19.Differentiate between leadership and management.

Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

Still, much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate.

– The manager administers; the leader innovates.

– The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

– The manager maintains; the leader develops.

– The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.

– The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.

– The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.

– The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.

– The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader’s eye is on the horizon.

– The manager imitates; the leader originates.

– The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.

– The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.

– The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

Perhaps there was a time when the calling of the manager and that of the leader could be separated. A foreman in an industrial-era factory probably didn’t have to give much thought to what he was producing or to the people who were producing it. His or her job was to follow orders, organize the work, assign the right people to the necessary tasks, coordinate the results, and ensure the job got done as ordered. The focus was on efficiency.

But in the new economy, where value comes increasingly from the knowledge of people, and where workers are no longer undifferentiated cogs in an industrial machine, management and leadership are not easily separated. People look to their managers, not just to assign them a task, but to define for them a purpose. And managers must organize workers, not just to maximize efficiency, but to nurture skills, develop talent and inspire results.

With the rise of the knowledge worker, “one does not ‘manage’ people,” Mr. Drucker wrote. “The task is to lead people. And the goal is to make productive the specific strengths and knowledge of every individual.”

20.Describe how leaders are able to influence and empower members.

Power is the ability to get other people to do things or the ability to control resources. Authority is the formal right to wield power. Six types of power include legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, referent (stemming from charisma), and subordinate. Through subordinate power, team members limit the authority of leaders. To get others to act, leaders also use tactics such as leading by example, leading by values, assertiveness, rationality, ingratiation, exchange, coalition formation, and joking and kidding. Empowerment is the process of sharing power with team members to enhance their feelings of personal effectiveness. A key belief of empowerment is that leadership in a team can and should be shared. Empowerment increases employee motivation, because the employee is accepted as a partner in decision making. For empowerment to work well, people must exercise self-leadership; cross-cultural factors in the acceptance of empowerment must be considered.

A great deal of power people have in organizations comes from the specific jobs or titles they hold (Greenberg, 2011). In other words, they are able to influence others because of the formal power associated with their positions. For example, there are certain powers that the president of the United States has because of the office (e.g., signing bills into law, making treaties, declaring war, etc.). These remain vested in the position and are available to anyone who holds it. When the president’s term expires, they transfer to the new office-holder.

A true leader is able to influence others and modify behavior via legitimate and referent power. President Carter had a noble vision about the United States, as well as the world, but he could not coalesce groups or people to achieve his goals; the whole country suffered. Presidents Truman and Johnson used their position (or office or power) effectively and were much better able to manipulate groups and people to achieve their ends. Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton relied on personal persuasion and were able to sway the nation as a whole, as well as Congress, business, and labor, by charisma and communication. President Roosevelt effectively used both position and personality.

Figure 1 summarizes the relationship between power, influence, and leadership. The key to this framework is that leadership as an influence process is a function of the elements of the leader’s sources of power and the degree of acceptance with the interests and needs of the subordinates. In the figure, sources of power are divided into personal and organizational. Legitimate, reward, and coercive powers are organizational and are part of the leader’s job. Policies and procedures prescribe them. Expert and referent powers are personal and emanate from a leader’s personality.