High Performance Management - Chapter Two - Literature Review Part 1

2.1 Literature Introduction
Knight (2005) describes the modern business environment by stating that “we are now working in a very different world, one that is more challenging and complex which thrives on partnering and participation rather than traditional business values” (p. 36). Globalisation has ensured that an enriching and conglomerate of different characters from all corners of the world can easily come together. But by bringing these different personalities together especially in a professional setting; challenges have emerged requiring changes to management styles and approaches. Evidence of this change can be seen in the number of management literature published in recent years attempting to appeal to the emotional side of individuals; hence the abundance of leadership websites, books, training courses etcetera, compared to traditional management (manager) training. As previously mentioned, a search on Amazon.com showed a greater number of books for leaders (405,179) than managers (303,971). However, the higher level of interest in leadership was not always the case as noted by Zaleznik (2004) in his article first published in 1977 and later reviewed by the Harvard Business Review (HBR). Within this Zaleznik describes the role of a manager; suited for a time where organisations were concerned with “organizational structure and processes” (p. 74). Yet in 1977 Zaleznik had noted that changes to the typical management approach were required. Zaleznik went on to say that the period in which these organisations existed, dictated that a conservative approach was required in order for rules and regulations to be adhered to; hence the so called “manager” was required, leaving no room for individual leaders. Then step forward again a few decades to where statements like “the role of senior management is changing and a more facilitative approach that encourages participation is far more effective” (Knight 2005, p.36) has become fashionable as seen in much of the advertising literature of professional development training companies such as LDL (http://www.ldl.co.uk) and CMI (http://www.managers.org.uk/). However, there are authors such as Hughes et al (2006) and Turk (2007) that suggest that it is possible for an individual to be both a manager and a leader.

2.2 Twentieth Century View
2.2.1 Zaleznik
Although he lived in the era of the conformist, Zaleznik (2004) had foresight to see beyond traditional management and was able to distinguish the differences between managers and leaders; and the need for both within an organisation. In 1977 when Zaleznik first published his article titled “Managers and Leaders; Are They Different” he had a very positive attitude towards managers in comparison to how it is perceived by many today. During that period in time, business was more concerned with processes, hierarchy and organisational structures. The managerial approach was expected, putting an emphasis on “rationality and control” (p. 75).

Today one would associate the word “control” with restricted and “rationality” with boring based on various conversations over recent years in management with subordinates and peers. Yet it appears as though the managed, expected to be told what to do and how to do it. According to Zaleznik (2004), “for those who become managers, a survival instinct dominates the need for risk, and with that instinct comes an ability to tolerate mundane practical work”. Ironically, this is the way in which managers are perceived today based on what one has observed in numerous informal interactions in recent years. The word uninspiring is a prime example often used by employees that one has worked with over the last ten years to describe their manager’s attitude. Doing things by the book though does not allow for the development of leadership qualities such as vision, was Zaleznik’s conclusion. Zaleznik (2004) goes on to write that by having such a controlled environment where managers thrived, it would be hard to develop leaders who view mundane as “an affliction” (p. 77). He also points out that because managers and leaders “differ in motivation, in personal history, and in how they think and act” (p. 75) it would be hard to develop them in the same environment (p. 75). This was an interesting point and in direct contrast to one’s own hypothesis that a good leader can also be a good manager.

Leaders according to Zaleznik (2004) are “proactive instead of being reactive” (p. 75) and have the ability to shape ideas rather than reacting to them. Zaleznik continues to describe the psychology of a leader as someone who works “from high-risk positions” (p. 77) and “often temperamentally disposed to seek out risk and danger, especially where the chance of opportunity and reward appear promising” (p. 77). He goes on to say that “from my observation, the reason one individual seeks risk while another approaches problems conservatively depends more on his personality and less on conscious choice” (p. 77). Zaleznik makes some very interesting points; many of which have been expanded on by others such as Kotter (1990). One has also observed many of the characteristics that Zaleznik points out both in leaders and managers as well as those one would term leader-managers. Nevertheless, if managers and leaders are complementary traits; then Zaleznik fails to provide any quantitative data to support his argument that leaders and managers cannot be developed in the same environment.