Discussions on leadership typically get bogged down by a debate between the differences between leadership and management. Some authors argue that leadership and management are diametrically opposed concepts (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). Other authors use the terms interchangeably (Yukl, 2010). In this section, I will consider different perspectives to better understand the relationship between leadership and management and conclude by suggesting that effective leaders need to be good managers and effective managers need to be good leaders.

Fallacies of bumper sticker logic

Introducing the expression “managers are people who do things right, and leaders are people who do the right thing,” Bennis and Nanus (1985) argued that an individual cannot be both a leader and a manager because leaders and managers have fundamentally different values and personalities. This encapsulated the classic distinction that implies that leaders are inherently good, while managers are essentially cold-hearted (Zaleznik, 1977). This perspective sees the manager as stable, orderly, efficient, impersonal, risk-averse, and short-term focused. In comparison, leaders are flexible, innovative, adaptive, caring, and long-term focused.

Although scholars and professionals quote Bennis and Nanus's (1985) definition beyond the point of cliché, it is bumper-sticker logic with severe limitations, summarized below.

No research support

First, empirical research has failed to support the mutual exclusivity of leadership and management (Yukl, 2010).

Interdependency

Second, the perspective demonstrates ignorance of contemporary management writings, which almost universally consider leadership as one of the fundamental functions of management, along with planning, organizing, and controlling (Bateman & Snell, 2007; Nickles, McHugh, & McHugh, 2010). In other words, contemporary management literature presents leadership as a fundamental management function—not as a mutually exclusive concept. Meanwhile, leadership literature is also starting to recognize the importance of effective management as a component of effective leadership (Yukl, 2010).

Stereotyping

Third, Yukl (2010) asserted that Benis and Nanus presented “extreme stereotypes” (p. 7) that denigrate managers by implying that they are calculating and unethical fiends who cannot do the right thing. The same stereotype approach elevates leaders as effective, saintly beings who cannot do things right.

Logical flaws

Fourth, reversing the Bennis and Nanus logic exposes a fundamental flaw in their argument. If “managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing,” then it follows that managers are people who cannot do the right thing. In contrast, leaders are people who cannot do things right [See Table 1: Interpretation of the Bennis and Nanus stereotype of leaders and managers]. Similarly, if leaders are people who do the right thing, and Hitler was a leader to the German people, then, according to Bennis and Nanus' reasoning, Hitler did the right thing.

Granted, some contemporary scholars hold the idealistic position that only a person who influences others to do good things can be considered a leader, so Hitler was not a leader; but this trivializes the effect that “good” and “bad” leaders can have on individuals, societies, and civilizations.

Complimentary roles

Finally, some authors propose that one is not better than the other; both leadership and management serve different roles for accomplishing the same purpose (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2005). For example, considering a stereotypical leader may inspire and motivate people. Still, without the structure and process provided by the stereotypical manager, inspiration may not be enough to organize and focus collective energy toward common goals.

Table 1: Interpretation of the Bennis and Nanus stereotype of leaders and managers

A balancing act

Other scholars have varying definitions of leadership and management but “do not assume that the leader and the manager are different people” (Yukl, 2010, p. 7). Mintzberg (1973, in Yukl, 2010) argued that leadership pervades all other managerial roles. Kotter (1990) saw management as a process for creating order and predictability and leadership as a process to drive change. Though he saw them as different functions, Kotter argued that both are necessary and that the situation determines the proper balance of leadership and management.

For example, smaller organizations might need a larger infusion of leadership. As they grow, they need more management. The more dynamic and uncertain the external environment, the more leadership is necessary to drive continuous adaptation and transformation.

Influencing the willing

From a managerial perspective, Gary Dessler (2002) proposed that a leader is a person with managerial and personal power who can influence others to willingly perform actions and achieve goals beyond what the followers could achieve on their own. The manager’s influence is limited by the authority of the position and the ability to reward and punish people for progressing toward organizational goals.

The critical difference Dessler suggests is in motivating others to perform willingly versus rewarding and punishing people to perform. Though different applications of power, Dessler argues that leadership and management must be intertwined to be effective. Without influence and inspiration from leadership, organizing and planning may be ineffective. Similarly, regardless of how inspirational a leader may be, management proficiencies and functions are necessary for planning, structuring, and controlling human activity.

Mutually inclusive

Some authors put aside the differences between management and leadership and use the terms interchangeably because managers are “people who occupy positions in which they are expected to perform a leadership role” (Yukl, 2010, p. 8). Managers assert influence over people and processes; as far as leadership is an influence process, managers serve a leadership role. The manager’s ability to perform the functions of their job--planning, organizing, and controlling activities toward common goals--can be limited by their ability to influence people and processes. Similarly, a leader’s effectiveness may be limited by their ability to plan, organize, and control human “activity toward common goals” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 150).

This suggests that managers must have leadership competence, and leaders should have management skills--or the ability to engage others who can plan, organize, and control collective action toward the leader’s vision. Platitudes that assert leadership and management are diametrically opposed concepts promote an inaccurate stereotype that tarnishes understanding of both while diminishing the potential effectiveness of those who adopt bumper-sticker cliché as a guiding philosophy.

###

©2021 by Brent Duncan, PhD. All rights reserved.