D. What Is the Relationship Between Management and Leadership?

• Importance of Knowing the Relationship Between Management and

Leadership
• Definition of Management
• Definition of Leadership
• Conceptual Relationship of Management and Leadership
• Dualism Theory of Leadership and Management
• Concepts Challenging the Dualism Theory
1. Introduction

In this chapter, I shall briefly discuss the definitions of management and leadership
to show you the relationship of these two constructs. Let me introduce to you two
methods on viewing the relationship of leadership and management: (a) the
traditional method treats both concepts as different but complementary and (b) the
Kaehler & Grundei method does not make any distinction between these two
concepts. Leadership and management are one and the same.

You shall understand where these methods are based on when you get to the final
topics of this chapter: The Dualism Theory and The Steering Influence Concept.

The traditional method encourages you to distinguish the roles of a leader from that
of a manager then act one of these roles or both roles together depending on the
requirements of a situation. The Kaehler & Grudei method makes use of both roles
always at the same time. In case of doubt, always use the modern method.

Can you perform both roles simultaneously? Yes. The Kaehler & Grundei method
requires you to act as leader and manager at the same time. During the Leaderless
group Discussion Exercise, you can act as the leader by clearly showing the goal of
the activity, encouraging everyone to participate, and stimulating the creativity of the
group. Simultaneously, you can play the role of the manager by speeding up the
process to meet the activity goal in time with the expected output, eliminating
conflicts along the
way.

Can you perform one role independently from the other? Yes, by using the traditional
method. During the One-on-One Competency-Based Interview, the interviewer shall
squeeze out your management or leadership qualities. Respond to the interviewer's
question with the appropriate role. Do not mix your responses. Perform a convincing
act
by internalizing the role at hand. These are just initial tips. I shall discuss the tips fully
in Chapter 9. I am just giving you examples to drive home the point I am raising in
this chapter.

2. What is the Definition of Management?

Mary Parker Follet's definition of management as "the art of getting things done
through others" shows the absence of the functions of supervision. Today this
traditional definition of management is deemed inappropriate.

Modern management must deal with new challenges involving organizational,

structures, systems, and strategies in a world of technological advancement and
business diversification where human resource management plays a big role.

The new crop of workers comes with good educational backgrounds and higher
levels of aspirations. They are far superior from the workforce of the past- workers
that could be ruled by utter coercion. The other challenges lie in creating a work
environment and norms that shall improve organizational performance and designing
a profit- sharing scheme that satisfies both workers and employers.

The modern definition of management requires "a process of getting things done
with the aim of achieving goals effectively and efficiently". It insists on process,
effective and efficient performance, and achievement of organizational goal.

For the purposes of this book, I shall discuss management based on the "steering
influence" concept of Boris Kaehler & Jens Grundei.

3. What is the Definition of Leadership?

Leadership, just like management, is another universal phenomenon that is quite

hard to define. This is more confounded by the seemingly endless arguments on the
relationship of leadership with management as concepts that have contrasting or
confluent tendencies.

Any attempt to define one term automatically requires consideration of the other. It
goes without saying, we are dealing with identical twins. Same with toddlers: if you
buy one a garment for one, you need to buy another for the other.

Before making any definition of leadership, it behooves one to consider the evolution
of its definition. Peter G. Northouse in his book, "Leadership: Practice and Theory"
(2013), concluded that the evolution of the definition of leadership, from 19th to the
21st century, led us to a generally accepted set of components: (a) leadership is a
process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in groups, and (d)
leadership involves common goals. No matter what theory you invoke when you
operationalize leadership, these components shall always come to play.

Based on this premise, Northouse defines leadership "as a process whereby an

individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal". (Peter G. Northouse,
2013).
4. What is the Conceptual Relationship of Management and Leadership?

The terms "leadership" and "management" have different meanings for some people.
Others simply find no difference between these terms and frequently used them
interchangeably in their writings. Others find them as extreme opposites to the point
of declaring that one cannot be a good leader and manager at the same time.

A group of individuals stay in the middle; believing that, with the right competencies
of leader and manager, a person can successfully lead the organization to its goals.
Several studies have been conducted on this subject with indicative reports that do
not resolve the original argument with finality.

When it comes to contrasting leadership with management, several authors grabbed

worldwide attention through their articles in the Harvard Business Review namely,
Abraham Saleznik and John Kotter. Both members of the faculty of the Harvard
Business School discussed the contrasting functions and nature of complementation
of the two concepts.

Similarly, there were other writers who also shared light on this interpretation such as
Warren Bennis and Bart Nannus, Joseph C. Rost, Craig Watson, and Bryman,
among others.

I shall also discuss the work of authors who dissented on the theory of dualism of
management and leadership. The 21st century German management educators
Boris Kaehler & Jens Grundei advocated for the complete abandonment of this
theory-suggesting that managing is leading at the same time.

5. What is the Dualism Theory of Leadership and Management?

The dualism theory upholds the belief that management is different from leadership
albeit they have many similar functions such as effectively influencing people and
managing goals even to the extent of overlapping.

According to this theory, when an individual is involved in influencing a group of

people to reach a goal, one is performing a leadership function. On the other hand,
when an individual is involved in processes such as planning, organizing, staffing, or
controlling, he is operating within the scope of management.

Despite their differences, they must always be together. It prompts one to ask
figuratively, "if they can't live away from each other, why can't they get married?"
This is possible between a man and a woman. In the dualism theory, it involves one
person having split personalities. Funny but the metaphor has serious implications
such as getting a common name.

6. Who are the Proponents of the Dualism Theory?

Leaders and Functions Functions
Managers
Leaders are concerned
with understanding
Leaders advocate
people’s belief &
change and new
gaining their
approaches
commitment
Leaders and
Managers make
distinct but useful
Managers advocate Managers carry out
contributions to the
stability and the status responsibilities, and
organization
quo exercise authority to
get things done
quickly.

Before Abraham Saleznik published his seminal article, "Managers and Leaders, Are
They Different?" in the Harvard Business Review, the view of management focused
on organizational structure and processes alone.

Management dealt exclusively with improving competence, control, and balancing

power-omitting essential leadership elements of inspiration, vision, and human
passion. Saleznik's challenging view shocked the whole business world.

Saleznik argued that the traditional view is bereft of leadership elements which are
necessary for organizational success. He claimed that organizations need both
managers and leaders, with different types of people, to attain the goal of the
organization.

It clearly states that you need different persons to act either as the leader or as the
manager of an organization. Conversely, you can discern from his statement that a
manager cannot lead, and the leader cannot manage.

This article originally published in May 1977 shocked the whole business world in a
period that was still hooked on the classical theories of Taylor, Weber, and Fayol. It
was republished in March 1992, and in January 2004 as an HBR Classic. In this
article, Zaleznik made clear distinctions between a leader and a manager:
Craig Watson stated in his book, "Leadership, Management, and the Seven Keys"
that managers take care of structure and system, but leaders focus on the
communication, motivation, and shared goals. Using the 7-5 model, he said further
that the purposeful use of soft tools of style, staff, skills, and shared goals make the
key differences between leaders and managers more distinct. (Craig Watson, 1983).
In his phenomenal book, "On Becoming A Leader", Warren Bennis briefly described
the differences between the leaders and managers in the classic statement:
"Leaders do the right things; managers do things right."

In the book 'Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge', Warren Bennis and Burt Nannus
suggested reframing "that one should lead others but manage self'. (Bennis and
Nannus, 2007).

In "Charisma and Leadership in Organizations", Alan Bryman explores the nature of

charismatic qualities by questioning the differences between management and
leadership, the role of vision, and the nature of transformational leadership. (Allan
Bryman, 1986).

In 1987 John Kotter, a Harvard Business School professor, said leadership goes
beyond routine tasks to cope with change, whereas management is a regular formal
responsibility to cope with routine complexity.

According to him, leadership can be considered a concept that has been around for
centuries, while management is a concept developed in the last 100 years. This is a
result of the industrial revolution.

He argues that leadership is a process that aims to develop a vision for the
organization; align people with that vision; and motivate people to action through the
basic need fulfilment (Kotter, 1990). In contrast, management is a process that aims
to control the organization's formal functions (Kotter, 2001).

Kotter demystified leadership- but placed leadership and management in a more

functional perspective- in his Harvard Business Review article, "What Leaders Really
Do". He wrote, "Leadership is different from management, but not for the reason
most people think. Leadership is not mystical and mysterious. it has nothing to do
with having charisma or other exotic personality traits. It's not the province of a
chosen few. Nor is leadership necessarily better than management or a replacement
for it: rather, leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary
activities. Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile
business environment". (John Kotter, 1990).

MANAGEMENT *LEADERSHIP PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES

By John Kotter (1990)

Produces a
Planning & Organizing & Controlling &
degree of
MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT
predictability

MANAGEMENT
Budgeting Staffing Problem - and order, and
Solving has the
potential of
consistently
producing key
results

Produces
Establishing Aligning Motivating & change, often
MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT

Direction or People to the Inspiring to a dramatic

Vision Vision People to degree, and
has the
Realize the potential of
Vision producing
extremely
useful change

According to him, managers see to it that goals are achieved based on plan and
timetable. They eliminate conflicts within the organization to ensure the smooth flow
of day-to-day operations. Leaders, on the other hand, fire up the passion and
creativity of the workers and teams towards the goal. Leaders create vibrant
relationships with them by creating an environment of energy and innovation even to
the extent of purposive chaos.

He similarly argued in his book, "A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from
Management", that management and leadership have different contributions.
Leadership is about coping with change, whereas management is about coping with
complexity.
Years later, Kotter built on his leadership ideas the theory of change management.
Kotter himself succinctly stated, "The fundamental purpose of management is to
keep the current system functioning. The fundamental purpose of leadership is to
produce useful change."

Many other scholars share Kotter's viewpoint on management and leadership.

Bass stated that "Leaders manage and managers lead, but the two activities are not
synonymous. Management functions can potentially provide leadership; leadership
activities can contribute to managing. Nevertheless, some managers do not lead,
and some leaders do not manage". (Bernard Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of
Leadership,1990)

Capowski's book, "Anatomy of the Leader: Where are the Leaders of Tomorrow?"
tags a leader as someone who is inspiring, innovative, flexible, courageous, and
independent, and has a soul, the passion, and the creativity. While the manager is
deliberate, authoritative, consulting, analytical, and stabilizing, and has the rational,
the mind, and the persistence (Genevieve Capowski, 1994).

House said that the main role of a leader is to motivate his followers by (1)
increasing or clarifying the group's/followers' personal benefits of striving for and
reaching the group's goal, (2) clarifying and clearing a path to achieving the group's
goals. Hence, the path-goal theory. (Robert House, 1977).

Covey stated "Leadership is not management. Leadership has to come first.

Management is a bottom-line focus: How can I best accomplish certain things?
Leadership deals with the top line: What are the things I want to accomplish?
Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines
whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall". (Leadership and Management,
Stephen Covey, 2003)

Hull and Ozeroff are of the view that the manager does not effectively communicate
with people across the departments of the organization. On the other hand, leaders
are aware of their team members' professional strengths, weaknesses, emotional
standings, their place in the organization which allow them to know how to motivate
them. ("Transitioning from Manager to Leader" by Sally Hull and Miffy Ozeroff, 2004)

Ylitalo said that managers focus on structural, tools, and work-related processes.
And leaders are involved in the professional work, social and communicative
aspects. (Thomas Ylitalo, 2004)

Here is a wider comparison of management and leadership based on the dualism

theory:
Manager Leader

Origin A person becomes a manager A person becomes a leader

because of his position. because of his personal skills.

Formal Rights Manager has formal rights in an No formal rights

organization because of his
appointment.

Functions A manager performs all functions Leader influences people to work

of management. willingly for group objectives.

Stability It has stability. Leadership is temporary.

Accountability Manager is accountable for self Leaders have no clear

and subordinates' behavior and accountability.
performance.

Goal A manager is concerned with A leader is concerned with group

organizational goals. goals and welfare of the
members.

Followers People follow manager because of People follow leader voluntarily.

his formal assignment.

Incumbency A manager can continue in office if A leader can maintain his position
he performs his duties well in only through day to day consent
attaining organizational goals. of followers.

Control Manager has control over plans A leader has sanctions of informal
and budget and sanctions. nature.

Gosling and Murphy (2004) think that the leaders work to make the organization
ready to face any new change and ensure the development of a sense of security.

Despite so many contrasting ideas, most of the scholars agree that management
and leadership share similarities as well as distinct differences. No matter the
differences, both are deemed complementary.
7. What are the Concepts Challenging the Dualism Theory?

There are two groups challenging the Dualism Theory. One group is composed of
academic leaders from Tampa, Florida; the other group is composed of two leading
management educators from Germany. While some authors use leadership and
management interchangeably, these two groups consider the concepts of
management and leadership as one concept.

7.1 What is the AJPE Commentary on the Dualism Theory?

A commentary on the dualism theory appeared in the August 2017 issue of the
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education questioning the professed
differences between leadership and management. The commentary was the
collective work of a group of academic leaders (Neelam Azad, H. Glenn Anderson
Jr., Brooks, Oscar Garza, Christine O'Neil, Misty M. Stutz, and Jenelle L. Sobotka). It
was presented in a debate at the 2016 AACP Interim Meeting in Tampa, Florida, in
February 2016.

The group was out to disprove the dualism theory through these three threads of
argument: "that the definitions of leading and managing are arbitrary and similarly
defined; the concepts of leadership and management are transposable in high-
performing organizations; in academic settings and any high-performing
organization, leading and managing are inseparable".

They concluded their commentary by stating that "leading and managing are not
merely complementary, they are essentially the same concept used to describe
different levels of a taxonomy related to performance or organizational
effectiveness."

They added, "In fact, the concepts of leadership and management are transposable,
especially in describing performance effectiveness within organizations. LI the
functions of leadership and management flow in a continuum that are not separable.
Many of these functions are used in describing the roles of both 'leaders' and
'managers', causing the definitions and functions to blur as a continuum of one role".
(AJPE, 2017)

7.2 What is the Concept of the "Steering Influence"?

Boris Kaehler & Jens Grundei unleashed a thought-provoking idea that wants to
stitch the seams of the theory of dualism together. In their book, "HR Governance A
Theoretical Introduction" (2019), Kaehler & Grundei attacked the concept of the
Dualism Theory.

They identified two approaches: (a) according to Saleznik and Kotter, the manager is
preserving, routine-driven, and administrative while the leader is visionary, change-
oriented, inspiring, and progressive. A host of other writers purported similar ideas
anchored on this approach; (b) the second approach is found in most textbooks
which, by defining management as "planning, organizing, leading, controlling",
inevitably places leadership into a sub-category of management.

The authors argue: "Nothing of this makes any sense at all. How could leadership
not include planning, organizing, and controlling? How is management not a goal-
oriented influence on people or does not include choosing the right direction? In fact,
this is a much better description than most definitions; management is a goal-
oriented steering influence."

The authors drew some contributing thoughts from some luminaries in the field of
management that served as building blocks of their lines of argument:

• To Harry Mintzberg (2009b), managing is basically about influencing action.

• David Boddy (2017, p. 16-27) remarks that managers directly and indirectly
influence stakeholders, e.g. subordinates.

• "People work to create change and to create order in varying degrees, so

there is 14 no value in a sharp distinction between managing and leading [...]
Managing and leading both depend on influencing others to put in the effort —
whether to create order or change." (David Boddy 2017, p. 16-27).

• Leadership cannot simply delegate management; instead of distinguishing

managers from leaders, we should be seeing managers as leaders, and
leadership as management practiced well" (Harry Mintzberg 2009a, p. 9).

• "In fact, most people use the terms interchangeably when they refer to the
operation of a business" (Management: An Integrated Approach, Ranjay
Gulati, Anthony J. Mayo, & Nitin Nohrian, 2017, p. 8).

Kaehleer and Grunei claimed that it is no coincidence that those authors mentioned
above also tend to equate management with leadership. They contend that, in
defining leadership, probably all scholarly and practical sources unanimously agree
that the reference point of leadership influence is only people (Gary Yukl 2013).

They said, "If this was the case, the wise business decision a leader makes would
have
to be excluded from the leadership concept and be seen rather as a kind of factual-
technical management. Leadership, then, would not equal management, but rather
only human resource management, a thought also not compatible with the prevailing
scholarly opinion. Faced with this dilemma, the proposition is to equate management
with leadership and conceptualize them as a steering influence that addresses both
people and non-people issues. In any case, the dualism of management and
leadership is misleading and should be abandoned".
Based on theoretical considerations such as Henry Fayol's task catalog, the theories
distinguishing management and leadership by Abraham Saleznik and John Kotter,
and the common point of reference, they came up with their own definition of
management:

"Management is a steering influence on market, production and/or resource

operations in an organization and its units that may address both people and non-
people issues and is exerted by multiple organizational actors through either
anticipatory norm-setting (= constitutive or strategic management) or situational
intervention (= operational management) with the aim of achieving the unit's
objectives. To manage a unit is synonymous with 'directing' or 'leading' it." (Boris
Kaehler & Jens Grundei, 2019).

8. Summary

The Dualism Theory generally considers leadership as "a process where an

individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal". On the other
hand, management is also generally considered as "a process of planning, decision
making, organizing, leading, motivating and controlling the human resources,
financial, physical, and information resources of an organization to reach its goals in
an efficient and effective manner".

Leadership is manifested in some common characteristics and behaviors such as

patience, empathy, active listening, reliability, dependability, creativity, positivity, and
effective feedback. Management, being more task-oriented, requires a set of skills
namely, technical skill, human skill, and conceptual skill. These skills are essential in
performing the five functions of management, namely planning, staffing, directing,
control, and evaluation.

It does not mean, however, that a manager cannot lead, or a leader cannot manage.
These roles, in fact, overlap. It depends on how the individual sees and acts during
situation in his organization. It is like wearing two different eyeglasses all the time.

It is rewarding for managers who also act as leaders. The huge benefit is not only
seen in big profits but in the presence of a vibrant and creative environment where
workers enjoy their tasks and get their fair share from the organization's profit. It also
reflects on the faces of satisfied clientele.

In retrospect, the Dualism Theory was seemingly concerned with business managers
not having good human skills and business leaders not having good management
skills in an environment where both processes occur.

One is prone to quip, "Where is the difference? Both concepts of management and
leadership deal with the same goals and vision, same group of people, same
environment, and similar functions. In this light, we can conclude that leadership is
subsumed in management; but leadership might have different implications in
political, cultural, or religious settings.

The "steering influence" concept of Kaehler & Grundei is probably the hottest thing
that hit the management world today. For the past decades, scholars confined
themselves to the task of comparing leadership with management under the
constant fear that marrying these two concepts would bring forth an offspring. Well,
one couple married these concepts and produced the "steering influence" concept.

While the "steering influence" concept provides a fresh perspective on the

arguments of the dualism theory, scholars have yet to come up with their own
reactions. It might take some time for management institutions to process this
thought. Nevertheless, it shall cause intrigue and excitement among of the 21st
century thinkers the way Salzenik and Kotter did in the 20th century.

As a CESO aspirant, you do not have to be trapped between the polarized

discussions on management-leadership. Regardless of this argument, you must
study and adopt managing-leading skills to survive in the assessment process.

But as a teaching strategy, I shall discuss management and leadership in the context
of the Kaehler and Grundei concept. If I tow the arguments further into my
discussions, I shall bring more confusion rather than clarity. l side with Kaehler and
Grundei for obvious reasons.