High Performance Management - Chapter Two - Literature Review - Part3

2.3 Twenty First Century Views
2.3.1 Sweeny
Sweeney (2001, p.64) writes that “leaders do not rise through the ranks of management” because there is an “enormous gulf separating leaders and managers”. In addition he goes on to say that management is “not a training ground for true leadership”; a statement that Zaleznik (2004) also makes. This however is a very interesting statement considering that when discussing the subject of leaders and managers, one would assume that this would indicate that both would hold a position of authority within an organisation. And in most organisations, having authority requires experience in some form whether team leader, supervisory or management role. Granted that leaders can be found at all levels of the company, but without a position of authority, one is less likely to be recognised especially in large organisations. Or even if an individual with leadership skills were to be identified early on in their career, they would normally be given some form of training and responsibility in low level management during their development.

Sweeney (2001) makes a second point when he writes that “you need a healthy mix of the best managers and the best leaders. The problem is when organisations confuse the two” (Patty Miller as quote by Sweeney 2001, p.64). Granted that this may have been an accurate observation in the 20th century; however, like most things in life, management approaches may also go through an evolution process where managers are now able to do both leadership and management.

2.3.2 Zimmerman
As noted in Zimmerman’s (2001) article, the negative connotation towards managers (management) is evident compared to a leader or leadership; a negative undertone that can also be seen in Sweeney’s article. Zimmerman also writes that “while it has never been conclusively proven leaders produce lower profits than managers, they do tend to create more inspired, more empowered associates – willing to serve to the ends of the Earth”. He goes on to say that “there are fundamental differences in the philosophical approaches to management versus leadership” (p. 10). The following table list these differences in how the

Zimmerman views two roles;

Table 2.1 – Zimmerman’s (2001) Leader vs. Manager Traits

However, despite these so called differences in philosophical approaches, Zimmerman does conclude that the professional arena is changing drastically. And although managers and leaders are different, optimum results will be achieved by those who choose to take onboard both sets of traits (p. 12).

2.3.3 Ozeroff et al
Ozeroff et al (2003, p.3) write that “many professionals struggle with the transition from management to leadership” hence not all good managers will be able to make that transition into leadership. They also point out that “leaders have many of the traits of a manager”; hence good managers would naturally feel that they would make good leaders. However, according to Ozeroff et al, leaders take a step further in that they “are enthusiastic, optimistic, and articulate when talking about plans, hopes, and successes. In addition, leaders “demonstrate their personal convictions through their behaviour” giving them the confidence to “make unpopular judgement calls and sell ideas that contradicts the status quo”, and this is what “enables them to inspire others to follow them down difficult roads” because leadership is a “different perspective”. Ozeroff et al’s views are very interesting indeed about the “transition” one needs to make from manager to leader. But this very statement would then stipulate that leaders are also good managers; or in other words good leader-managers. Ozeroff et al make some very valid points and come up with some very good tips on how one can develop leadership skills. However; Ozeroff et al have an undertone that managers are inferior to leaders; something that is pointed out by authors such as Zimmerman. Therefore these particular views are in total contrast to those expressed by Zaleznik and Kotter; two of perhaps the most influential experts to the subject of leadership and management. In effect, what Ozeroff et al have concluded is that managers are those who have failed to make the transition into leaders and leaders are those who have developed the additional skill required of a leader. In addition Ozeroff et al are suggesting that leaders will yield better results in terms of employee motivation and financial results than managers; however they do not have any statistical or performance evidence to support these views.

2.3.4 Buckingham
Buckingham (2005, p.1) like Zimmerman writes that managers are often portrayed in a negative manner with comments such as “leaders are strategic; managers are just tactical. Leaders transform people; managers just administrator things”. However, Buckingham likens a good manager to the game of chess and an average manager to checkers by explaining that in a game of chess each piece has a unique move and when used correctly can win games. Therefore managers identify the unique strengths of each individual and aim to maximise the outcome using this strength rather than trying to change the individual or addressing their weaknesses. On the other hand, Buckingham writes that “great leaders discover what is universal and capitalise on it” once they have identified the “very few needs we share” such as recognition. By doing so, a leader is able to rally people around and make them feel that the future is possible. Like Zaleznik and Kotter, Buckingham gives a very strong argument into why managers are also required in organisations and why they should be viewed in the same light as leaders in a world where leadership appears to have become a fashionable term to use without fully understanding the importance of both roles.

Buckingham (2005, p.1) concludes that managers and leaders are in fact different; however, “this doesn’t mean that a leader can’t be a manager or vice versa”. He also goes on to say that in order to be good at both, one “must be aware of the very different skills each role requires”.

2.3.5. Hughes et al
Hughes et al (2006, p.39) enter the discussion about leaders and managers by saying that “the differences between leaders and managers, or between leadership and management, involve more than just the difference between types of individuals. The differences extend to how such individuals interact with their followers and the situation they confront”. Note the new ingredient introduced into the mix here; “situation”. One could argue that this may be what Zaleznik (2004) referred to when he wrote that the traditional environment dictated that a more managerial approach was expected; referring to the situation within organisations during his era. Therefore, based on the literature that one has analysed so far, organisations appear to have evolved in order to keep up with the changes brought on by globalisation, such as conducting business deals via email or ecommerce systems; speaking directly to clients from other countries where English is the second language; hence the situations in which these interactions are taking place has been scrutinised even more by authors such as Hughes et al.

In their book “Leadership – Enhancing the lessons of experience” Hughes et al (2006, p.10) also prescribe to the view that managers and leaders are in fact different and that “although the functions performed by leaders and managers may be unique, there is also an area of overlap”. They go on to say that; “we take a middle-of-the-road position. We think of leadership and management as closely related but distinguishable functions”. In other words, management and leadership are “two overlapping functions” in that “although some of the functions performed by leaders and managers may be unique, there is also an area of overlap” hence both are equally valid.

Moreover, leadership according to Hughes et al (2006) “is the process of influencing others toward achieving group goals” (p. 19). They go on to say that “leaders are most effective when they affect people at both the emotional level and the rational level” (p. 19). However, they say that managers “focus on controls and results” (p. 39). The following is a list of traits used by Hughes et al to describe leaders and managers;

Table 2.2 Hughes et al (2006, p.39) Leader v Manager Traits

As noted by the traits listed in the table above; the differences appear to be of emotional connection or a methodical approach which do appear different. However, Hughes et al state that “the difference, in fact, can be quite useful, since organisations typically need both functions performed well in order to be successful” (p. 10).

In conclusion Hughes et al’s book is aimed at teaching leadership hence the main focus throughout is primarily on the leadership process and traits of a leader with a guide of how to become a good leader. They present scenarios based on experience and other resources; however they do not provide any conclusive quantitative or qualitative evidence to show that leaders motivate more followers to add more value to an organisation than managers.

2.3.6 Diamond
Like others before him, Diamond (2007, p.66) writes that “it’s important to recognise that there is a distinction between management and leadership”. He goes on to say that “management is something that can be learnt”, whereas “being a leader is something that is earned” by earning the respect of your team which takes time, being consistent and willing to change. It is fascinating to note that Diamond uses the terms “learnt” and “earned” to describe the differences between the two because authors such as Hughes et al (2006) also state that leadership can also be learnt; a view that one also shares. However, one has assumed that Diamond (2007) uses the “earned” term to emphasise that it is the follower that determines whether one is either followed or obeyed. Diamond then goes on to write that “by helping key people in the company achieve their goals they’ll help the employees underneath them achieve their goals”.

In summary, Diamond (2007, p.66) states that “management is the focus on achieving a goal” whilst “leadership is getting people on board and getting them to want to do their job”. Therefore Diamond suggests that both methods yield results; however those who are led are better motivated hence they will outperform those who are managed. But again, there is no concrete evidence to support these claims. Diamond therefore is a strong advocate of the leadership approach; however he does acknowledge that leaders also need to have good management skills. This view nonetheless is based on his statement that “great people don’t need to be managed a lot”.

2.3.7 Turk
Turk (2007, p.20) writes that “most people will agree that there’s a difference between a manager and a leader” and yet when pressed for a definition of the difference, no one is able to come up with a definitive answer. He carries on to say that his research which has been based on “many sources” (albeit he does not provide any references); conclude that “a leader is someone whom people follow through choice, but a manager must be obeyed”. He also goes on to say that some of these experts state that “a manager may obtain his position of authority through time and loyalty” whereas leaders may not have any formal authority within an organisation. Perhaps not having formal authority in this instance may suggest that a team member may have the ability to motivate his/her peers through their actions even though they are not in a position of authority. And it may be through these actions that they are identified as a key driver for the business. So although at first glance it may appear that the statement made by Turk is in contradiction to Diamond’s view that leadership is earned, it could be argued that leadership is in fact earned as those who choose to listen have subconsciously acknowledged this leadership by following. But this would also suggest that discovering leaders in this manner would be the same as managers. However, this is all speculation on one’s part.

Turk (2007, p.21) goes on and points out in his article, that a Project Manager (PM) must utilise the skills defined by many experts as ‘leadership traits’ to successfully manage a project. If this is the case, then why would it not be possible to have leader-managers as suggested by some other experts? Based on his research Turk concludes that “a good leader and a good manager can, and should, be one and the same”. Unfortunately, Turk does not provide any evidence to support his views that a leader-manager will add more value to the organisation.