I feel that both management and leadership are different in a literal sense and by
definition although they can both exist simultaneously. As an example, a manager is appointed or
hired to a position but could also be a leader (that is to say that leadership
is just one facet of management) and, conversely, a leader may be a leader with
or without holding the title of manager.
Also, I feel that both terms are in the title of this class because
leading is becoming more and more popular in management. According to David K. Williams, a
contributing writer for Forbes magazine online, "What if a company simply
dispensed with traditional managers? What if every employee had the opportunity
and potential to lead? What if everyone was given the freedom to consider “Am I
doing the right things?” instead of just “Am I doing things
‘right’?”". This is important
because companies of the future may consider dispensing formal management and
focus more on direct leadership due to the distinction leadership holds for
employees (Williams, 2012). Perhaps this
idea from David K. Williams has a lot of merit and is directly linked to the
Hypercaninophobia complex (aka top-dog fear) which is “fear caused in superiors
when an inferior demonstrates strong leadership potential” (Peter & Hull,
1969). It does make logical sense that
if a manager is also a leader, then the subordinates will follow the manager
instead of a leader born from a group.
There is a fundamental difference between the two terms;
however many people use the terms interchangeably both correctly and well as
incorrectly. The definitions are not
confusing but the practical applications can be and this is why the terms are used
interchangeably - sometimes justified, and sometimes not so much. The term management is defined by
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "the conducting or supervising
of something (such as a business)", and the term leadership is defined by
the same source as the "capacity to lead". So does this mean that anyone who is a manager
is automatically also a leader or has the capacity to lead? The answer is no, and this is because not
every manager has this capacity, and not every leader has the title of
manager. Furthermore not every manager
wants the distinction of being a leader.
The only time a person is justified in using the terms interchangeably
is when the definition of the term(s) fit(s) the situation correctly. As an example I would like to point out that
a leader such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not hold a management position;
and I have personally had managers in fast food environments that just
controlled situations, but they never gave any type of advice or other
direction to employees other than what was mandated by the franchise. Managers are also not always required by an
organization to be a leader due to the structure of the organization, so leadership
can also be considered an asset that a manager holds instead of a necessity. Therefore, the terms can only be used
interchangeably when a person holds the title of manager and also has the
capacity as well as the objective to lead.
Management and (or) leadership is
often contingent upon the structure and overall purpose of the organization.
My Philosophy on Management and Leadership:
In management, managers do things according to policy,
company rules, and generally by the book.
Managers form teams, control situations, organize meetings, staff
employees, and plan various activities that are all aimed at reaching the
overall goal of the company. Managers are viewed by employees as being
authoritative - a person that the employees must directly obey and carefully
listen to whether or not they actually want to.
A manager is hired to a specific
position and therefore a manager is more of a title rather than a label. I feel
that managers think critically about situations and try to stay within the
parameters of company guidelines. To
me, managing a situation means getting into chaos and straightening up a mess
in order to meet a goal or set of goals and a manager is a ruling authority
whereas a leader is someone to follow willingly due to their views,
characteristics, enthusiasm, and passion.
In leadership, leaders think more radically than managers;
they challenge norms, unite people to follow, use emotions to excite followers,
and set examples through their leadership. Leaders are normally not bound entirely by
organizational rules or structure and understand when, as well as how, to
challenge the status quo. Leaders may
not have the expertise of a company or organization like that of managers, but
are able to gain more employee loyalty. Loyalty, I feel, is a key difference between a
leader and a manager. People in general
tend to feel more loyal to a leader than to a manager and I feel this is
because they are not ordered to follow a leader; people actually want to follow
a leader due to the leader’s message, fervor, and direction.
Leaders are able to establish loyalty through
trust building and by creating enthusiasm in their followers. My favorite example of a great leader is Queen
Elizabeth I – she was not called the “manager of England”, and I believe this
is a good way to show the difference between the two terms (perspective). To
me, leading is setting an example by actions, through emotions, and creating
trust and loyalty among followers. If I
want to teach my children about science, I show them how fun science can be and
tell them stories of how science has changed my life and how it is beneficial
to them; if I want to lead a group in class, I show the members that I have the
capacity to contribute to the group and that their ideas and opinions are
extremely important to the success of the group; if I want to lead my employees
I take action, treat them with respect, get to know them on a personal level,
trust them as I want to be trusted, and lead by example. As a note, in all of these situations, proper
and well-timed feedback is always very important as a leader and a
manager.
There certainly is a distinction between the terms
management and leadership; both terms can apply to a person if the standards
mentioned above for both terms are present.
Younger Years - Noticing the Differences:
As a teenager I worked at McDonalds for 2 years. During this time I was strictly managed and not
led. I knew what I had to do, my goals
for the day, and how to carry out these goals.
My managers rarely spoke to me unless they had to give e some type of
directions or orders for work. Later, I
decided to open my own business and through much trial and error I learned that
managing people in this same fashion under a completely different business
structure was simply not going to work. I was only doing what I knew at the time, and
was managing people, not leading a group.
I learned promptly that different people respond to different incentives
in very different ways. Being managed
before at McDonalds taught me that things needed to be done in order to be
profitable but it did not teach me that leading people motivates them to work
harder and to be loyal to the company.
This is probably why McDonalds has an incredibly high turnover rate – as
there is not much loyalty there due to the management style. For my
business I needed people who had general and specific knowledge, who enjoyed
coming into work, and who were loyal to my company. It was because of the uneager response of my
15 employees that I knew I would have to be both a manager as well as a leader. I decided I needed lessons on leadership and
did not have time to go back to college to learn these lessons, yet. So I
purchased books upon books just to learn leadership ability. Books are great, but nothing teaches
leadership like that of a true leader. I looked in various places, sought out
mentors, and the evolution of my thoughts on leadership became more and more of
what not to do as a leader than what to do.
But that is also good, for knowing ‘what not to do’ relinquishes the
possibility of errors when leading in the future.
My thoughts of leadership at this point were focused on
motivating other people. I needed my
employees to want to come to work and I wanted to see smiles. My thoughts of leadership were quiet
antiquated too; for instance during this time I truly believed that people were
either born leaders or born followers and that they could never change their
status. After more trial and error and
going at this leadership all wrong, I found out one day that leadership truly
comes not through words but through actions.
I could talk all day to my employees but it was about as well received
as a preacher spilling out words on Sunday to kids who simply thought they were
going to church for fun due to parental lies.
It was the day when my company received
a huge order from a very high-class institution. The order was 200 crib sets packaged and
delivered within 24 hours. We were short
handed because seven employees decided to leave when we got the huge order
in. I told my other employees thank you
for staying, and I immediately began to work. Without much instruction from me, my other
employees also immediately began to work.
But then a very interesting thing happened – they were laughing, having
fun, and one of them said “we can get this done in no time” and the other
employees agreed. It was then that I
realized only when there was a challenging goal and I rolled up my sleeves to
join them, that they were the most eager.
I was no longer just a manager preaching orders from my soapbox, but rather
I was leading them by my actions. When I
took action with a positive attitude, there was a clear domino effect in the
employees. We got the order finished
with 4 hours to spare, and we all went out to celebrate on my dime. After that day, things went very well in the
office; my employees started asking my advice with everything from work to
personal life situations. The seven
employees who showed no loyalty were fired, and the other employees were given
a raise due to the new availability of funds from the firings. My
employees trusted me and were loyal to me based on my actions. This was a very important milestone for me.
More lessons came throughout the years, but my business
closed in 2009 due to economic hardship.
I decided then to go back to school and I have learned so very much from
Southeast Missouri State University regarding leadership and management – and
surprisingly it has been mostly from the way the classes are taught, what the
professor(s) expect from students, how well professors communicate, and then
the actual material of the classes in this order. In one
class, for instance, the professor laid out the syllabus and wrote an email
which said “you can do the assignments as you wish. The due dates are posted.” I emailed the professor 4 times during the
16-week course, only once was I responded to with “that information is in the
syllabus.” This professor certainly
managed the course well through a very organized syllabus, but there was no
leadership, and quite frankly I did not even want to take the course anymore
because of the lack of enthusiasm I felt for it. If the professor wasn’t excited about
teaching it, why should I be excited to learn it? Conversely, the class I took on leadership through
SEMO by Dr. Erin Fluegge was amazing.
She was such an active part in that class, she made the class a lot of
fun, and I got the feeling that she was very happy to teach her students. She managed and led her class very well – all
emails were immediately responded to and in such a positive way. These differences between classes show only a
small picture of management and leadership, or the lack thereof. Outside of the classroom these principles are
the same and I have learned that some people prefer to just manage and show no
passion, but others are full of passion and have the capacity to lead. My perspective
on both leadership and management has evolved greatly throughout the
years. This evolution has taken place
mainly due to trial and error, through formal studies, and through
not-so-formal studies in what not to do as a leader. I am excited and happy to say that my
perspective still has room to grow, and continually does so through more
education on leadership and management.
References:
Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary (10. ed.). (1999).
Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster.
Peter, L. J., & Hull, R. (1969). Followers &
Leaders. The Peter Principle, (p. 171). New York: W. Morrow.
Williams, D. K. (2012, July 5). No More Managers. Everyone
Leads - Forbes. Information for the World's Business Leaders - Forbes.com.
Retrieved August 22, 2012, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkwilliams/2012/07/05/no-more-managers-everyone-leads/
No comments:
Post a Comment