Leadership and administration are different concepts, although often quoted in the same context. Leadership entails creating a mental picture for the company, setting its goals, and formulating means and ways of achieving them (Ambler, 2008). They also pass on their mental picture in a manner that encourages employees to support it. Management involves the day after day measures undertaken to realize the company’s goals. This is achieved by offering direction, supervision, and ordering staff in an effort to achieve the tenets of leadership. Leadership may be a benefit to administration, although not all managers have Guidance qualities.
There exists a considerable dissimilarity between leadership and administration (Ambler, 2008). Both are important, though leadership entails influencing and guiding in a certain path. Management implies accomplishing as evident in having responsibility for something. Fine leaders possess qualities that draw people to follow, be loyal to, and construct results. A significant percentage of managers may have these skills, but those who do not may acquire them through preparation. It is notable that those managers who fail to do so always end up as workaholics (Ambler, 2008). The manager often sees his employees as incapable of achieving the company’s targets. He works most of the time, something he would have avoided if he delegated more duties to his subordinates.
Leaders understand the value of managing self and motivation. Managers are usually contented with the maintenance of the order of things. They focus on preserving the status quo and are afraid of creating any upsets (Benson, 2003). Leaders closely relate with the people, thus they will do whatever it takes to guarantee their comfort. Leaders will assess the situation and may even restructure the system to make the employees comfortable. This thinking creates dynamic teams by shifting tasks, forcing out non-producers, and rewarding producers (Benson, 2003).
Benson further argues that managers serve an organization best by dominating over the employees. This may be done excessively hence lowering the levels of motivation in the workforce, while leaders inspire their employees. Leaders will look for flexibility from their followers. They are known to set the pace but allow their employees sufficient autonomy. They instruct their workers on how to improve themselves (Benson, 2003).
Leaders will perpetually look for an efficient way of doing things and means of tapping into the talents of employees. It is notable that managers have failed in this field and mostly prefer to sit around and preserve the company’s status.
Grzeswoniak indicates that the overlap of roles is possible only in a small-scale environment, most entrepreneurial ventures. In this case, the proprietor needs to be knowledgeable about the competition and opportunities they can exploit to succeed. It is worth acknowledging that large corporations cannot afford this luxury (Grzeswoniak, 2010). This is because managers play entirely different roles from leaders. Managers are focused on daily procedures while leaders look at the entire scenario. Managers have the sole responsibility to manage and develop people by being sensitive to their needs and values (Grzeswoniak, 2010).
They have to be conversant with the activities in the organization, competition, and industry if they are to be successful. It is important that they know how to persuade and motivate their employees. Grzeswoniak sees management as an art that requires acquaintance in different disciplines, like psychology and emotional astuteness.
Leaders may occasionally have a sense of the daily procedures but largely focus on the drifts, innovations, expertise, and competition (Grzeswoniak, 2010). They need to know what is on the market and how it will impact their future, both in the short term and long term. The leader must have foresight, thus propagating a suitable vision. If they pass on this knowledge to their staff, it helps them see beyond their daily routine; hence they appreciate their responsibilities.
In large organizations, the leaders may not be congruent with the staff as they focus on the external issues and implications brought forth by costs. The manager may not understand what is going on beyond his domain. This is to the extent that he may not be aware of the financial implication of his daily activities on the company.
Benson also notes that the difference between leaders and managers is the different conceptions they hold in the psyches of calm or fear. Managers will seek stability and control by embracing the process and trying to solve problems on instinct even without full comprehension (Grzeswoniak, 2010).
Leaders will tolerate the chaos and lack of structure, hoping to gain insight on the problem. He argues that business managers have more in common, with creative thinkers than they do with managers. He finally indicates that organizations need both sets of skills to flourish; subsequently strategic exercises and logic should be dropped in favor of creativity and imagination.
Surveys disclose that employees like truthful, forward looking, inspiring, competent, fair minded and kind managers especially when they take up management roles. Organizations are attaching greater emphasis on self awareness; coaching and counseling skills; facilitation skills; presentation skills; relationship building and team working skills; innovation and creativity skills; influencing skills (Grzeswoniak, 2010). Success comes to leaders who work with their people. Leadership can be taught as evident in organizations which spend as much time in leadership seminars as they do in management seminars.
References
Ambler, G. (2008). Leaders vs. Managers….. Are they really different? Practice of leadership. Web.
Grzeswoniak, M. (2010). Managers and Leaders. Medhunters. Web.
Rhema Consultants Limited. (2009). Turning Managers into Leaders. Web.