’s ideas. The leader is not tolerant to any deviant opinion. Those who do not agree with the leadership style may suffer severe ramifications. In this form of leadership, flexibility is minimal and depends on the wishes of the leader.
The dynamic capability of such leadership is limited because there is need to maintain a certain discipline among the subjects to suppress opposition. However, this kind of leadership cannot withstand long periods of intense adversity (Armstrong, 2009).
A leader can also adopt another criterion where the subjects have the freedom to go about their duties without interference or supervision by the leader. This form of leadership is known as a hands-free leadership. However, this criterion works with highly skilled subordinates who know their duties and expectations.
The subjects may not put more effort than they are required since they lack motivation. Unskilled workers may not carry out their duties within the specified time if their leader assumes this leadership style. However, this criterion may work if the subordinates have self-motivation to achieve the set objectives (White, 2003).
People oriented leadership is a form of leadership where the major aim is the benefit of the subjects. This type of leadership allows the contribution of ideas from the subjects. The leader acts as a coordinating figure. A contrasting form of leadership is the task-oriented leadership. The leader guides the subject towards achieving a predetermined goal.
The consideration of the subjects’ opinions is only to a limited extent. However, they are required to contribute towards the achievement of goals. In addition, this style of leadership may tend drift towards autocracy if the leader sets unrealistic timelines and working conditions (White, 2003).
When a leader pays an agreed amount of money to a subject due to the subjects’ cooperation in the quest to achieve a certain goal, the leadership style is referred to as a transactional leadership. The payment depends on the leader’s judgement regarding the effective accomplishment of tasks. In this kind of leadership, all parties should to meet their responsibilities for continued cooperation. There is a mutual benefit among the members of the organisation (Armstrong, 2009).
Transformational leadership convinces the subjects that the set objective have a certain high level of importance. This could help a manager get voluntary support from the subordinates. The subject is made to believe that the achievement of the set goals is critical (Armstrong, 2009). This kind of leadership depends on the ability of the leader to guide his subjects into cooperation.
The objectives may not be necessarily as important as the leader insists. Transformational leadership is suitable for situations where the subject is ignorant of the importance of the desired outcome. However, the leader may tend to overstress the significance of the objectives, and may lead the subject into engaging in actions, which they do not intend to undertake (Popper & Zakkai, 1994).
Another kind of leadership is that which changes continuously depending on the prevailing situation. This style of leadership has no definite description, and can adopt any methodology including coercion to achieve the set objectives. The application of the style is often in urgent scenarios and particularly in dynamic situations. The evaluation of this style of leadership illustrates that the style depends on the situation and the objectives of the leader (Armstrong, 2009).
Moreover, the subjects influence the style. The position of the two parties has significant effects on the kind of the leadership present. Both parties, in varying proportions, determine the control of the leadership style used (Northouse, 2007).
A manager can blend pure management in different proportions so that the resulting management regime is suitable for the situation at hand. Furthermore, human resource management eliminates the combative approach that employees assumed towards the management (Armstrong, 2009).
The aim of employing this management style is to eliminate the conflicts between the management and the employees and to motivate the employees to input more effort towards the achievement of the set goals. This management style is suitable for an environment where there is mutual benefit between the employees and the organisation (Sheppek, 2000).
There is no need for compulsive coercion to get the employees to work towards the set objectives of the organisation. The concern parties establish a mutual agreement on the mode of operation. A significant degree of leadership is required for this type of management to be effective (Wright, 2005).
A democratic style of management may be adopted when the subordinates have a substantial stake in the investments of an organisation. It is logical that the employees will be persuaded to act responsibly towards the goals of the organisation to protect their interests. The manager acts according to the whims of the majority of the subordinates. This is a completely participative kind of management (Sears, 2007).
The environment of an organization has an effect on the management style adopted. Management environments contain factors such as customers, owners of the organisation, suppliers and rivals whose opinion affects the style of leadership. A manager may have to adopt a coercive management style to keep up with the pace of a rival.
The environment also affects the leadership styles. The nature of the environment and the activities in the environment prompt the leader to adopt some definite style. If a leader leads intellectuals, then the he or she must demonstrate intellect and modify his style to fit the profile of the intellectuals.
A leader operating in an unstable environment will tend to develop autocracy in an effort to stay in control. An autocratic leader may not be naturally intolerant, but may have to invoke dictatorship depending on the environment and the objectives of the leader (Hiebert & Klatt, 2001).
Some managers may use coercive management styles that lack any aspect of good leadership, but achieve satisfactory results. An example is a general manager of the technology company I worked for during a holiday. He used overly coercive methods to compel the technicians to work overtime for other companies in exchange for high pay and to get more contracts.
The manager was unpopular even among the hardworking technicians, but the technologies company acquired numerous contracts. In the end, the company posted abnormal profits. However, within a period of eight months, the availability of contracts declined and the workers quit since they could not make enough money due to the lack of overtime work. The company fortunes dwindled and it had to close most of its operations within a year. This proved that effective leadership is necessary for effective management.
In light of the knowledge of the relationship between leadership and management, one can conclude that management is a relative term that depends on the proportion of leadership characteristics that exist in a particular management style. Since effective management is dependent on the leadership style, the manager needs to be an effective leader to accomplish various objectives.
A leader is a visionary person with a clear vision for the future. When a manager invokes leadership characteristics in the management, he or she prolongs the stability of an organisation. An effective leader avoids autocratic methods of coercion since they stifle the performance of an organisation.
Consequently, the forms of leadership that demonstrate democratic characteristics are likely to be more effective. The effect of the environment on the style of leadership results in a similar effect on the management style. Management is a complex issue depending on the environment and personality. Thus, an effective manager needs to be an effective leader.
References
Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong’s handbook of management and leadership a guide to managing for results (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Beerel, A. C. (2009). Leadership and change management. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
Bryson, J. (2008) Dominant, emergent, and residual culture: the dynamics of organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 21(6), pp.743-757.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: based on the competing values framework. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Clemens, J., & Dalrymple, S. (2005). Time mastery how temporal intelligence will make you a stronger, more effective leader. New York: American Management Association.
Glanz, J. (2002). Finding your leadership style a guide for educators. Alexandria: ASCD.
Guyant, A., & Fulton, S. (1996). Manager’s tough questions answer book: word for word responses for the most difficult questions managers face. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Handy, C. B. (1997). Understanding organisations. London: Penguin Lpbb.
Hiebert, M., & Klatt, B. (2001). The encyclopaedia of leadership: a practical guide to popular leadership theories and techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (2004). Essentials of contemporary management. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mabey, C., & Lees, T. (2008). Management and leadership development. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Maxwell, J. C. (1999). The 21 indispensable qualities of a leader: becoming the person that people will want to follow. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Popper, M., & Zakkai, E. (1994). Transactional, Charismatic and Transformational Leadership, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 15(6), 3-7.
Sears, W. H. (2007). The front line guide to creating a winning management style Amherst, Mass.: HRD Press.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Sheppek, M. (2000). Strategic HR Configurations and Organisational Performance. Human Resource Management, 39(Spring), 1-12.
Taylor, F. W. (1967). The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton.
Weber, M., & Parsons, T. (1964). The theory of social and economic organisation. New York: MacMillan.
White, R. (2003). The effective leader. London: Kogan Page.
Wright, P. (2005). New models For Strategic HRM in the Global Context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(June), 875-881.