LDR711A Homework

I need assistance with this document I have been out for a long time and unsure how to complete this document. Could you please provide instructions

LDR/711A v11

Source Comparison Worksheet

LDR/711A v11

Page 2 of 2

Source Comparison Worksheet

Read Distinguishing Sources by Type from the

University Library

.

Read the Porr and Zimmerman articles attached.

Analyze and evaluate the Porr and Zimmerman articles for their credibility as a doctoral research source.

Complete the table below. The first row has been completed as an example.

Source Evaluation Criteria

Porr Article

Zimmerman Article

Use of APA format for in-text citations and references

Use of in-text citations

No APA in-text citations

Authors’ credentials and affiliation

Dean Poor is associated with Kent State University

Source publication (Is the source peer reviewed according to Ulrich’s?)

Yes, according to Ulrichsweb the source is peer reviewed

Scholarly writing (comment on author’s use of scholarly writing)

Use of supporting evidence

Value as a doctoral research source

Reflection question: Both articles addressed the same topic—leadership versus management. What insights can you gain from comparing the two sources’ research value? How will you apply these insights in your doctoral research?

Based on the readings, write a 125-word evaluative discussion on the differences and similarities between and among management and leadership.

Include in-text citations and a reference list.

Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

TowardMore Inclusive LeadershipPedagogy: Expanding
the Management versus Leadership Comparison
Dean Porr, Kent State University, Ohio, USA

Abstract: The management versus leadership comparison is a recognized instructional tool in leadership
pedagogy. Like other leadership concepts, this two- factor model has a history of controversy concerning
the extent to which the terms are independent of each other and how inclusive the model is in describing
various types of influence. This paper explores these deficiencies and expands the two-factor model
by introducing the additional concepts of administration and operations.

Keywords: Management, Leadership, Administration, Operations

Introduction

MOSTMANAGEMENTEDUCATORS now agree that leadership is both a skilland a behavior that exhibits that skill (Doh, 2003). The comparison of skills andbehaviors linked directly to the process of management and those more closely
associated with the process of leadership is an accepted tool in leadership ped-

agogy. Although many leadership theorists believe there are distinct differences between
the concepts, the two terms are interchanged so often that the differences have become
blurred (Kotter, 1999; Terry, 1993; Toor & Ofori, 2008; Zaleznik, 1977). This confusion
has reduced the accuracy and precision of leadership and management research (Gordon &
Yukl, 2004; Kotter, 2006; Zaccaro & Horn, 2003).

The definition of these terms has become an issue, as there appear to be as many ways of
defining management and leadership as there are researchers in the field. If you can’t define
leadership or management, you can’t measure, test, make assessments, or hire and promote
for them (Kotter, 2006). The term manage means to handle (Sanborn, 1996), whereas man-
agement is the process of getting things done through other persons (Fagiano, 1997). A
leader is a person who is followed; however leadership is the process of influencing the
activities of an organized group toward goal achievement (Rausch & Behling, 1984). The
opportunity for confusion is apparent. This paper explores the problems associated with the
management versus leadership comparison by identifying the deficiencies of the two-factor
model and expanding it to be more inclusive leadership pedagogy.

Changes in Management and Leadership Perspectives
Modern management instruction is routinely aided by stressing an understanding of the basic
functions that make up the management process. The functions of management accepted by
the academic community have changed as management research has progressed. In 1916
Fayol created a list of four primary functions of management: planning, organizing, staffing,
and controlling. As management research evolved the function of directing was added, and

The International Journal of Learning
Volume 17, Number 5, 2010, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494
© Common Ground, Dean Porr, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

many management textbooks of the 1970’s dissected the subfields of management into
planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling (Carlisle, 1976).

Changes in societal norms and expectations were accompanied by the development of
human resource specialists. HR personnel began assuming a greater share of the responsib-
ility for recruiting, hiring, transferring, promoting, and terminating employees. Scholars
eventually dropped staffing as one of the functions of management when it became more of
a specialist’s responsibility.

Progressive management techniques caused researchers to take a critical look at the
comparatively hard term directing. As advances were made in leadership research, the
function of directing was replaced with the softer term leading. By the 1980’s many manage-
ment textbooks were structured around the four accepted managerial functions of planning,
organizing, leading, and controlling (Griffin, 1984). This breakdown is still common today
(Robbins & Coulter, 2009). A summary of the changes in the functions of management can
be found in table 1.

The opportunity for confusion between the two terms is apparent when research discussing
the differences between management and leadership is considered alongside research
identifying leadership as a function of management. Mangham and Pye (1991) support the
inclusion of leadership as a function of management, claiming that leading is not a specialized
phenomenon nor an entirely distinct activity, but simply an aspect of managing. Conversely,
Plachy (2009) insists that leadership is not a wiser posture than managership, or a substitute
for managership, or a kind of managership.

Leadership is an increasingly ubiquitous subject in business school curricula, a theme of
popular business books, and a topic for academic practice and research (Doh, 2003). Numer-
ous descriptions of leadership have been created by these researchers. A well-known and
relatively short list of leadership practices was created by Kouzes and Posner (1987). They

134

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

described five fundamental practices which enable leaders to get extraordinary things accom-
plished. These practices serve as the basis for the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), an
assessment tool widely used in leadership training (Kouzes & Posner, 1987). Their leadership
practices are:

1. Model the way
2. Inspire a shared vision
3. Challenge the process
4. Enable others to act
5. Encourage the heart

The Task versus Relations Comparison
An accepted leadership concept in the early twentieth century was the one-dimensional
continuum between leader behaviors described as being task-oriented and those that were
more people-oriented. It was acceptable to describe someone in the simplistic terms of being
a task-master or a people-person. A few modern researchers continue to think in these terms.
Bryman (1992) referred to leadership and management as two sides of the same coin. Plachy
(2009) suggested that managing and leading form a continuum, one to the other. He felt the
concepts fit together neatly.

This one-dimensional philosophy was challenged in the 1950’s by the work of scholars
at Ohio State (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Stogdill,
1963) and the University of Michigan (Cartwright & Zander, 1960; Katz & Kahn, 1951;
Likert, 1961). These pioneering researchers separated the concern for task and the concern
for relations into separate behaviors capable of independent measurement. The findings be-
came the basis for various two-dimensional grids used in other leadership theories.

Important additions have been made to the two-dimensional theories as leadership scholars
build on the original model. Yukl (2004) created Tri-dimensional leadership theory, identi-
fying the important concept of change into a new dimension apart from either task or relations.
The task versus relations comparison has evolved from a one-dimensional continuum to
numerous two-dimensional theories to expanded multi-dimensional concepts. If expanding
our knowledge of task and relations has been beneficial in advancing leadership pedagogy,
the same may be true for the concepts of management and leadership.

Problem Statement
The two-factor model of management versus leadership is a dichotomy that provides some
insights, but it oversimplifies a complex phenomenon and encourages stereotyping of indi-
viduals (Yukl, 1999). This oversimplification is recognized, as scholarly interest in differen-
tiating leadership from other related phenomena such as management is growing (Cogliser
& Brigham, 2004). Scholars realize there are additional ways of describing the skills and
behaviors of influential people that are not contained in the two-factor model.

This paper asks the question: if the task versus relations comparison can be expanded to
increase our understanding of leadership, why can’t the same reasoning be applied to the
management versus leadership comparison? The two-factor model is deficient in its ability

135

DEAN PORR

to adequately describe all types of influence. An initial step in this process is to investigate
what is known in existing literature.

Management versus Leadership Literature Review
Management and leadership have been found to be quantitatively different and mutually
exclusive, requiring different skills and personality traits (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Zaleznik,
1977). Toor and Ofori (2008) concur, claiming management and leadership are entirely
different functions based on their underlying philosophies, functions, and outcomes. They
believe leaders and managers are not the same people, and many people just know intuitively
that leadership is different than management (Toor & Ofori, 2008). Kotter (2006) insists
that it is unusual for one person to have the skills to serve as both an aspiring leader and a
professional manager. He also found a tendency in large organizations to set leadership skills
aside in favor of managing the workplace.

Researchers have often looked at personal characteristics as a means of differentiating
between the two groups. In comparison to managers, leaders have been found to be more
emotional and oriented to the future (Bacon & Struggles, 2004), more flexible, innovative,
and adaptive (Yukl, 2002), and more inclined toward movement and change (Kotter, 2006).
From a communication perspective, leaders are more frank and participative than managers
(Toor & Ofori, 2008), and more multidirectional in their influence with followers (Rost,
1991).

Managers have been described as more scientific in nature, structured and deliberate in
their approach, authoritative and stabilizing in their behavior, and persistent and tough minded
in their routine (Toor & Ofori, 2008). Because managers favor order and efficiency, a mana-
gerial orientation seems more appropriate when the external environment is relatively stable
and maintaining efficient operations is critical (Yukl, 2002). Change oriented people (leaders)
seem more appropriate in times of environmental turmoil when it is necessary to make stra-
tegic changes to deal with opportunities and threats (Yukl, 2002).

Another view of the management versus leadership comparison deals with the similarities
between the two terms. Plachy (2009) believes leaders and managers are kindred spirits who
believe in the same visions and values. Northouse (2007) stresses that both leadership and
management involve influence, working with people, and effective goal accomplishment.
Although some researchers view leading and managing as distinct processes, they do not
assume that leaders and managers are different types of people (Bass, 1990; Hickman, 1990;
Kotter, 1999; Mintzberg, 1973; Rost, 1991).

The similarities between management and leadership create a functional overlap. Manage-
ment functions potentially provide leadership and leadership activities potentially contribute
to managing (Bass, 1990; Zaleznik, 1977). Numerous scholars point out that leadership and
management are interrelated and may sometimes perform a similar function and achieve the
same goals; however they are different and distinct skills (Bass, 1990; Bateman & Snell,
1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1992; Hay & Hodgkinson, 2006; Kotter, 1990; Perloff, 2004;
Yukl, 1999; Zaleznik, 1977).

In real life, hard management can be combined with soft leadership to provide the best of
both worlds (Watson, 1983). Today’s organization needs both kinds of people; managers
and leaders (Goetsch & Davis, 2001; Taffinder, 2001). This is true at all levels, from first

136

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

line supervisors to executives (Hay & Hodgkinson, 2006). A more credible view is that
people can use a mix of leading and managing behaviors (Hickman, 1990; Kotter, 1990).

Expanding the Two-factor Model
The influence concepts of timelines and personal choice help identify the inadequacies of
the simple two-factor model. Plachy (2009) believes that the decision to manage or lead
depends on whose needs are most demanding at the moment. Eden and Levitan (1975)
concluded that leadership is in the mind of the follower, a basic premise of intrinsic leadership
theory. People are more likely to voluntarily follow someone who they believe to be compet-
ent, and that judgment of competence can vary with time.

A judgment of competence can be based on the follower’s perceptions of the leader’s
specific knowledge and abilities. Two potential areas of such knowledge and abilities are
administrative or operational processes. The term administration has many definitions, but
the practice of implementing policy (answers.com) is brief and appropriate for this application.
The term operations refers to a system that transforms inputs into outputs of greater value
(Russell & Taylor, 2007). Operations are the main reason that an organization exists (Russell
& Taylor, 2007), the justification for existence of the enterprise (Millett, 1967).

The addition of the concepts of administration and operations to the two-factor model of
management versus leadership creates new possibilities for explaining influence. One
method of understanding these additional influence considerations is to look at various types
of ineffectiveness due to deficiencies in the two new areas. Figure 1 is a visual representation
of the expanded four-factor model which may be helpful in understanding the examples.

Figure 1: Expanded Four-factor Model

137

DEAN PORR

Examples of Administrative and Operational Deficiencies

Example 1: Weak Administrative Skills
Mary is the new Superintendent for the local public school district. She is well organized
and practices many good management skills. She is considered charismatic, inspirational,
with good leadership skills. As a successful former teacher, she has experience in the opera-
tional portion of public education. Mary’s weakness is in the areas of administration. She
was hired from out-of-state without any experience in a union environment. She has a poor
knowledge of the state laws governing public schools and a poor understanding of the two
union contracts with teachers and staff. She has made inaccurate comments in public and
exercised poor judgment in executive meetings. Her credibility with the community and
school employees is poor.

Example 2: Weak Operational Skills
Bill is the manager of a local manufacturing plant. He is considered a well-organized person
with many desirable management attributes. He is an inspirational speaker, constantly chal-
lenging plant employees with his successful leadership style. He has created an efficient
administrative network to keep abreast of new policies. Bill’s weakness is his limited under-
standing of the plant’s manufacturing processes. His previous career in sales only required
a superficial understanding of how the product was manufactured. Bill has very little credib-
ility in his organization, from the hourly employees on the production floor to his corporate
bosses.

Example 3: Excessive Concern for Administration
Jane was recently promoted to manager of the Purchasing department. She worked her way
up through the organization without the benefit of a formal education. Her personal perspect-
ive on the position causes her to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the
minor details of her department. This procedural compulsion leaves her with too little time
for activities such as budgeting (management), challenging supplier quotes (leadership), or
improving department efficiency (operations). Jane has less influence within her company
than her peers who exhibit a more balanced perspective on job responsibilities.

Example 4: Excessive Concern for Operations
John has been the manager of the Engineering department for many years. Reminiscent of
when the department was much smaller, he still insists on doing a great deal of routine en-
gineering work. This preoccupation with operations causes his other influence areas to suffer.
He spends too little time planning (management), developing his new employees (leadership),
or keeping up with new company policies (administration). John is viewed as an old-fashioned
manager who prefers operational activities to more pertinent responsibilities. His influence
in the company has diminished over the years.

138

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Conclusion and Recommendations
Weak administrative or operational skills can reduce a person’s ability to influence others.
Excessive time spent in either of these areas can also have a detrimental effect on the ability
to perform well in the other areas. In addition to the traditional management versus leadership
comparison, a balance between the administrative and operational areas is needed in order
for a person of influence to be most effective.

Strengths in one area of influence may not be able to make up for deficiencies in another.
Capowski (1994) claimed that vision without structure (leadership without management) is
likely to result in chaos, while structure without vision (management without leadership)
will result in complacency. The introduction of administration and operations creates addi-
tional considerations. Structure and vision without knowledge of policies (administration)
may result in oversights. Structure and vision without accomplishment (operations) may
result in decreased competitiveness.

The need to clarify the different types of influence factors is becoming more apparent.
Misunderstanding between the concept of management and leadership may cause organiza-
tions to face difficulties in efforts to develop the right talent for the right job (Toor & Ofori,
2008; Zaleznik, 1977). Making these types of staffing decisions without proper regard for
administrative and operational concerns could be just as harmful. One solution to this problem
lies in developing more inclusive leadership pedagogy.

This paper is a pilot study, an invitation for instructors and scholars of leadership to con-
sider expanding the two-factor model to include administration and operations. Discussing
the skills and behaviors of these two additional concepts can improve leadership pedagogy.
Future leadership students and the organizations they influence may benefit from the efforts
of such expansion.

References
Answers.com. (2010). “Dictionary: administration” Viewed on May 14, 2010 on http://answers.com/top-

ic/administration.
Bacon, T., & Struggles, H. (2004). Developing Better Asset Management Leadership. Duango, CO:

International Institute.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, 3rd ed. New York, Free Press.
Bateman, T. S. & Snell, S. A. (1999).Management: Building Competitive Advantage, 4th ed. London:

McGraw-Hill.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harpers

& Row.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations, New York: Sage.
Capowski, G. (1994). Anatomy of a leader: Where are the leaders of tomorrow?Management Review,

83(3), 10-14.
Carlisle, H. M. (1976).Management: Concepts and Situations. Chicago: Science Research Associates,

Inc.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1960). Group dynamics research and theory. Evanston, IL: Row,

Peterson.

139

DEAN PORR

Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2004) The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual
lessons to be learned. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 771-799.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1992). Perceived behavioral attributes of charismatic leadership.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24(1), 86-102.

Doh, J. P. (2003). Can leadership be taught? Perspectives from management educators. Academy of.
Management Learning and Education. 2(1), 54-67.

Eden, D., & Levitan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure un-
derlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60, 736-741.

Fagiano, D. (1997) Managers vs. leaders: A corporate fable. Management Review. 86(10), 5-9.
Fayol, H. (1916). General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1-6.
Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2001). Total Quality Handbook. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Gordon, A. & Yukl, G. (2004). The future of leadership research: Challenges and opportunities.German

Journal of Human Resource Research. 18, 359-365.
Griffin, R. W. (1984) Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M.

Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (39-51).
Columbus Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hay, A., & Hodginson, M. (2006). Rethinking leadership: A way forward for teaching leadership?
Leadership and Organizational Development. 27(2), 144-158.

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire.
In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement
(6-38). Columbus Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hickman, C. F. (1990). Mind of a manager, soul of a leader. New York: John Wiley.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1951). Human organization and worker motivation. In L. R. Tripp (Ed.), In-

dustrial Productivity. 146-171. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York: Free

Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1999). John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press Books.
Kotter, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: What’s the difference? The Journal for Quality &

Participation. Summer, 2006, 13-17.
Kouzes, J. M.,& Posner, B. N. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things

done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Likert, R. (1961). New pattern of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mangham, I. & Pye, A. (1991). The Doing of Managing. Oxford: Blackwell.
Millett, J. D. (1967). Enterprise – Operations and Administration: Some notes on a systematic theory

of organized endeavor. Public Administration Review, December 1967.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-

tions.
Perloff, R. (2004).Managing and Leading: The Universal Importance of, and Differentiation between,

Two Essential Functions. Talk presented at Oxford University, July 14-15.
Plachy, R. J. (2009). When to lead? When to manage? T+D , 63(12), 52-55.
Rausch, C. F., & Behling, O. (1984). Functionalism: Basis for an alternate approach to the study of

leadership. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders
and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavioral and leadership. 45-62.
Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Robbins, S. R., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management, 10th ed., New Jersey, Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Praeger.

140

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Russell, R. S. & Taylor, B. W. (2007). Operations management: Creating value along the supply
chain, 6 th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sanborn, M. (1996). Are you a leader or a manager? American Agent and Broker, 68(12), 43-47.
Stogdill, R. M. (1963).Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire form XII. Columbus:

Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Taffinder, P. (2001). The leadership crash course: A 6 step fast-track self-development program.

London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Terry, R. W. (1993). Authentic Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2008). Leadership versus management: How they are different, and why.

Leadership and Management in Engineering. 8(2), 61-71.
Watson, C. M. (1983). Leadership, management and the seven keys. TheMcKinsey Quarterly, Autumn,

1983, 44-52.
Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 33-48.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (2004). Tridimensional leadership theory: A road-map for flexible, adaptive leaders. In

Burke, R. J., and Cooper, C. (Eds.) Leading in Turbulent Times. Blackwell, Oxford, 75-91.
Zaccaro, S. J. & Horn, Z. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective symbiosis.

Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 769-806.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67-

78.

About the Author
Dr. Dean Porr
I joined Kent State University 5 years ago after spending 30 years in industry and receiving
my Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership. My work experiences were quite broad, involving
8 organizations in numerous locations in the United States, Canada, and England. I teach
various undergraduate management courses at a regional campus. My students are non-tra-
ditional; many work full-time and represent the first generation in their family to attend
college. I have established a local Community Leadership Program and provide leadership
instruction to civic organizations. My research interests include various leadership projects
and instructional areas that I believe will help my students. I am currently involved in creating
a hybrid course delivery system that offers certain benefits over either traditional or on-line
courses for regional campus students.

141

DEAN PORR

Copyright of International Journal of Learning is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

13

Believe it or not, there arethose rare individuals in the
world of work who describe
themselves as “great managers.”

Focusing primarily on the
enterprise’s revenues, this
professional tends to be a master at
organizing a workforce in meeting
or exceeding annual profit
projections. Typically, great
managers have staked their
reputations, if not their careers, on
maintaining bottom-line results for
the betterment of the organization.
While perhaps losing sight of a
commonly accepted business truth
— it’s “all” the members of any
workforce who ultimately make
things happen — a great manager
more often than not runs the risk
of being labeled an “ogre” by
subordinates for an unrelenting
dedications to the monthly P&L
statements.

Yet, there are others out there
who would scoff at the tit le
“manager,” qualifying themselves as
a class of “good leaders.”

Typically, good leaders sacrifice
micromanagement of the bottom-
line in favor of a macroscopic
understanding of the enterprise, its
associates and its strategic direction.
While it has never been conclusively
proven leaders produce lower profits
than mangers, they do tend to create
more inspired, more empowered
associates — willing to serve to the
ends of the Earth — and leaders are
significantly less likely to be deemed
a “workaholic,” “ogre” or
“bossmonster” by their associates or
colleagues.

Despite arguments to the
contrary, there are fundamental
differences in the philosophical
approaches to management versus
leadership. While these differences

are not as definitive as night and
day, they do draw unique contrast
with one another while also
complementing related
competencies.

Leadership
(1) Visionary

Articulating a strategic
direction for the enterprise in a
clear and compelling manner, the
leader fosters relationships
founded on trust and respect with
all stakeholders, not just the
shareholders, of the organization.
Professionally, a leader dissects
business situations with a view to
the future while maintaining a firm
grasp of the enterprise’s current
elements (product line, corporate
philosophy, workforce, etc.) .
Remaining true to the core and
functional competencies necessary
to support the vision, the leader

what’s under the hood?
the mechanics of leadership versus management

E.L. Zimmerman

14

understands the associate’s
perspective and only endorses
action that integrates the
associate’s needs. With a knack
for prophecy, a leader
investigates, recommends and
implements activity with
appreciation of the enterprise
and the associates’ interests.

Personally, a leader
understands the present staff is,
even today, learning by doing;
they are collectively taking steps
in the direction of becoming
the productive workforce they
ultimately will be. A leader sees
beyond the immediacy of
decisions, exercising the ability
to often predict the effects of
actions, policy and even words.
In order to maintain status as a
prophet, a leader keeps up with
current industry research and
best practices in hopes of
benefiting the enterprise with
such knowledge.

Additionally, the leader will
seek out self – improvement
opportunities in order to meet
personal career objectives.

(2) Collaborator
The leader sets an example and

leads through it. This has been
called “collaborating with the
vision.”

By doing so, a leader
demonstrates a clear
understanding of the strategic
direction of the enterprise in
aligning work and personal
behavior with that vision.

In such a way, a leader
develops an organization and a
corporate culture that

encourages, supports and rewards
individual and team achievements.

In addition, a leader surrenders
“the self to the squad,”
collaborating at all times with
associates to help them.

Adapting his/her management
style to the unique needs of
individuals, a leader displays an
understanding that truly
meritorious effort should be spent
on eliminating barriers to superior
associate performance. He/she
engages willingly in coaching,
feedback, recognition,
brainstorming and mentoring in
order to maximize the enterprise’s
results.

Lastly, the successful leader
defies limitations. He/she works
effectively not only with his/her
immediate work group but also
those outside the formal line of
authority in order to accomplish
any of the enterprise’s goals.

(3) Salesperson
Demonstrating a charismatic self-

assurance of ideas, judgments and
capabilities, a leader tactically
inf luences others within the
enterprise through participation in
all processes and decision-making.

The goal is elementary: a leader
seeks an organization that supports
individual and team achievement,
and therefore he/she works at
building and sustaining group
cohesion through mutual trust and
respect. Once the enterprise has its
professional dynamic, the leader
manages to it.

To accomplish the challenge of
creating unity, a leader will provide
his enterprise with the vision,

direction and inspiration necessary
for its continued longevity.

He/she maintains good rapport
with all departments of the
enterprise, and he/she gets to
know (in great detail) the people
and resources that can provide
assistance.

(4) Negotiator
Ever the focused optimist during

tough times as well as the good, the
leader espouses one guiding
premise: “change” is the new
corporate religion. As someone
once said, “The past is only
reference, not residence.”

The leader reacts and adjusts
positively to new ways of
accomplishing tasks. First and
foremost on the leader’s mind is
making the tough decisions that
ensure associate satisfaction and
departmental efficiency. To that
end, most leaders willingly serve
as self-fueled process improvement
“think tanks” or change agent
specialists, developing imaginative
solutions to solving problems
despite the element of risk.
Critical to the leader’s perspective
is his/her ability to enhance
existing processes and procedures
that ensure associate satisfaction
and departmental efficiency.
Setbacks are inevitable and,
therefore, embraced rather than
shunned, for it is only in failure
that we learn. However, because
risk persists, the leader will not
sacrifice common sense or sound
business judgment solely for the
sake of change. Ser ving as a
catalyst for positive organizational
turbulence, a leader will assist

15

managers and associates in
responding effectively to new
circumstances in the workplace.

Ever resilient, the leader will
actively seek assignments, guidance
and feedback that are necessary in
order to prepare for handling
current or future objectives.

Management
(1) Captain

Displaying energy and
initiative, the manager develops
and applies personal knowledge
of the business, products, systems
and technology to advance the
enterprise’s agenda. This applied
knowledge will not only include
industry specifics, but also involve
applying industry terminology,
paper-f low and structure to
problem solving,
communication, training and
implementation. Additionally,
the successful manager will often
interpret the laws, regulations,
policies and procedures that
impact (positively or negatively)
the associates in order to ensure
a productive working
environment.

Accepting feedback and
criticism professionally and
constructively, the manager
assumes ownership for work by
setting priorities and utilizing
department resources. Not only
does the manager add economic
value through the strategic use of
the enterprise’s programs and
practices, he/she also
understands and applies
corporate procedures and
departmental standards to
consistently produce error-free

results in a timely manner. He/she
ensures the team is striving to
overcome obstacles before seeking
support.

(2) Analyst
Possessing keen analytical skills

coupled with a grasp of the
enterprise’s budget, the successful
manager works diligently to gather
current and accurate information
about situations and technology.
Without it, the manager cannot
(and will not) make educated
decisions on behalf of the
organization. Before engaging a
course of action, the manager
conducts an in-depth analysis of
the requirements and specifications
in order to determine which course
will deliver maximum results.
Additionally, he/she uses this
information to drive his/her own
learning as well as nurturing the
business’ continued success. After
careful review of all the collected
data and alternatives, only then
will the manager make timely
decisions.

Understanding talent is what will
make any department efficient, the
manager analyzes, designs,
recommends and administers a fair
and equitable reward system to
attract, motivate and retain qualified
associates.

(3) Conductor
Focusing on potential business

opportunities, the successful
manager understands the
differences and similarities
between individual, departmental
and enterprise goals. Like a
workhorse, the manager endeavors

to accomplish all of them,
applying knowledge and training
to support whatever the need.
His/her emphasis will remain on
the client: understanding their
needs, the manager will take
actions necessar y to either
integrate or balance them with
the enterprise’s products and
strategic direction. At all times,
the manager will use whatever
resources are appropriate to
identify issues, plan work,
eliminate concerns, resolve
problems and make the
necessary adjustments to reach
optimum performance.

In determining key personnel
to fill out a results-driven team,
a manager analyzes departmental
needs, selects the best-qualified
candidates and assigns tasks
based on skills and abilities.
Reaching outside of the sphere
of inf luence, the manager will
also organize, gain the
involvement of and manage
diverse work groups and/or task
forces to achieve specific project
or enterprise goals.

(4) Controller
For the manager, an accurate

picture of the enterprise’s
profitability can only be achieved
through careful consideration of
all of the details comprising typical
business activity. This examination
starts with the basics: a review of
common elements of success, and
it extends all the way to
determination of obstacles to
performance in the workplace.

By demanding work
performed to the best of any

16

SV

associate’s ability, a manager’s
primary objective is simple:
meeting or exceeding professional,
enterprise, task force or
departmental goals. Through an
exhaustive examination of data
meant to identify the most critical
components of exemplar y
performance, the successful
manager recognizes trends,
inconsistencies, deficiencies, and
impact, he/she never loses focus of
monitoring results, controlling
resources (including employees) and
modifying business activity to better
achieve project plan. However, the
manager always demonstrates
sensitivity to the impact of change
on the individuals who are aiding in
the achievements.

The exceptional manager
identifies client problems and
maintains ownership until the
issue is fully resolved, providing the
client with detailed follow-up.
Those issues that fall outside the
manager’s sphere of influence are
appropriately escalated to the
proper department’s staff.

To Lead Or Not To Lead
While management and

leadership do have their
philosophical differences, they both
share the common element of
attaining goals.

If the goal becomes the team’s
destination, then the method (i.e.
management versus leadership) is
the journey, and there are many
roads available to the successful
professional in today’s competitive
world. The strategies and practices
that ensure success are limitless as
work-place technology continues to

evolve faster than at any other time
in our history. Clearly, what sets one
manager apart from another is
whether he/she chooses to lead,
manage or combine the best elements
of both disciplines most needed for
optimum results.

Ed Zimmerman is a professional
in the human resources field and
has worked with hundreds of
managers and leaders to capture a
variety of supervisory experiences.

Copyright of Supervision is the property of National Research Bureau and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.