Leadership and Management: Connecting the Dots

By Dr. Reginald Wilkinson

The topic of leadership is, undeniably, anything but simple given its multitudinous strategies, styles, and nuances. This book is designed to be a resource guide for readers interested in adopting proven strategies to achieve quality results. Its encyclopedic layout serves to make these complex topics easier to navigate and absorb. It is an exploration of a diverse variety of successful approaches to leadership spanning across business, government, and nonprofit sectors. This guide surveys effective strategies that have been around for decades, while integrating more current constructs based on new and cutting-edge research. Subject-matter experts who provide further and concise viewpoints are cited throughout.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Apr 30, 2018
• ISBN: 9781984523242

Dr. Reginald Wilkinson

Reginald Wilkinson, Ed.D., has over four decades of experience in government, non-profit administration and the private sector. He was head of the state corrections system in Ohio and managed two non-profit higher education groups. He is President of Connecting the Dots, LLC, and is affiliated with a number of other businesses. Dr. Wilkinson has served as an adjunct faculty member at two universities and has lectured extensively on a variety of topics. His graduate degrees from The Ohio State University and the University of Cincinnati are in higher education administration and education leadership. Wilkinson has had numerous journal articles, book chapters and other papers published. He has received many honors for his work. He lives in Columbus, Ohio.

Book preview

1. Leadership

It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.

—Nelson Mandela

What is true is that there isn’t a common definition of leader. From where I sit, that is fine. If leadership has any kinship to the art world, then creativity is key. Kevin Kruse, in his article What Is Leadership? explored what leadership is. However, he began his essay by explaining what it is not:

Leadership has nothing to do with seniority or one’s position in the hierarchy of a company.

Kruse reflected that just because one is in a leadership or an executive position in a company, it doesn’t presume that leadership capabilities are automatic.

Leadership has nothing to do with titles.

Likewise, having earned a title that suggests a leadership role doesn’t mean you are a leader. He pointed out that you don’t need a title to lead.

Leadership has nothing to do with personal attributes.

The author detailed that you don’t need to have a charismatic or take charge demeanor to be a leader. Just because a person has extroverted traits doesn’t guarantee the ability to lead.

Leadership isn’t management.

Kruse emphatically conveyed that leadership and management are not the same! He offered that good managers are needed to perform tasks such as planning, coordinating, problem-solving, hiring, and performing other roles. Basically, managers manage functions, and leaders lead staff.

I think we can agree with the author’s suppositions. But now that we know what it isn’t, we must determine what it is. Kruse listed quotes from some of the most notable names associated with leadership:

Peter Drucker: ‘The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers.’

He admitted that Drucker’s definition is too simplistic, even though he is a brilliant business personality. Kruse would go as far as to say this example of tautology could be dangerous.

Warren Bennis: ‘Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.’

Kruse is skeptical of this description also. He pointed out that you may have a vision for your spring garden, but this isn’t leadership. He detailed that Bennis has left others out of this definition.

Bill Gates: ‘As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others.’

The author concluded that Gates’s definition does not include the importance of a goal and vision, even though others are referenced.

Well, we have a few definitions, but Kruse didn’t totally buy them. Let’s consider a definition that I not only buy but also think is bought and paid for:

Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent.

Donald Clark posted Concepts of Leadership, noting that these points should be included in definitions of leadership:

• A person influences others through social influence, not power, to get something accomplished (bosses use power to get things done).

• Leadership requires others, who are not necessarily direct reports, to get something accomplished.

• There is a need to accomplish something.

This snapshot of leadership covers considerable ground on this topic. But first, let’s peek at another thought on what leadership is. David Wagner wrote Our Definitions of Leadership Are Mostly Wrong. While he referenced a definition of leadership he conceded isn’t perfect, he finds it is better than most. Steve Zeitchik gave this definition in Wagner’s essay:

Leadership is inspiring others to pursue your vision within the parameters you set, to the extent that it becomes a shared effort, a shared vision, and a shared success.

The author disclosed, This definition implies a skill set—having a strategic vision, communicating that vision, and knowing how to delegate. It implies success like most of the other definitions but doesn’t equate that success to the leadership itself as much as to the shared vision and effort. He did discuss what’s wrong with various definitions, but let’s keep it upbeat from here on out.

2. Management

Good management is the art of making problems so interesting and their solutions so constructive that everyone wants to get to work and deal with them.

—Paul Hawken

As with leadership, let’s begin by posing the question: What is the definition of management? Is the answer cut-and-dried? Of course not. Nonetheless, it is an important starting point for discussion. Management Innovations defined it as the following:

Management is the process of reaching organizational goals by working with and through people and other organizational resources.

MI asserted that management possesses the following three characteristics:

1. It is a process or series of continuing and related activities.

2. It involves and concentrates on reaching organizational goals.

3. It reaches these goals by working with and through people and other organizational resources.

Furthermore, management has four basic functions that make up the management process, which include:

Planning: Planning involves choosing tasks that must be performed to attain organizational goals, outlining how the tasks must be performed, and indicating when they should be performed. Planning activity focuses on attaining goals. Managers outline exactly what organizations should do to be successful. Planning is concerned with the success of the organization in the short term as well as in the long term.

Organizing: Organizing can be thought of as assigning the tasks developed in the planning stages to various individuals or groups within the organization. Organizing is to create a mechanism to put plans into action. People within the organization are given work assignments that contribute to the company’s goals. Tasks are organized so that the output of each individual contributes to the success of departments, which, in turn, contributes to the success of divisions, which ultimately contributes to the success of the organization.

Influencing: Influencing is also referred to as motivating, leading or directing. Influencing can be defined as guiding the activities of organization members in the direction that helps the organization move towards the fulfillment of the goals. The purpose of influencing is to increase productivity. Human-oriented work situations usually generate higher levels of production over the long term than do task oriented work situations because people find the latter type distasteful.

Controlling: Controlling is the following roles played by the manager:

1. Gather information that measures performance

2. Compare present performance to pre-established performance norms.

3. Determine the next action plan and modifications for meeting the desired performance parameters.

Controlling is an ongoing process.

In the posting titled Importance of Management, Management Study Guide delineated the subject matter in a six-point breakdown:

1. It Helps in Achieving Group Goals—It arranges the factors of production, assembles and organizes the resources, integrates the resources in effective manner to achieve goals. It directs group efforts towards achievement of pre-determined goals. By defining objective of organization clearly there would be no wastage of time, money and effort. Management converts disorganized resources of men, machines, money etc. into useful enterprise. These resources are coordinated, directed and controlled in such a manner that enterprise work towards attainment of goals.

2. Optimum Utilization of Resources—Management utilizes all the physical & human resources productively. This leads to efficacy in management. Management provides maximum utilization of scarce resources by selecting its best possible alternate use in industry from out of various uses. It makes use of experts, professional and these services leads to use of their skills, knowledge, and proper utilization and avoids wastage. If employees and machines are producing its maximum there is no under employment of any resources.

3. Reduces Costs—It gets maximum results through minimum input by proper planning and by using minimum input & getting maximum output. Management uses physical, human and financial resources in such a manner which results in best combination. This helps in cost reduction.

4. Establishes Sound Organization—No overlapping of efforts (smooth and coordinated functions). To establish sound organizational structure is one of the objective of management which is in tune with objective of organization and for fulfillment of this, it establishes effective authority & responsibility relationship i.e. who is accountable to whom, who can give instructions to whom, who are superiors & who are subordinates. Management fills up various positions with right persons, having right skills, training and qualification. All jobs should be cleared to everyone.

5. Establishes Equilibrium—It enables the organization to survive in changing environment. It keeps in touch with the changing environment. With the change is external environment, the initial co-ordination of organization must be changed. So it adapts organization to changing demand of market / changing needs of societies. It is responsible for growth and survival of organization.

6. Essentials for Prosperity of Society—Efficient management leads to better economical production which helps in turn to increase the welfare of people. Good management makes a difficult task easier by avoiding wastage of scarce resource. It improves standard of living. It increases the profit which is beneficial to business and society will get maximum output at minimum cost by creating employment opportunities which generate income in hands. Organization comes with new products and researches beneficial for society.

Not unlike leadership, groups that represent managers, such as the American Management Association and others, do so with an elevated level of pride. Yes, despite similarities, there are definitive differences between leadership and management.

3. Leadership and Management

Management is about arranging and telling. Leadership is about nurturing and enhancing.

—Tom Peters

Versus often lodges itself between leadership and management. Often theorists attempt to paint the differences in black and white when, in fact, an abundance of gray matter exists between the two. Management vs. Leadership is the inference when the two words are in the same sentence. Many leaders came from the ranks of management—and proudly so. Is it plausible that a mystical transformation from manager to leader took place overnight? Probably not. There certainly are managers with leadership competencies that allow them to excel in their jobs. Management and leadership, in many cases, are not mutually exclusive.

I have chosen staff from the classifications of middle management and first-line supervisor to ultimately go through leadership development training. These individuals each demonstrated leadership potential in their management positions. Therefore, when I hear remarks or read quotes from people about the two critical organizational work roles such as The manager is a copy, the leader is the original, I think those persons were never managers. I personally know staff that have risen from the lowest ranks in government to eventually leading the agency for which they work. How many times have you read a story or seen an ad that brags about a CEO or other executives who once flipped burgers? Did they skip being the store manager?

The website of the American Management Association is an excellent resource. It includes course offerings that most graduate schools of business would envy. But okay, I think I have made my point; we must focus on the and and not the vs. when it comes to leadership and management. Everyone knows there are differences, reasonable ones, between leadership and management, just as there are differences between management and supervisors / line staff. Let’s explore some of those characteristics that are different but complementary of each other for the two areas.

These simple but concise outlines listed on a University of Michigan website nicely illustrate the relationship between leadership and management.

Leadership and Management

• Leadership and management are two distinctive but complementary systems

• Each has its own functions and characteristic activities

• Both are necessary for success

• Leadership and management have different functions and activities

• Not everyone can lead and manage equally well

Both Leadership and Management Are Necessary

Informed companies and other organizations should value both leadership and management, thereby encouraging staff to enhance skills in both areas.

Good Management Is Complemented by Good Leadership

This section portrays that good management alone is not a guarantee of long-term results. It is explained that situations can be complicated and interconnected; thus, just being a good manager is not enough. Managers must learn to lead their personnel despite the challenges. Managers, to satisfy clients, should test themselves to focus on the energy and resources of staff.

In Understanding the Difference between Management and Leadership, Michael Maccoby noted:

According to the current wisdom, managers are principally administrators—they write business plans, set budgets and monitor progress. Leaders on the other hand, get organizations and people to change. … Management is a function that must be exercised in any business, leadership is a relationship between leader and led that can energize an organization.

Of course, the management function can include problem solving and facilitating meetings as well as the traditional bureaucratic tasks. However, it is not necessary for the same person in a group to exercise all these tasks. Different people can take on parts of the management function.

There are many different ways to exercise the management function and people are willing to follow different leadership styles. Although there are many good examples of management and leadership, there is no one best way.

4. How Important Is Risk-Taking?

The biggest risk is not taking any risk.

—Mark Zuckerberg

One could argue that if you don’t take risks, you are not manifesting the true tenets of leadership. Let’s explore this further. It has always been my philosophy that one should not only take risks but allow others to do so as well. But there is an art to risk-taking. I’ve historically treated risk-taking with some reverence. This approach, with a certain art and science attached, can allow risk-taking to truly pay off.

Risk is generally defined as exposing someone or something to danger or a situation involving exposure to danger. Of course, we need to eliminate (or at least minimize) the danger possibility. Therefore, the risks we take should be measured and calculated before jumping without a parachute.

Julie Zeilinger posted 7 Reasons Why Risk-Taking Leads to Success. She compiled reasons for women to become risk-takers. I concur that these reasons work for women. Not surprisingly, they also work for men:

1. Great, otherwise unforeseen opportunities often come from risk-taking.

2. Taking risks shows confidence and helps you stand out.

3. We learn from risks—and those lessons may lead us on an important new path.

4. Success won’t fall in your lap—you have to pursue it.

5. You don’t achieve your dreams by playing it safe.

6. Embracing risk-taking helps you avoid the fear of failure.

7. Taking a risk doesn’t mean doing so haphazardly.

Minda Zetlin was more cautious about the risk-taking culture. She wrote 5 Things the Smartest Leaders Know about Risk-Taking:

1. Any risk should serve your company’s mission.

2. You really have to be OK with failure and losses.

3. It’s perfectly fine not to take risks.

4. Risk-taking comes at a cost.

5. It can take a very long time for risky endeavors to pay off.

I understand the inherent risk of taking risks. Nonetheless, embracing risk is a staple trait of innovative and change-oriented leaders, especially when they do their homework.

In 5 Risks Every Leader Should Take, Timothy Parsons penned, Because risks often go against our own conscious and comfort zone and can open us up to critique and failure. He listed the following:

1. Stand for what you believe in.

The author proclaimed that standing up