In this zone, we critically discuss the concepts of leadership and management and evaluate whether there is a clear dichotomy between them or whether definitional and practical overlaps exist.
For decades, it has been mooted that leadership and management are two separate and distinct functions, dichotomised by, among other things, their principal philosophies, key objectives and outcomes.61,62 The concepts have been subject to definitional complexity, a menagerie of metaphorical conceptualisations and academic and practitioner debate and discourse that shows no sign of abating. A recurring theme in the debate is the interchangeability of leadership and management and the inference and prevalent confusion that they are one and the same.61,63 However, according to Clemmer64 ‘management is as distinct from leadership as day is from night.’
Kotter65 (p. 3) concurs and professes that ‘leadership and management are two distinctive.Œ .Œ .Œ systems of action.’ Rather than competing against each other, Kotter, Bedian and Hunt66 and Gosling67 advocate that they are complementary, work in tandem and both are needed to help organisations survive and succeed in volatile and complex business environments. Before we discuss these concepts further, it is necessary to explore contrasting definitions and conceptualisations.
The literature surrounding the concepts of leadership and management has been described as a ‘longstanding enigma’66 (p. 198) and is beset with definitional challenges.61 In terms of leadership, Toor and Ofori61 note that its theoretical roots can be traced back several centuries, where writers and philosophers such as Confucius, Plato (The Republic), Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince) and Sun Tzu (The Art of War) made major contributions to developing its theoretical base. Grace68 records that the origins of leadership can be traced back to preAnglo Saxon culture. From a definitional perspective, leadership is defined by the MerriamWebster Online Dictionary69 as ‘the office or position of a leader .Œ.Œ.Œcapacity to lead .Œ.Œ.Œthe act or an instance of leading.’ It relates the concept to a leader, who has ‘commanding authority or influence’ and who ‘tells people .Œ.Œ.Œespecially workers what to do.’ This is contrasted with Yukl70), who defines leadership as ‘the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it.’ He also proffers that it is a ‘process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.’ Northouse71 (p. 5) views it as ‘a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.’ The above definitions highlight the important role influence plays in engendering the achievement of collective and shared objectives.
Northouse and Rowe and Guerrero72 argue that defining leadership as a process means that it is not perceived as a characteristic or trait that exclusively resides in the leader. It thus makes the opportunity of becoming a leader available to everyone, not just to those who may be born to it (nature versus nurture) or formally designated or selected as a group leader. Rather than being a linear process, Northouse advocates that it involves twoway interaction with followers.
Although more formal management theorisation began and developed in the wake of the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Pindur et al.73 contend that it can be traced all the way back to Biblical times and early Egyptian and ancient Chinese cultures, where the importance of organisation and administration were recorded and acknowledged.
The MerriamWebster Online Dictionary defines management as ‘the act or art of managing…the conduct or supervising of something (such as a business)…
the collective body of those who manage or direct an enterprise.’ It likens the task of management to direction, administration, governance and leadership. This is compared with the theoretical definitions of the concept, which, first, describe it as the task of forecasting and planning, organising, coordinating, commanding (directing/leading) and controlling the organisation’s activities.74 Second, Hannagan75 (p. 5) defines management in a similar vein. He suggests it is a ‘process of achieving organisational goals and objectives effectively and efficiently through planning, organising, leading and controlling the human, material and financial resources available to it.’ Fayol and Hannagan, along with MerriamWebster, suggest that the management task involves an element of leadership, which infers that both concepts are an integral, and one could argue, symbiotic and interrelated part of the process and therefore cannot be separated. On this note, as with leadership, Hannagan and Kotter view management as a process, which is key to helping the organisation consistently produce quality, onbudget products and services daily. Kotter advises that although this is a complex task, which is largely underestimated, it is not leadership.
Literature is awash with a litany of views and perspectives on the key differences between the two concepts, four of which are presented here. First, Armandi et al.76 espouse that managers are appointed by the organisation and are given formal authority to direct the activities of individuals to fulfil its goals. On the other hand, leaders can informally emerge as the ‘people’s choice’ for leadership or can be formally appointed as such by the organisation. They emphasise that ‘a leader can be a manager, but a manager is not necessarily a leader’ (p. 107b). They add, ‘employees willingly do what leaders ask or follow leaders, because they want to, not because they have to.’ Second, Capowski77 advocates that managers ‘manage from the head’, exercise positional or legitimate power, and, arguably are thus more psychologically distant from their direct reports. On the other hand, leaders ‘lead from the head’ using personal power or charisma and share a psychologically close relationship with their followers. Third, Bennis78 (p.Œ108)
states that ‘management is getting people to do what needs to be done. Leadership is getting people to want to do what needs to be done.’ He adds, ‘Managers push. Leaders pull. Managers command. Leaders communicate.’ Fourth, Kotter65 (p. 4) proposes that ‘management is about coping with complexity .Œ.Œ.Œby planning and budgeting – setting targets or goals for the future.’ In contrast, he advises ‘leadership is about coping with change .Œ.Œ.Œby setting a direction – developing a vision for the future.’ Kotter does not suggest that one concept is better than the other but sees them as ‘distinctive and complementary systems of action’ (p. 3)
that are necessary to achieve organisational success.
To conclude, the four views and perspectives outlined above, coupled with extant literature, make the case for viewing leadership and management as two separate and distinct concepts, each with their own unique part to play in ensuring the organisation’s survival and longevity. It could be argued that the literature, along the views expressed here, privilege leadership over management and suggest that although both concepts are needed to make the organisation function, it is leadership that is the critical factor in making people want to subscribe to, and engage with, the organisation’s mission, objectives and strategies and accept change. Peeling back the layers, it could be further argued that rather than there being a clear dichotomy, there is a degree of theoretical and practical overlap and shades of grey between them, as the dictionary, Fayol and Hannagan definitions suggest. Instead of viewing them as opposite ends of a spectrum, which, arguably, so much of the literature encourages us to do, we should consider and apply both concepts as vital components in the organisation’s metaphorical engine. Clemmer concurs and concludes ‘both management and leadership are needed to make teams and organisations successful.
Trying to decide which is more important is like trying to decide whether the right or left wing is more important to an airplane’s flight. I’ll take both, please!’

1.Fayol’s 1916 definition of management includes ‘to command,’ which literature espouses can translate to ‘directing/leading.’ This, arguably, suggests that he felt leadership was a key part of the management task. Having conducted appropriate research, build a case for the interchangeability, rather than dichotomy, of leadership and management.

2.Capowski suggests that leaders are more emotionally in tune with their followers than a manager is with direct reports. What are the implications of this for organisational behaviour in the workplace?

3.It could be argued that the literature privileges leadership over management. With reference to theory and practice, to what extent do you agree?