Leadership and Management Theory Defined

I went back and reviewed this article and my post. This isnt a great article. There are good elements but on the whole, the attempt tends to scatter once you get past the table comparing a leader to a manager. Consequently, this post is all over the place as I attempt to tie the fragmented ends together.

This article comes from one of my favorite stops on the Net, The CEO Refresher. And it just so happens that it is written by a Marine, LtCol Mark V. Eberhard. Continuing the Marine Corps trend here at Diligentia. The article breaks down definitions of managers and leaders, compares and contrasts them, talks about different leadership theories, power in leadership roles and the emergence of management theory. I decided to re-write this post to clear up this article a little bit. The transition from the compare and contrast into theory and history is awkward. On the whole, the first half of this article will serve as a great starting point or primer for anyone interested in understanding the difference between leadership and management.

Managers bring order and consistency in drawing up formal plans, forming structures and monitoring results; authority of position gains compliance.
Leaders establish direction by developing a vision and inspiring people to
follow.

There is a great line in this article that states that leadership is not a trait but a PROCESS where an individual influences a group of people towards a common goal. A process. I really like that. A process that occurs within the context of a group.

At this point, I would have suggested a Part II or at least a better transition into Leadership Theory and definitions of power. How is that power achieved? Is it earned or handed to a new leader? Does a group pick its leader or is she forced upon the group?

The article then attempts to break down Path-Goal Theory versus Fiedler's Contingency Theory. Path-Goal suggests that a leader's job is to help his team reach their goals by directing, guiding, and coaching them along the way. Show them the goal, tell them they can achieve it, and help them along the way. The problem with Path-Goal is that is often leads the team to become dependent on the leader.

Fiedler came along and noted that effective leadership depends on a match between the leader's style and the demands of the situation. Situations vary. Level of trust between leader and member of the team. Task structure is determined when requirements are clear and choices of action are limited, and results are measurable (I say this is path-goal). And Position power is the power of the leader to alter the team and reward/punish them. All three of these affect the situation. This theory posits that for every situation there is a perfect leader. Well...that's great but what do you do is there is a mismatch?

Trait Leadership is based on the great man theory...leaders are born, not made. You can drop Julius Caesar or Napolean along any timeline and they will still be Caesar or Napolean. All of this has basically led to behaviorist theories. The leader's ACTIONS are most important. It is what she does rather than her attributes. Good leaders have good interpersonal skills, are cooperative and inspire people to work for them through their behaviors.

The article then attempts to transition into what motivates leaders. It forgets about managers completely in the history of theory section. But there is some good stuff here. Maybe three different articles in a series on the history of leadership study. The article gives a pretty lengthy definition of power leadership. There are two types. The first is personalized power where the leader seeks power only to further their own interests. The second is a socialized power motive where the leader uses his power for the sake of others.

For these leaders, there are several motivations. These people are motivated by drive and achievement. The put forth high energy and persistence into achieving goals and they find joy in accomplishments. They have the desire to achieve success through their own efforts and take responsibility for their actions. They are willing to take moderate risks, receive 360 degree feedback, introduce innovative solutions, set goals and plan how those goals will be reached. They are also motivated by a strong work ethic. They are tenacious and therefore better at overcoming obstacles. These leaders have strong intellectual ability and knowledge of the business or team task. It is important for the leader to provide expertise in the field that will be a source of competitive advantage. A leader must be creative in finding original and imaginative solutions to complex problems. Insight into people and situations is yet another characteristic.

Which leads to a brief discussion on the importance of Emotional Intelligence. Too brief. You can sort of see what the author was trying to do. In a not so subtle way, he was trying to impose his beliefs on what makes a good leader. He should have written an article on EI and compared that to leaders subscribing to the socialized power motive. But he didnt. What makes a good leader? Again...it depends on the circumstances. A good trauma doctor is not the same as a good construction engineer leading a skyscraper project. A good marine lieutenant will excel in battle conditions and military ops but might not be a good school teacher. I get it. We need leaders that are motivated by the greater good.