Leadership Versus Management: What's the Difference?

Journal for Quality and Participation, The, Summer 2006 by Kotterman, James

Two of the reasons for this disparity are differences between the research methodologies and theory constructs used. Additionally, there may be a lack of research rigor on the part of practitioners, a lack of empirical rigor on the part of academics, and differences in the research goals (Gordon and Yukl, 2004). Unfortunately, a diverse array of conceptualizations and understandings concerning management and leadership exist within academia, empirical research, and in the workplace; thus, it has been very difficult to add collectively to the overall knowledge on this subject.

A review of leadership and management performance literature reveals a wide array of definitions, usages, and results. Although most leadership theorists believe there are distinct differences, the two terms are so often used interchangeably in the workplace that the differences become blurred (Kotter, 1990, 1999; Terry, 1993; Zaleznik, 1998). Participants in research studies have shown many inconsistencies concerning workplace leadership and management understanding. It is common to hear leadership terms co-mingled with workplace management terms and frequently in a manner that contradicts the way researchers use them (Bass, 1990; Gardner, 1990, 1995).

Bass (1990) believes that the legitimacy of a leader depends upon the acceptance of his/her subordinates. Eden and Levitan (1975) concluded that leadership is in the mind of the follower. Yukl (1989) points out that leadership is very often defined in ways that include followers' perceptions. Since workplace subordinates play such an important role in the leadership/management equation, their understanding of these terms and their conceptualization of leadership and management is vitally important to research outcomes.

Contemporary research literature does little to clarify what criteria subordinates use to rate their leaders' performance. Research suggests followers may rate superiors based on one or more leadership attributes or on perceived management ability. Additionally, ratings may result from just one or more salient situations, the supervisor's outward behavior, his or her personality traits, or some uniquely subjective combination (Bass, 1990; Lord, 2000; Yukl et al., 2002). To understand and define leadership and management from the perspective of subordinates, it is, therefore, important to conduct further research using better definitions, constructs, controls, and preparation of participants (Barbuto, 2000; Yukl and Falbe, 1993).

All this confusion of terms undoubtedly has created a significant level of factor confounding, which has certainly reduced the accuracy and precision of leadership and management research (Gordon and Yukl, 2004; Zaccaro and Horn, 2003). Researchers hypothesize that if effective workplace management is some combination of leadership and management, the approach used by effective managers to accomplish objectives may be much different from that of ineffective managers. Both will certainly have profound and important affects on those they manage (Madzar, 2001; Valikangas and Okumura, 1997; Varma, Srinivas and Stroh, 2005).