Effective Management and Leadership
... with the process with which tasks were performed, level of control they possess and a hierarchy of authority being utilised. Bennis and Nanus did however comment that where possible, a combination of both managers and leaders would be ideal, providing both stability and the assurance of work being completed, coupled with vision and direction. The idea of managerial and leadership skills complementing each other is enforced by Howell and Costly (2001). They felt that differentiating between managers and leaders was useful in theory but in a practical sense, today’s organisations required individuals to display both sets of abilities and also that under different circumstances and situations that arise, different skills will be necessary. An example of this in action could be at staff meetings. One meeting may require motivation, encouragement and an outlining of the goals of the company, but another will need an individual to explain new company policies and detail the effect these will have on staff and the company. Both settings required an individual to present the meeting agenda, however different circumstances called for a different individual approach. So despite the admittance of differences between managers and leaders, it seems that both sets of skills are useful within an organisation. Kotter (1990) indicated too that both approaches were complementary, each containing it’s own set of skills, functions and characteristic activities which all contribute to the successful running of an organisation. According to Kotter, a leader is more interested in the anticipation of change and setting distinct visions for those within the organisation whereas a manager will plan and control work, and set up systems and procedures in order to achieve the organisations visions. As well as the opinions of authors and researchers, certain theories formed have led to major distinctions being made between leaders and managers. Trait theory lends itself to the concept of leadership. Trait theorists believe that leaders are born and that their traits or personal characteristics that mark them as leaders are innate. Gardener (1989) believed that certain attributes could be identified within born leaders, including physical vitality, task competence, need for achievement, trustworthiness and assertiveness to mention a few. Cattell studied many personality behavioural patterns within humans and these can be used within leadership and management theories. He found that leaders tended to have traits imbedded within them and he then created a table of personality factors allowing leaders to be identified. (Mullins L J 2005, p344-345) Hans Eysenck also studied behaviour and personality in terms of leadership and management. He believed that personality was “largely inherited” and people are born with different “tendencies”. (Mullins L J 2005, p344) Clearly then there are those who believe leaders are born. Another theory offering an explanation for the emergence of leadership amidst organisations is the ‘Great Man’ theory. Daft (2002, p545-546) describes this as “the era of ’Great Man’ leadership and the emphasis on personal traits of leaders.” The ‘Great Man’ theory assumes that leaders are in effect divinely chosen and appointed by God and are therefore in a position to lead people. A leader is conceptualised as “a single hero who saw the big picture and how everything fits into a whole.” (p546) Both the above theories uphold the theory of leadership qualities being innate or granted by a higher authority, i.e. God. They are useful in explaining why the notion of leadership skills being necessary is prevalent in today’s organisations, and why there is a distinction between leadership and management. Some early work performed by behavioural leadership theorists was also influential on today’s distinctions. In the 1950’s and 1960’s behaviour of leaders was examined in real situations in an effort to ascertain which method of leading was commonly preferred, management or leadership techniques. Various studies were performed in order to determine which approach was favoured. (Lippin and White1930s; Halpen and Winter 1940s; Likert 1950s) All three studies reached a unanimous conclusion; leadership methods were preferred. Leaders who were considerate, people centred and democratic came out on top and gained the respect and favour of their subjects. At the beginning of the twentieth century then it was becoming apparent that a shift from managerial skills to leadership skills would be essential to managing an organisation. The view of managers being essential has been challenged by organisations wishing to reduce costs and improve their responsiveness. A common suggestion is that managers slow down decision-making and reduce effectiveness within a company. Hence, the concept of empowerment has been one frequently adopted by organisations. Empowerment allows employees to become their own managers and leaders. One source described empowerment as ‘the power to carry out one’s responsibilities’. (Torrington D & Weightman J, 1994, p 324) Empowerment allows employees the opportunity to lead themselves, to use their own initiative and take responsibility for their own actions. This thereby means that less (or no) managers are needed. Instead leaders are formed within the organisations current staff, leaders who are able to stretch for the goals of the company, who are autonomous, who are in control of their own work and who are responsible for decision-making. There can of course be adverse effects to empowerment. Not all individuals wish to carry extra responsibility, inter-group relationships can then become more difficult to maintain and not all staff may be trained for such a change. (Student Accountant website, 3/11/04) However, the point to examine is that a shift in emphasis from management to empowerment also means a transition to leadership attributes being crucial. Management skills will of course still be essential to staff recently empowered, however, in order to maintain a constant workload, reach for the company’s goals and perform to their most effective potential, leadership qualities will be needed too. As with all issues or debates within society, there are two sides to the coin. The majority of authors and researchers recognise that leadership is fast becoming the principal attribute sought after in organisations and this is a positive concept to adopt, however, there are a few that disagree. Upon research it appeared there were no objections to leadership, but one source discovered commented on two drawbacks to leadership. “It is often bad for leaders, who grow an inflated view of their own self importance.” (Torrington D & Weightman J, 1994, p338) The leader may come to believe that instead of their actions being the determining factor of success, their success lies within the person they are. This can lead to haughty, pompous individuals intent on imposing their feelings of self-importance upon others. The second criticism was that “it limits the number of people who can safely be put in charge of sections, departments and operations because it ...