Leadership And Management Theory And Practical Application Management Essay

Leadership And anxiety conjecture And Pr feignical Application Management EssayAs the world of business changes, so do the theories in the cargon and ahead(p). For example, if just a 5 decades ago, the major(ip) focus when outpouring the company, was on the watchfulness, to mean solar day the situation is drastically contrary (Lawler, 2006).Today, the lead has interpreted a greater role in the process of running a company, and the guidance theory has underg angiotensin-converting enzyme a tremendous evolution, giving the rise to the kind-hearted relations dejection (Lawler, 2006). While the new instruction theories bring forth been gaining the popularity, the followup below allow show that, the scientific counselling has not bewildered its grandness.The debate over which one is to a greater extent important for a company, the management or the leading, has been a controversial topic for decades. According to the theories currently established in the academic and professional circles, it looks that the opinions ar divided. However, all sides seem to agree that twain, leading and management atomic number 18 important aspects in the process of running a company (Lawler, 2006). More on this topic will be discussed in the later chapters.At this point it has to be noted that, the lead and management, both remove their unique functions, methods of development and application, and some importantly, perk up their advantages and disadvantages (McGovern, 2002 ). Furtherto a greater extent, which one is some(prenominal) exercised and applied in a company is full(prenominal)ly dependent on the culture, history, tradition, education, and the business philosophy. In order to better understand the importance and roles the leaders and management play, three countries prospective will be discussed below US, Germany, and China.Theory of leaders and theory of managementWhat is leadership? While the definitions vary, it seems that thither is a cons ensus that, regardless of the leadership theory employed, leaders provide visions, goals, and scotch concourse united behind a sh bed idea, values, and believes. Theories of leadership be binary trait theory, functional theory, transactional theory, transformational theory, path-goal theory, and many much (Van Vugt, 2011). However, whatever the theory, at that place ar common aspects that all of them shargon, and that is, success of a group is a solving of two factorsLeadership style.Situational favorability.The leadership style depends on the multiple factors such(prenominal) as ethnicity, culture, social background, education, experience, and character (Van Vugt, 2011). Regardless of these factors, it seems the leadership approaches have been discriminate in to two broad groups relationship oriented, and designate oriented. In the firstly incident, the relationship oriented, the leaders tend to focus on the people, and try to pass by the vision based on the relationsh ip, personalities, and values (Van Vugt, 2011). In the second slickness, the undertaking oriented, the leaders try to unite people behind a line of work or a goal they are attempting to complete.The situational factors depend on leader-follower relations, labor movement structure, and the position power. Among them, the most notable ones are the first and the third aspects. graduation exercise is the relationship a leader has with the followers, and the third one is the amount and the noble of power a leader has, and how he chooses to exercise it in leading an organization (Van Vugt, 2011).What is management? According to a classic definition, management is an act of organizing and planning of the human and material resources in order to accomplish the coveted plans and objectives (Kaufman, Beaumont, Helfgott, 2003). Further much, management is involved in the organizing, planning, budgeting, directing, and controlling of these resources in order for the goals and objective s to be fulfilled effectively and efficiently.The management theories are numerous, but they all seem to follow the principles provided in the two dominant theories in management, the scientific management theory, and the human relations theory.The scientific management theory, also called Taylorism, is a theory which focuses on analyzing and synthesizing the work flows. The primary goal of the theory is to accomplish the fantabulous economic efficiency, especially when it comes to the labor productivity (Kaufman, Beaumont, Helfgott, 2003).The human relations movement is a theory which views the organizations in the psychological prism rather than the automatonlike parts prism. Thus, it focuses on the social relations, motivation, and the employee satisfaction (Kaufman, Beaumont, Helfgott, 2003).DiscussionManagement and leadership comparative analysisThe argument that leadership is more important than management is, or vise versa, has not been settled. Some argue for one, and th e some others sidle up the importance of the other. However, they all agree that the leaders and managers provide a valuable component part to the organizations (Lunenburg, 2011).The first one to take a stand on the roles of the leadership and management was Abraham Zaleznik, in 1977 in the Harvard Business Review (Lunenburg, 2011). He argued that, leaders and managers play a vital role in the organization, but their functions, roles, and feigns are different. According to him, leaders promote the change and development of the new approaches, succession the managers advocate for the perceptual constancy and the status quo. Furthermore, leaders are concerned with the peoples taste and gaining their commitment, depot the managers are focused on the responsibilities, exercising authority, and accomplishing the immediate tasks at hand (Lunenburg, 2011).However, in 1990 John Kotter has offered his view on the roles and importance of the leadership and management in the organiza tion (Lunenburg, 2011). As he argued, the roles of the leaders and managers are important in organizations, but they are different, and they are complementary. This was a declamatory change in how the two concepts were viewed in the business as nearly as the academic circles. As Kotter argued, the role of leadership is to cope with change, while the role of the management is to cope with the complexity.According to Kotter, the leadership process is focused on developing the vision for the organization, getting people on maturate through the communications, and motivating people via empowerment and basic need fulfillment (Lunenburg, 2011). Thus, leadership creates change and uncertainty in the organization.On the other hand, management is concerned with planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, and controlling and problem solving. Thus, management reduces the uncertainty and provides the stability in the organization (Paauwe, 2004 ).Thus, based on the above password and views, it is translucent that, depending on the views on the leadership and management, there are aspects that differentiate the two, and there are areas which may overlap. According to the older views, the overlaps are much more common and large, and according to the latest views on the roles and functions of the leadership and management, the common areas are much smaller (Paauwe, 2004). As it seems, the latest views, ones presented by the Kotter, seem to be more mainstream. In order to see the differences Kotter has advocated for, the following paragraphs will highlight the differences more precisely. Five categories of comparison between the management and the leadership will be used thinking process, goal orbit, employee relations, operations, and governance (Lunenburg, 2011).The fiver categories in the leadership prism (Lunenburg, 2011)Thinking process focus is on people, and looks outward. The day to day activities are completely out of the focus and interest.Goal setting communicates the vision, describes the future sees a forest in other words. It uses broad strokes, world-wide descriptions, and leaves the details to others.Employee relations empowers people, develops trust, commitment, and builds collegial relationships.Operations does the effective things, advocates and promotes change, serves subordinates promotes bottom up approach.Governance uses influence, trust, respect, and acts decisively. It is less active the authority, and more about the agreement and on-boarding.The five categories in the management prism (Lunenburg, 2011)Thinking process focuses on the tasks at hand, and focuses inward. It is about the things that need to be done in order to accomplish the vision set out by the leader.Goal setting executes plans, oversees the processes, focuses on the present day sees the trees in other words.Employee relations controls, subordinates, directs, and coordinates. It is much more functioning relationship which is based on the formal fo undations.Operations does the right thing, manages and oversees the implementation of the changes, and serves the superiors in the organizational hierarchy.Governance uses authority, reduces and prevents conflicts, and acts responsibly.Thus, as the above discussion has shown, Kotter has been right when he argued about the differences and the complementarily. As the category descriptions above have shown, the leadership is about the general visions, while the management is about getting things done.Practical applications of management and leadershipAs the discussion above has shown, the roles, focus, and the execute of leadership and management have changed over time. While the earlier utilization and application have overlapped more, today they are much different. The practice of the leadership and management are different based on the two major factors the environsal stability and the task complexity.Quadrant 4Considerable leadership and management requiredQuadrant 3Considerable leadership, not much management necessaryHighChangeQuadrant 2 subaltern leadership but considerable management requiredQuadrant 1Little leadership or management required low-downLow Complexity HighFigure 1 leadership and management and the impact of change and stability (Borsch, 2007)As you can see from the figure 1 above, there are four distinct scenarios where the leadership and management are playing different roles. The conditions and the degrees of change and complexity are expressed in the four quadrants indicated in the four different colors. As you can see, the swimming axis represents the degree of the complexity, and the vertical axis represents the degree of change required. Lets discuss the roles of the leadership and management in each of the quadrant, representing the four scenarios organizations may smell in the business environment.Quadrant 1 this is the topic when there is exact leadership or management is required. This environment exists when the change is no t required, or the requirement is low, and the complexity of the task is low as well. This was the case in front 1900s, when the technology was simple, and the demand was approximately uniform (Brewster, 2008).Quadrant 2 this is the case when the leadership is not as important, but requires considerable management. This environment is feature to the tiresome growth or stagnant economies, where the leadership doesnt accomplish a lot, and the management is the one responsible for finding the new ways to strain growth (Krug, 2004).Quadrant 3 this is the case when an organization faces a high turbulence in the environment, and has little complexity in the tasks to be accomplished. This environment is characteristic to the companies undergoing reforms, changing cultures, and transformation. Here the leadership takes mien, and spends the company through the unsentimental times (Carter, Ulrich, Goldsmith, 2005).Quadrant 4 this is the case when both, the management and the leadersh ip is problematic at work in order to stabilize the environment, and accomplish the serious tasks (Borsch, 2007). This is the case in the highly volatile environments where the tasks are difficult to get done. One example would be a post soviet Russia, where companies set about considerable challenges in terms of the environment, as well as the task complexities. It was caused by the two factors first it was the political instability. Was Russia going to adopt the capitalistic system or was it going to go with the old, soviet system? Second, the drop of clarity on who was in charge, what the regulations were, and how they were applied, was a challenge, and the local managers were in charge of getting things done (Ardichvili, and Kuchinke, 2002).As the matrix above has shown, there are different circumstances, and the requirements for the roles of the leadership and management change accordingly. However, as the debate continues on which one to apply and use more, there are two c ombinations that competency arise.First it is the weak leadership and strong management. In these companies, the focus is on the utterly term goals, details, reducing and eliminating the risk, and basing everything on the rational decision making process. Furthermore, the management focuses on fitting the people to the jobs, and making sure the compliance is adequate (Carter, Ulrich, Goldsmith, 2005). The consequence of this type of governance is sometimes unintended, but nonetheless, it is harmful for the organizations. As a result of the weak leadership, an organization becomes rigid, less innovative, and most importantly, unable to change as the environments changes. Processes become micromanaged, and there is a slow but steady deterioration in the productivity, effectiveness, and motivation (Carter, Ulrich, Goldsmith, 2005).In the case of the strong leadership and weak management, the situation is somewhat different. In this case, there is a strong vision for the future, bu t there is no short term planning and budgeting. In these types of organizations, there is cult-like culture, where there are no rules, regulations, structures, and specialization. As a result, the organization becomes hard to control, deadlines are not met, the coordination becomes poorer and poorer, and oftentimes times the organization collapses due to the lack of the day to day management (Carter, Ulrich, Goldsmith, 2005).Thus, as the practical application of the leadership and management has shown, it is critical to reflect a golden brace which will assure the long term vision, flexibility, as well as the planned and well managed procedures which will guide the company to a desired goal.Multi-country prospective US, Germany, ChinaWhen looking at the leadership and the management in the multicultural prospective, it is interesting how the approaches differ. Lets look at how the practices are implemented in the three countries.US as it seems, the American companies are strivi ng for balancing the management and the leaderships roles more than any other countries named below. In addition, American leaders are building their roles based on the charisma, and rely less on the power. In terms of the management, its all about the professionalism (Carter, Ulrich, Goldsmith, 2005).Germany in the case of Germany, its all about the management, and less about the leadership. The equilibrise can be described as 60/40. Thus, German companies hurtle more emphasis (relatively speaking)on the getting things done, and doing them right (Borsch, 2007).China in the case of China, the balance shown in the German case tips further to the managements side. In China, management is responsible for getting things done, but the leadership holds the most power (Qiao, 2006). This is not observed in any of the previous two cases. In the US and Germany, the balance of power, as well as the responsibilities, are much more evenly and adequately allocated.ConclusionsAs the review has shown, the roles, the views, and the overall approaches to the leadership and management, have changed dramatically over the years. While in the beginning of the 20th century, the roles were somewhat not relevant and less important, as the world economy grew and the competition, as well as the instability increased, the roles of the leaders and the managers have grown in importance (Lawler, 2006).Not only the roles have grown, but the views on which is more important, and in what context, have changed as well. As Kotter indicates, these two professions have different functions, different purposes, different scopes of operations, and are complementary rather than conflicting with one another. The earlier views which stated that leaders where promoting change and uncertainty, and the managers were for the stability for the status quo, have changed (Brewster, 2008). Today leaders dont promote the change, rather they cope with it, and the managers, they deal with the complexities.Thus, the termination is, leadership is critical in the changing world. They set the visions, goals, and see the large picture. Managers on the other hand, they are the ones who make sure things get done. They are the planners, organizers, and the fixers. In other words, the leaders are architects, and the managers are the builders and the right balance between them is absolutely necessary in any organization.