High Performance Management - Chapter One - Introduction

1.1 Globalisation
Globalisation as defined by The Levin Institute (2008) “is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment” aided by information technology. It goes on to say that the process has effects on the environment, culture, political systems and economical development around the world. Globalisation therefore is not new but a trend which has taken place for as long as trading has been happening. However, this has been accelerated by technological developments and cross-border trade policies, making it easier for nations to trade goods and services faster and cheaper (ibid).

1.2 Statement of the Problem
More than ever, individuals are choosing to educate themselves in an information and global age in order to keep abreast with technological changes. For example, Management Today (2007, p.9) in their December issue wrote that “By 2020, 40% of UK jobs will need to be Level 4 (degree-equivalent) and above” and although this appears high, Management Today point out that countries such as Australia already has a graduation rate of 59 percent. This is in contrast to the lifestyle of their parents and grand parents where the majority of the work was labour intensive. This is especially true in western countries such as the United Kingdom, United States and Australia etcetera; where jobs like manufacturing have been outsourced outside to countries such as China. The net effect is that more and more jobs now require academic qualifications. In addition, social legislations have improved working conditions, whereby individuals are empowered. It can be said that loyalty and job security are no longer the driving force behind employee retention. Therefore organisations are required to come up with new and innovative ways of attracting, motivating and retaining their staff. As reported by the CIPD (2007) in a survey they conducted, 84 percent of the organisations surveyed found it difficult to fill vacancies due to lack of skill or higher salary demands. The survey also showed that 78 percent of organisations found it difficult to retain their staff; a nine percent increase from the 2006 figures (p.4). With this trend in mind, it is critical that organisations employ managers and executives that are able to carry out these duties on behalf of these organisations.

Therefore as globalisation intensifies, employee diversification increases where the skill sets required to manage this workforce expands. A number of management theories and approaches have been suggested to combat this new era. Of recent times, these schools of thought have been categorised into two opposing points of view; managing by coercing (managers) and managing by leading (leaders). However, more recently an additional view suggests that a combination of the two aforementioned (leader-manager) approaches will yield the best results in terms of motivation and inspiration; ultimately producing better financial results.

In the various references that the researcher has come across, a large number of authors have attempted to create a distinction between a manager and a leader. A number of these authors which are listed in the references section of this document conclude that there is indeed a difference between manager’s and leader’s traits in that they “differ in motivation, in personal history, and in how they think and act” (Zaleznik 2004, p.75). Sweeny (2001, p.64) states; that there is “an enormous gulf, separating managers and leaders”. Furthermore, Patty Miller as quoted by Sweeny states that “managers keep things moving” on a day to day basis but they lack the vision that leaders have in thinking strategically rather than tactically. Ozeroff et al (2003) also share this view and go further to suggest that for one to become a leader they must make the transition from manager to leader. The difference being that a leader is more creative and visionary. Zaleznik’s (2004, p.75) views in 1977 may have influenced the aforementioned views when he wrote that managers give emphasis to “rationality and control” whereas leaders accept disarray and lack of structure in order to fully understand issues and come up with creative ideas. Zaleznik however suggested that there may be issues in training managers or leaders in the presence of the other due to their differences. Recent views by Knight (2005) and Blade (2006) suggest that we are now working in a very different world where the old traditional confrontational approach by managers is evolving to a more facilitative approach encouraging participation. Organisations will need to ensure that they have the right management team on board to take care of both today’s business and tomorrow’s opportunities for the organisation. Which then brings us to the more recent question posed by Turk (2007, p.21); which approach will motivate staff to add value to an organisations objectives, manager, leader or a combination of the two in one individual (leader-manager)? Turk’s view is “that a good leader and good manager can, and should be one and the same”.

A search on the popular online bookstore Amazon.com returned 405,179 books on a search for the word leader whereas a search for manager on the same site returned 303,971. A similar search that was carried out by Bolden (2004, p.4) on Amazon.com in the spring of 2003, returned 11,686 for the word leadership, suggesting a rapid increase in interest. Hence when analysing the various views expressed, it appears to one that the majority have concluded that leaders are more effective within organisations because they provide vision for the horizon. However, on the other hand they insist that managers are also needed within the organisation to ensure that stability and controls are exercised keeping the balance between today’s business and tomorrow’s opportunities.

As aforementioned the more recent view by Turk (2007) suggests that the concept of a leader-manager can be achieved because leadership traits can be learnt by existing managers. This new concept is fascinating but unfortunately Turk does not provide any evidence to support his views. With this in mind, one proposes to compare and contrast the approaches of the senior management team at Kin Media Ltd to determine which management concept they favour (leader, manager or leader-manager) and which yields the better results in terms of satisfaction and inspirational level within the organisation. This may in turn provide evidence to either support or refute Turk’s concept.

1.3 Aim of the Research
The intention of this dissertation is to determine whether an individual can be a leader-manager or whether they are predominantly a manager or a leader. Specifically, the dissertation intends to answer the following questions;

(1)What is the management approach of each senior manager at Kin Media Ltd?
(2)What is the leader/manager balance for the whole company?
(3)How satisfied are the employees of Kin Media Ltd with the management approach of their superior?
(4)How satisfied are the employees of Kin Media Ltd with the management approach of the company?
(5)Which approach would inspire a greater level of performance from an employee?

By answering the above questions, the dissertation hopes to extend current theories and provide some practical application. It will also provide the organisation with valuable information in determining what type of high performance managers they currently have and whether they will need additional approaches within their ranks to address the globalisation conundrum where the ever increasing presence of alternative products produced in countries such as China and Korea are now increasingly appearing in the west competing against Kin Media Ltd’s core product range.

1.4 Reason for Study
There are a number of reasons for carrying out this research;

(1)  To contribute positively to a progressive and evolving organisation in order that one can provide a detailed analysis of which management approach (L, M or L+M) produces more satisfied and inspired employees within Kin Media Ltd.

(2) To provide an application to determine which concept returns the best outcomes, providing some actual data to support or refute Turk’s alternative view of a leader-manager concept; hence contributing to the subject of management development.

(3) To fulfill the academic requirements of the University of Liverpool toward the attainment of the MBA.

(4) And lastly, one’s passion lies within understanding what motivates people while at the same time delivering an overall objective which benefits all stakeholders.

1.5 Limitations & Assumptions
Time is always a factor when conducting a research project hence the data collected, analysed and reported has been limited to Kin Media Ltd. However; it is assumed that it will provide support for or against Turk’s (2007) views that an individual can be both a manager and leader. One’s role as a research subject as well as the researcher may also present some limitations to the findings; however all efforts will be made to ensure that an objective stance is taken. In addition, one has daily contact with many of the company’s employees hence this may have an influence on their responses. One other possible limitation is that not all the senior managers subjected to this research are directly responsible for budgets or profit and loss (P&L) statements etcetera for the organisation, hence it will not always be possible to measure their performance based on quantitative financial results. However, one has assumed that the quantitative results collected will provide enough evidence to identify which approach each senior manager subscribes to; L, M or L+M. In addition, those who will be subjected to the surveys and questionnaires may not fully understand the difference between a manager, a leader and leader-manager; therefore the results may not be conclusive.

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.

High Performance Management - Chapter Two - Literature Review - Part 2

2.2.2 Kotter
Kotter (1990, p.85) in his article “What Leaders Really Do” writes that “leadership isn’t mystical and mysterious”; nor does it have anything to do with “charisma or other exotic personality traits”. Furthermore; he states that “leadership is not necessarily better than management or a replacement for it” but “two distinctive and complementary systems of actions” that cannot function without the other in a changing world. He continues by saying that “both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile business environment”; one that continues to constantly change today some 18 years since his article was first published. According to Kotter; “management is about coping with complexity” (p. 96); an approach introduced by the “emergence of large organisation” (p. 86) in the twentieth century. Kotter continues to write that without good management these organisations would became chaotic (p. 86) hence good management was required in order to bring some “degree of order and consistency” (p. 86).

Kotter’s depiction of a manager supports those views expressed by Zaleznik in 1977; which would no doubt have had a big influence on Kotter’s own view on the subject. However, Kotter in his article provides more support for the need for more leaders compared to Zaleznik because as Kotter (1990) explains, managers and leaders cannot function without the other since managers “promote stability while leaders press for change” (p. 85). Imagine an organisation where only managers were present; where no one has tomorrow in mind. Therefore there would be no one pressing for changes such as entering new market segments to have access to new opportunities and revenue etcetera. On the other hand, if an organisation consisted only of leaders, the current business may suffer in that leaders may neglect the current activities of the company that got it to where it is today. It would therefore be detrimental if today’s business dried up suddenly, before tomorrows opportunities were ready to not only replace, but increase the company’s value – but by then it may be too late to recover.

Kotter (1990, p.86) therefore concludes that both leaders and managers are required within an organisation. Contrary to the arguments put forward by Zaleznik as well as other literature that “people cannot manage and lead”; Kotter notes that organisations are trying to develop “leader-managers”. However, according to Kotter “not everyone can be good at both leading and managing” meaning there will obviously be those who are “excellent managers but not strong leaders” and those who have great leadership potential but have difficulty becoming strong managers. One could therefore argue that Kotter implies that; (a) some managers have excellent leadership skills and lack management skill; (b) excellent management skills and lack leadership skills; (c) excellent leadership skill with good management skills and (d) excellent management skills with good leadership skills. According to Kotter (1990, p.86), it is better to have good management skills with weak leadership skills than to have good leadership skills with weak management skills. One would therefore deduce Kotter’s views based on the evidence provided that an individual cannot be equally competent at both leadership and management. However, Kotter does not present any evidence to support the view that an individual cannot be both a manager and leader.

2.2.3 Mintzberg
Mintzberg (1990, p.1) writes that we don’t fully understand what managers do. Furthermore managers often describe themselves using words such as “plan, organise, coordinate, and control”; yet they do other things that are outside the description of these traditional words. He goes on to say that in the rush to apply technology and science to management, “the person in charge of the organisation or one of its subunits – has been forgotten”; the manager. Therefore, in order to really discover what managers did, Mintzberg carried out research on how various managers in various sectors and countries spent their time during their working days. He goes on to say that his findings will be “obvious to anyone who has ever spent a day in a manager’s office, either in front of the desk or behind it”.

Figure 2.1 – The Manager’s Role (Mintzberg 1990, p.4)

As seen in Figure 2.1, Mintzberg (1990) concludes, based on the evidence he found, that “the manager’s job can be described in terms of various roles, or organised sets of behaviours identified with a passion” (p. 3). By various, Mintzberg presents 10 roles that he has identified that managers performed based on the data collected during his research. In further explaining the 10 roles, he states that “formal authority gives rise to the three interpersonal roles, which in turn give rise to the three informational roles; these two sets of roles enable the manager to play the four decisional roles” (p. 4). Mintzberg therefore proceeds to justify the 10 role concept by pointing to quantitative data such as the amount of time managers spent doing things such as ceremonial duties; implying that they were performing a “figurehead role” (p. 4). Or that they were performing a “leader role” in that managers carried out duties such as hiring, firing, motivating and aligning employee needs with the goals of the organisation” (p. 4). The evidence presented by Mintzberg in his article “What managers do” adds considerable weight behind his conclusion suggesting that leadership for example is but one aspect of the manager’s 10 roles. With this particular view in mind, one can only conclude that Mintzberg is suggesting that managers and leaders are the same person. Mintzberg therefore has not attempted to measure the performance of a manager or a leader because he is suggesting that they are the same individual. This particular viewpoint may have influenced the views of others such as Turk (2007) who suggests that leader-managers yield better results in terms of performance and financial.

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;

Leaders	Managers
Visionary Collaborator Sales Person	Captain Analyst Conductor Controller

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;

Leaders	Managers
Innovate Develop Inspire Long-term view Ask what and why Originate Challenge the status quo Do the right things	Administrator Maintain Control Short-term view Ask how and when Initiate Accept status quo Do things right

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.

High Performance Management - Chapter Two - Overall Literature Critique - Part 4

2.4 Overall Literature Critique

The majority of the literature that has been reviewed state that management and leadership are two different approaches and that both are required to successfully run today’s fast changing organisations. However, there is one particular author who insists that leadership is purely a function expected of a manager; Mintzberg (1990). The majority of those reviewed appear to have separated what Mintzberg refers to as roles into well defined concepts or approaches in an attempt to distinguish the differences between one set of traits from another. Hughes et al’s (2006, p.10) “middle of the road position” as illustrated in Figure 2.1 is in one’s view the best attempt so far to try and explain the similarities as well as the unique differences between the leadership and manager traits. However, apart from a few suggestions by Kotter, Zimmerman and Turk, no real evidence has been submitted to measure whether it is possible for someone with both leadership and management traits to better motivate and inspire their subordinates, hence increasing the financial performance of an organisation. There is some evidence put forward by Mintzberg (1990) to suggest that it is possible to be both a manager and leader hence one is able to be both innovative and administrative etcetera. A summary of the various author views can be seen in Figure 2 below.

Author	Leader	Manager	Leader-manager
Zaleznik (1975)	“changes the way people think about what is desirable, possible, and necessary” (p. 76)   “develop fresh approaches to long-standing problems and open issues to new options” (p. 77)   “”work from high risk positions” (p. 77)   “disposed to see out risk and danger, especially where the change of opportunity and reward appear promising” (p. 77)	“a problem solver” (p. 75)   “rationality and control” (P. 75)   “persistence, tough mindedness,  hard work, intelligence, analytical ability, and perhaps most important, tolerance and goodwill (p. 75)   “prefer to work with people” (p. 77)   “reconciling differences, seeking compromises, and establishing a balance in power” (p. 78)   “strive to convert win-lose into win-win situations” (p.78)   “perpetuating and strengthening existing institutions” (p. 79)	“the presence of leaders may undermine the development of managers” (p. 75)
Kotter (1990)	“about coping with change” (p. 86)   “aligning people” (p. 86)   “setting a direction – developing a vision of the future” (p. 86)   “broad-based strategic thinks who are willing to take risks” (p. 86)   “motivating and inspiring” (p. 86)   “involve people in how to achieve the organisation’s vision” (p. 90)	“coping with complexity” (p. 86)   “order and consistency” (p. 86)   “planning and budgeting – setting targets and goals for the future” (p. 86)   “ensure plan accomplishment by controlling and problem solving” (p. 86)   “create human systems that can implement plans” (p. 90)   design and implement processes plus provide training to achieve targets and goals (p. 90)	“leadership is different from management” (p. 85)   “one cannot function without the other” (p. 85)
Mintzberg (1990)			As demonstrated in Figure 2.1, “these ten roles are not easily separable” (p. 6) as “they form an integrated whole” (p. 6)
Alversson et al (2001)	“create change” (p. 1436)	“create stability” (p. 1436)
Sweeny (2001)	“adept at influencing and directing others, skilful at building relationships and masterful at solving problems and making decisions” (p. 64)   “are more visionary, looking at things completely differently – strategically, as opposed to tactically” (p. 64)   “extremely bright” (p. 64)   “assertive” (p. 64)   “driven to persuade” (p. 64)   “emphatic and resilient” (p. 64)   “usually 10 steps ahead” (p. 65)   “want a fast paced environment” (p. 65)	“ know how to get things done, to run the shop, day-to-day” (p. 64)   “conservative” (p. 64)   “succeed by working within established guidelines” (p. 64)	the two should not be confused (p. 64)
Zimmerman (2001)	“create more, more empowered associates” (p. 10)   “visionary” (p. 10)   “collaborator” (p. 10)   “charismatic” (p. 11)   “negotiator” (p. 11)	“focusing primarily on the enterprise’s revenue” (p. 10)   “captain”  – setting priorities and utilizing department resources to advance the enterprise’s agenda (p. 11)   “analyst” – determine course of action based on findings (p. 11)   “conductor” – assigns tasks based on skills (p. 12)   “understand the differences and similarities between individual, departmental and enterprise goals” (p. 12)   “controller” (p. 12)	“combine the elements of both disciplines most needed for optimum results” (p. 12)
Ozeroff et al (2003)	“have many of the traits of a manager” (p. 3)   “enthusiastic” (p. 3)   “optimistic” (p. 3)   “articulate” (p. 3)   “demonstrate their personal conviction through their actions” (p. 3)	“someone who inspires us” (p: 3)   “who cares about us and what we do and how we do it (p. 3)   “someone everyone wants to work for – the person who makes the group work as a team” (p. 3)	“transition from management to leadership” (p. 3)
Hughes et al (2006)	“function of three elements - the leader, the followers, and the situation” (p. 24).	“tendency to assign narrow rather than broader tasks for followers to perform” (p. 40).   more concerned with administering, maintaining and control (p. 39)	Managers can also have leadership qualities, and leaders can have manager qualities.  There are individuals who will fit the profile of just a manager, or just a leader.  But it is also possible for an individual to be both a manager and a leader (Hughes et al 2006).   There are obviously those who are true managers who fail to inspire and those who are pure leaders who lack management “stability” (p. 40)
Knight (2005)	“support and enable others to develop as individuals and teams” (p. 37)   “strong influencing skills” (p. 36)   “recognise the different skills that those around them bring” (p. 36)   “encourage challenge” (p. 37)	“acting predominantly to maintain status quo” (p. 36)	“leader will have been a manager at some stage” (p. 36)
Diamond (2007)	“earned” (p : 66)   “consistency” (p : 66)   “open to change” (p : 66)   “mentor” (p : 66)	“learnt” (p. 66)   “focus on achieving goals” (p. 66)   “doing the little things” (p. 66)	“leadership doesn’t mean that you can skimp on your managerial skills” (p. 66)
Turk (2007)	“innovative and creative” (p. 20)   “generally a people person” (p. 21”   “they make their passion and enthusiasm for the team or organisational vision and mission contagious so that others catch it and become believers” (p. 21)   “help people believe the impossible is possible, which makes it highly probable” (p. 21)   “provides opportunities for people to grow, both personally and professionally” (p. 21)   “creates a work environment in which people feel important and appreciated” (p: 21)   “makes people want to follow” (p. 21”	“reactive to whatever situation happens to crop up” (p. 20)   “a traditionalist” (p. 20)   “a good manager must believe that people are important” (p. 21)	“a good leader and a good manager can, and should be the same” (p. 21)   “the leader-manager shares information and plans with the team” (p. 21)   “the great leader-manager has integrity and practises good ethical decision making” (p. 22)   “uses vision and creativity to establish an environment of continuous improvement” (p. 21)

Table 2.3 – Leader, Manager and Leader-Manager traits

High Performance Management - Chapter Two - Literature Conclusion - Part 5

2.5 Literature Conclusion
As summarised in Table 2.3 on the previous page, the trend established brings one to the conclusion that the differences in approach are; (1) leaders create change to ensure tomorrow’s business whilst (2) managers create stability to ensure today’s business. This definition of the literature conclusion only takes into consideration the dominant underlying suggestion, but is not completely inclusive of all aspects of leadership and management traits. As noted in the literature, one is suggesting that the authors are not saying that managers only focus on today’s business whilst leaders only focus on tomorrow’s. However, the terms used to describe these differences in approach strongly suggest such a view in one’s interpretation. Terms such as create change; new ways of doing things and communicate vision are used to describe leaders while terms such as control, best practise, put vision into action and create stability are used to describe managers; prompting this thought into one’s mind. For this reason, the following sets of behaviours have been identified as they are consistently suggested throughout the literature;

(1) create a vision to aspire towards;
(2) include others in decision etcetera;
(3) inspire others to follow;
(4) provide direction and an action plan to reach the vision;
(5) provide processes and update skills to meet vision;
(6) monitor and measure performance.

Therefore, one can conclude based on the literature review that a leader-manager would be a combination of the two individual traits. Again as noted in Table 2.3, statements such as “transition from management to leadership” (Ozeroff et al 2003, p.3), “leaders will have been managers at some stage” (Knight 2005, p.36) and “leadership doesn’t mean that you can skimp from your managerial skills” (Diamond 2007, p.66) strongly suggest that it is possible for an individual to be a leader-manager; a point previously made by Turk (2007). In addition Mintzberg’s (1990) conclusion that leadership is a function of “management” would then also hold true. However as already established throughout this document, there is no conclusive evidence to support the view that leader-managers would yield better results such as more satisfied and inspired subordinates than pure managers or pure leaders. Therefore to contribute to the study of management, one aims to provide some evidence to support or refute this view by carrying out an application to determine the outcome.

High Performance Management - Table of Tables

Table of Tables

Table 2.1 Zimmerman (2001) Leader vs. Manager Traits

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

Table 2.3 – Leader, Manager and Leader-Manager traits

Table 3.1 – Leader-Manager Categories (Eicher 2005)

Table 4.1 – Leader-Manager profile scores

Table 4.2 – Managing Director Self Evaluation Score

Table 4.3 – Managing Director Subordinate Feedback Score

Table 4.4 – Finance Director Self Evaluation Score

Table 4.5 – Finance Director Subordinate Feedback Score

Table 4.6 – Head of Operations Self Evaluation Score

Table 4.7 – Head of Operations Subordinate Feedback Score

Table 4.8 – Head of Product Management Self Evaluation Score

Table 4.9 – Head of Product Management Subordinate Feedback Score

Table 4.10 – Marketing Services Manager Self Evaluation Score

Table 4.11 – Marketing Services Manager Subordinate Feedback Score

Table 4.12 – Senior Management team’s self evaluation combined score

Table 4.13 – Company combined feedback score

Table 4.14 – Alternative combined senior manager’s self evaluation score

Table 4.15 – Alternative Company combined feedback score

High Performance Management - Table of Figures

Table of Figures

Figure 2.1 - The Manager’s Role (Mintzberg 1990)
Figure 3.1 – The Balance leader-manager (Eicher 2005)
Figure 3.2 - The three aspects of a manager’s role (Bridle 2008)
Figure 4.1 – Managing Director Comparison Chart
Figure 4.2 – Finance Director Comparison Chart
Figure 4.3 – Head of Operations Comparison Chart
Figure 4.4 – Head of Product Management Comparison Chart
Figure 4.5 – Marketing Services Manager Comparison Chart
Figure 4.6 – Company comparison chart
Figure 4.7 – Alternative Company comparison chart
Figure 4.8 – Employee Satisfaction score
Figure 4.9 – Employee Inspirational Score
Figure 4.10 – Employee Preferred Management Approach
Figure 4.11 – Satisfaction/Inspire/Preferred Combined Results

High Performance Management - References

References

Alvesson, M., Svenignsson, S. (2001) Managers Doing Leadership: The Extra-Ordinarization of the Mundane. [Online] Available from: http://hum.sagepub/com/cgi/content/abstract/56/12/1435 (Accessed 9 October 2007)

Anonymous (2001) Essential Traits for Today’s New Manager/Leaders. Compensation & Benefits for Law Offices, Vol 1, No 8, pp. 6.

Anonymous (2001). What keeps managers from becoming leaders? Vol 22, No 131, pg27-28. [Online] Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=5581138&sit... (Accessed 10 October 2007)

Anonymous (2003). Moving from Manager to Leader. Healthcare Executive, Vol 18, No 1, p28-30. [Online] Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=8755470&sit... (Accessed 24 October 2007)

Blades, B. (2006). Leadership Defined. Adhesives & Sealants Industry, Vol 16, No 6, p43-46. [Online] available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=21160841&si... (Accessed 10 October 2007)

Bolden, R (2004). What is leadership? [Online] Available from: http://www.centres.ex.ac.uk/cls/research/abstract.php?id=43 Accessed 04 February 2008

Bridle, P. (2008) Moving from Management to Leadership. Vistage speaker session. Cardiff: 2008

CIPD (2007) A barometer of HR trends and prospects 2008. [Online] Available from: http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F4868FFE-C2F5-407B-B461-AB63DD5D1336/... (Accessed 04 February 2008)

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why some companies make the lead… and others don’t. Chatham Kent: Mackay of Chatham plc.

Colvard, J. (2003). Manager vs. Leader. Government Executive, Vol. 35, No. 9, p82-83. [Online] Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=10253496&si... (Accessed 24th October 2007)

Diamond, M. (2007). Are you a Manager of Leader? Reees Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, p66-66 [Online] Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=24173412&si... (Accessed 24 October 2007)

Eicher, J.P. (2005) Leader-Manager: Profile facilitator guide. 2nd Ed.Pennsylvania: HRDQ

FranklinCovey Foundation. (2008). Leadership: Great Leaders – Great Teams – Great Results. Management Workshop: Brussels.

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., Curphy, G.J. (2006) Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. 5th ed. McGraw Hill: Singapore.

Knight, J. (2005) All leaders manager, but not all managers lead. Engineering Management, Vol 15, No 1, p36-37. [Online] Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=18592557&si... (Accessed 15 October 2007)

Management Today. (2007). Not just business as usual. December Issue

MySkillsProfile.com. (2008). Transformation leadership questionnaire. [Online] Available from: http://www.myskillsprofile.com/tests.php (Accessed 15 January 2008)

Ozeroff, M., Hull, S. (2003). From Manager to Leader. Vol 20, N 12, p3-4. [Online] Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=12285370&si... (Accessed 17 October 2007)

Sweeney, P. (2001). What’s the difference between Leaders and Managers? Vol 33, No 4, p64-65. [Online] Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4704947&sit... (Accessed 20 October 2007)

Turk, W. (2007) Manager or Leader? Defence & AT-L, Vol 36, No 4, p20-22. [Online] Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=25688246&si... (Accessed 24 October 2007)

Welch, J., Welch, S. (2005). Winning. London: HarperCollins Publishers.

Zaleznik, A. (2004). Managers and Leaders: Are They Different? Harvard Business Review, Vol 82, No 1, p74-81.