A511.1.3.RB_BorutyAlan - Leadership vs Management

Leadership vs Management

During a time before the word leadership was used in the work place, the manager was responsible for everything from pencils to product to people.  They represented the company internally and externally.  They were problem solvers.  They were entertainers.  And, they ran the work force.  They have been researched, labeled, and cataloged.  Mintzberg compiled ten managerial roles that were observed during a study of executives in 1973. The ten roles fit into three categories and they are listed in table 2-1 on page 29 of the textbook.  One of these roles is Leader.

The manager has always had numerous duties and responsibilities, still does.  The scope of his work is vast, diverse, and very important.  The manager is expected to know everything about the organization he runs, everything.  Generally speaking, they do.  Over the years, they managed to keep up with the pace and workload.  Technology has changed the way many things are done. The people in his charge have changed as well.  Employee rights, attitudes, and labor laws have changed significantly over the years. Along with these changes leading the people of an organization has evolved from being one of the managers ten roles to being a full time job with a unique skill set requiring training and qualification.  It is not a matter of the manager being capable of leading the workforce, they simply do not have the time to keep up and do good work on everything they are tasked to do.  I believe people are the greatest resource and the person who runs the organization should lead the people that make the organization successful. It would not be difficult to delegate time consuming management tasks and have the manager take on oversight of programs and functions and become the primary leader of the people in the organization.


I entered the Air Force in 1982.  I was 20 years old and new nothing about anything.  We still used the term manager synonymous with leader.  We were informed that change was coming and it did.  The Air Force manages resources and programs, and lead the Airmen.  This is the first I remember management losing clout and leadership taking charge of the organization.  Managers are given control of and the resources needed to mange their specific functions.  Depending on the programs they ran they either reported to a leader at the squadron or group level.  Today, at the highest level down to the lowest, the Air Force is run by leaders, not managers.  In my civilian experience, the manager is still used and is responsible for the same types of functions including providing leadership to the employees assigned under them.  Why is that?  The answer I come up with is that it has always been that way, and it  still works in civilian business.  Why should they change, it is not broken.  Another reason is that the military and civilian sectors are different.  What works for one could be disastrous in the other.  Management functions are very important and it is critical the published data be accurate.  However, it is more important that the people of the organization be properly led.

The leadership vs. management debate has gone on as long as I remember and will most likely continue for some time.  Are we fighting semantics?  I believe leadership and management are are separate important functions in an organization.  They can be performed by the same person, but that is a challenge under the best of circumstances.  I do not see leadership as a role under management and do not think it can get adequate attention as such. The people of an organization are what make the organization work and should be treated accordingly.

People do not want to be managed, they want to be led and inspired.  In the video we were assigned to watch, Simon Sinek made two statements that ring true to me. First he said that people want to be part of why their employer does what they do.  Several years back changes rolled through organizations that created mission statements at every organizational level, identified customers that benefited from that mission statement, and ensured even the lowest level employee understood why their organization exists.  This was and still is aimed at answering they why question Simon Sinek spoke about. Secondly, Sinek said there are leaders and there are those who lead.  Those who lead inspire.  People that lead part time or as an additional duty do so in title only and fall into the there are leaderscategory.  Those who lead do so with conviction and passion.  Any team they work with will see the honesty and truth and will respond accordingly.

Leadership in an organization is necessary to effective operations.  Whether the person that performs the leadership function is called a manger or a leader does not matter as long as they are trained, qualified, and dedicated to the role.  I personally think their title should be leader, but if the job is getting done properly the title is not important.  Either way, it is time to end the debate and do the right thing for the people and for the organization.

References:

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

TEDxPuget Sound 2010 - You Tube, Simon Sinek: How Great Leaders Inspire Action, Filmed 2010 at TEDxPuget Sound, Retrieved from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA&feature=share&list=PL42F8562DCD3CCEA8 (Links to an external site.)