Management Vs. Leadership – An Assessment of Interdependence


Leadership and management have been the focus of study and attention since the dawn of time. Over time leadership and management have been seen as separate entities, but those times have past. It is this paper’s intent to prove that good management is incumbent upon the success and quality of the leadership that drives it, and by proxy, so too will poor leadership bring poor management that will lead to poor results, and decreased levels of success.

From the great minds in management theory: Fayol, Taylor, and Weber; homage being paid to Barnard and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker and Porter; to the great minds in leadership development: Jung, McClelland and Burnham, this paper intends to examine them all and bring them together as is required in this economy and these times.

Much time, effort, and money has been placed into the study of both management and leadership successes. Mintzberg and Drucker have done some of the best and most informative work at bringing management and leadership together; now, with the rising costs of overhead and decreasing profit margins, now is the time to connect the dots, once and for all.

Leadership and management have been the focus of study and attention since the dawn of time. Reference biblical scripture that questions the leadership decisions of King David and the managerial prowess of Moses and his exodus to the “Promised Lands” (Cohen, 2007); Plato helped us to manage the Republic while Machiavelli helped us to formulate our idea of what a Prince should represent (Klosko, 1995); Shakespeare questioned Hamlet’s decision making (Augustine & Adelman, 1999) and trumpeted Henry IV’s managerial effectiveness (Corrigan, 1999). John Stuart Mill gave us the “shining city upon a hill”, while Hegel taught us the “elements of the philosophy of right” and Marx taught us how to manage a people in his overly popularized (and oft misunderstood) manifestos (Klosko, 1995). Thomas Payne rewrote leadership to the basic levels of Common Sense, while Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that in the management of a people, you must remember that “all men are created equal” and that they maintain certain degree of”unalienable Rights”. Countless others have come to the surface over the span of time, all promoting a new or improved way to both manage and lead their people. (And hopefully yours, too, if you’re willing to pay for it.) However, through it all, one thing has remained constant; people are not autonomous entities that will respond the same to every situation. People are evolving, thinking, emotionally and socially aware of all that is around them; they are motivated through different methods and they are driven by differing levels of success (McClelland & Burnham, 1995). Over time, leadership and management have been seen as separate entities, but no more: it is, therefore, this paper’s intent to prove that good management is incumbent upon the success and quality of the leadership that drives it, and by proxy, so too will poor leadership bring poor management that will lead to poor results, and decreased levels of success. In today’s fast paced environments, management requires leadership; you cannot have one without the other and still attain the success that you desire.

Reference any management text or publication and you will inevitably come across the obligatory references to the great minds in management theory: Fayol – the first to recognize management as a “discipline” to be studied (Brunsson, 2008), Taylor’s scientific management of industrial work and workers (Safferstone, 2006), and Weber’s bureaucracy; homage must also be paid to Barnard, Kotter, Bennis, and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker, and Porter (Lamond, 2005). These great minds have helped to forge the way for the management field and helped to better management teams across the world. The world of “leadership study” carries quite the similar pedigree; ironically, it also carries many of the same names. It is, however, this author’s opinion that many of the additions to the pool of knowledge on leadership were not made known until the study of psychology was made more fashionable by the likes of Freud and Jung. Management, it appears, is a tool to better the bottom line and productivity, whereas leadership is one of those studies that is to be improved through the person’s ability to be in touch with their personality, traits, motives and effects on the human elements of productivity.

There appears be some coincidence in the timing of the juxtaposition of the terms “management” and “leadership” and the correlation to the fact that most literature post 1950 seems to cross pollinate the two phrases. It is quite possible that this, the historical time for post war boom, is where production was at record highs and management of production was not as key as the management of people Possibly drawn from a social recognition that people were not to be managed, but rather, they were to be valued members of the team, and therefore, to be led – it is speculative, but it appears evident that entering the 1960’s, most literature intertwines the “leaders” and the “managers” into the same professional classification.

Carl Jung (1923) posits that people carry specific traits and that those traits cannot be altered. However, much time effort and money has been placed into the study of both management and leadership traits, tendencies, styles, and successes. Why is this? One belief is that Jung only half analyzes the person and that more than your traits influence your leadership potential (de Charon, 2003). This affords the opportunity for you to learn skills necessary to become a better leader, even if that means understanding who you are and what your tendencies are, in order to counteract them. Jung’s work with personality traits has become the hallmark to virtually every professional development and personal development course on the market. Jung stipulates that every person has any combination of sixteen different personality types. By definition, knowing these personality types helps you to better negotiate your way through the situation in order to attain the maximum output desired (Anastasi, 1998).

Running in concert to Jung’s ideas are those of Henry Mintzberg. Mintzberg stipulates that much has changed since Fayol’s assessment in 1916; gone are the days when the “picture of a manager was a reflective planner, organizer, leader, and controller” (Pavett & Lau, 1983). Mintzberg breaks the manager’s job into ten roles, divided into three areas: interpersonal, informational, and decisional (2004):

Interpersonal Roles
Informational Roles
Decisional Roles
Disturbance handler
Resource allocator
(Lussier & Achua, 2007).

Ironically, in today’s interpretation of a leader, one would be hard pressed to find a leader whom is unable to do all of the above, and then some. Mintzberg, in later publications, however, goes much further in his assessment of managers and their roles in the organization. In a collaborative effort with Jonathon Gosling, the two determine the five mindsets of a manager (2003). They break the five mindsets into:

1. Managing self: the reflective mindset; where the effective manager is able to reflect upon the history (current and aged) to create a better future moving forward.

2. Managing the organization: the analytical mindset; here referencing a tennis match, where the manager must be cognizant of the crowd and their reaction, but also focusing on the ball itself.

3. Managing context: the worldly mindset; thinking globally and looking for the unorthodox solution.

4. Managing relationships: the collaborative mindset; where the manager is able to engage the employees and moves beyond empowerment [which “implies that people who know the work best somehow receive the blessing of their managers to do it (Kibort, 2004)] into commitment.

5. Managing change: the action mindset; “imagine your organization as a chariot pulled by wild horses. These horses represent the emotions, aspirations, and motives of all the people in the organization. Holding a steady course requires just as much skill in steering around to a new direction” (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003, p. 54-63).

Gosling and Mintzberg conclude with one very interesting point. They stipulate that, unlike Pavett & Lau (1983) that good managers are able to look beyond the desire to fix problems with simple reorganizations. In fact, they argue that hierarchy plays a very small role in the actual completion of tasks on the unit level and can only lead to more bureaucracy. Which leads one to ask the question: who is to complete those unit level tasks and solve those problems associated with people?

There is no definitive definition of what leadership is, as it appears to change form and focus for each individual study. For the purposes of this paper, however, the definition set forth by Lussier & Achua (2007) seems to fit best: “Leadership is the influencing process of leaders and followers to achieve organizational objectives through change” (p.6). How do we compare leadership and management? The common misconception is that it is something that should be compared “straight up”, or “even Steven”. Obviously, there are natural leaders and persons in positions of social authority throughout every facility, and yes, it is incumbent upon the managers and leaders to empower those people to support the overall mission. Admittedly, some of these people may never become managers, but their role in the facility is of the utmost importance.

However, as managers are an industry specific entity, it is ridiculous to try and compare leadership to management outside of the constraint of the management role. Recognizing and accepting the constraint of the comparison, it must be acknowledged that in industry, you cannot have good leadership without good management; and in obvious juxtaposition, poor leadership leads to poor success rates for the management. It seems apparent that our management staffs should concentrate on growing employees into leaders, to eventually become managers; but if the managers themselves are not leaders yet, then much difficulties will soon befall upon that company. As Peter Drucker will tell you, it is imperative to build a strong management team, centered around strong leadership. In thinner times, gone are the days of two people for every position. Here are the days when a successful company is able to package good managerial skills into every leader, and good leadership skills into every manager. Failure to do so will result in failure to succeed.

“Drucker devotes considerable effort and space to defining the nature and role of management. This discussion also focuses on the nature and value of leadership in the organization. According to Drucker, leadership gives the organization meaning, defines and nurtures its central values, creates a sense of mission, and builds the systems and processes that lead to successful performance” (Wittmeyer, 2003).

Anastasi, Thomas (1998). Personality negotiating: conflict without casualty. Boston University,
Boston, MA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Augustine, Norman & Adelman, Kenneth (1999). Shakespeare in charge: the bard’s guide to

leading and succeeding on the business stage. New York, NY: Hyperion
Brunsson, K. (2008). Some Effects of Fayolism. International Studies of Management &

Organization, 38(1), 30-47.
Cohen, Norman. (2007). Moses and the journey to leadership: Timeless lessons of effective

management from the Bible and today’s leaders. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights

Corrigan, Paul (1999). Shakespeare on management: leadership lessons for today’s managers.
Dover, NH: Kogan Page Limited.

de Charon, Linda. (2003). A transformational leadership development program: Jungian
psychological types in dynamic flux. Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 9-18.
Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2003, November). The Five Minds of a Manager. (cover story).
Harvard Business Review, 81(11), 54-63
Jung, Carl (1923) Psychology Types. New York, NY: Harcourt Press
Kibort, Phillip M (2004). Management vs. Leadership. Physician Executive, 30(6), 32-35.
Klosko, George (1995). History of political theory: an introduction. Volume II; modern political

theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group / Thomson Learning.
Lamond, David. (2005) On the value of management history: Absorbing the past to understand

the present and inform the future. Management Decision, incorporating the Journal of
Management History, 43, 10.
Lussier, Robert N. & Achua, Christopher F. (2007). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill

development, 3e. Mason, OH: Thomson Higher Education.
McClelland D. & Burnham, D. H. (1995) Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business
Review, January, 81(1), p117-126.
Mintzberg, H. (2004, August). Leadership and management development: An afterword.

Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 140-142.
Pavett, C., & Lau, A. (1983, March). Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical level and

functional specialty. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 170-177
Safferstone, Mark J. (2006). Organizational Leadership: Classic Works and Contemporary

Wittmeyer, C. (2003, August). The Practice of Management: Timeless Views and Principles.

Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 13-15

How to Start an MLM Business – The Top 3 MLM Business Mistakes

If you’re looking to start an MLM business there are certain mistakes you’ll want to avoid making. These are mistakes that newbie’s and veterans alike make. They can often hinder your success with your MLM business. Knowing these mistakes can make all the difference in helping your business get in profit as soon as possible.

Start An MLM Business Mistake #1

Not finding an mlm business that has a good comp plan. This is text book. Who wants to be bothered with having to balance the legs and all that nonsense? Give me a simple comp plan so I can blow it out. Most newbie’s just want to get started and make good money. But once they see that the comp plan is ridiculous they get discouraged. Check to see if your company does charge backs. Check and see how soon you can get the big checks. This is important. This leads into the next mistake.

Start An MLM Business Mistake #2

They start out with low ticket item products instead of top tier opportunities. If you’re looking to earn serious money in a hurry, it’s very hard to do so selling a $12 product or service. This also discourages a lot of network marketers. I suggest you look for top tier opportunities where you can make big bucks in a short period of time. How? Easy. You aren’t selling those low ticket item products and instead you’re getting bigger checks sooner.

If you want to earn 10 grand per month reverse engineer from that $10,000 and see how much it would take you to get there. With a $12 product that would take the efforts of you and your downline moving something like 830 products. Ouch. But if we’re talking a product that goes for $500 it doesn’t require a whole lot more of an effort if done right. And the rewards are out of all conceivable proportion.

Start An MLM Business Mistake #3

This is a big no-no. So many people make the mistake of following their company directives and recruiting their family and friends. They think this is the best way to do it. Well I feel this is false thinking.

I have personally lost friends over this. After trying to recruit one of my buddies into two of my opportunities he stopped taking my calls. He started acting cold towards me. And he told my friends that I’m trying to use him. Well that’s what I get for trying to mix business with friendship. Some people don’t take it the way us entrepreneurs think.

We think we’re sharing and helping. But to someone who is content with a 9-5 our thinking just doesn’t make sense. Besides, my friend wasn’t even a targeted prospect. He had no interest in my products.

The better way to do it is let people find you through your marketing materials that speak directly to them. Now instead of chasing and losing friends, you’ll have someone who is interested in your business and targeted. It’s much easier to add people into your business this way.

Most Common Online Business Mistakes to Avoid

Not all online business opportunities are the same. Too many times, people make mistakes in the choosing. Here are top ten internet home based business mistakes to avoid:

Mistake #1. Believing that network marketing will make you a millionaire. Yes, it’s true that some people have grown rich out networking. However, this doesn’t mean that everybody who’s into networking will all be millionaires. Be realistic. A legitimate online business can be a great source of income but don’t expect to earn millions out of it.

Mistake #2. Joining a network that will not require you to sell anything. What no products to sell? Some people may be tempted with the idea that they’ll earn big without the need to sell. Yet, this should be a warning sign for everyone that the business could be a fraud. Any business that expects to make decent earnings should have something to offer their customers. Without products to sell, where do you expect to get your money?

Mistake #3. Expecting to earn huge cash in just a short time. Every marketer should realize that venturing in a business is not an instant money-making scheme. In order to see results, you need to exert lots of effort and it usually takes time.

Mistake #4. Going for the easy money. Again, the importance of hard work cannot be emphasized enough. If a certain business opportunity promises you easy money, back off right away.

Mistake #5. Taking something for free. Marketing lines such as “you’ll get a free product or free cash bonus just by signing up” are one of the things you should watch out for. Before grabbing any offer, it is best to take a good look at the background and reputation of the company and the people behind it.

Mistake #6. Not doing your homework. Every aspiring network marketer should take the time to do his homework. Research about the company’s history and background. What is the company’s track record in the business? Who are the members of the business? What do they have to say about the company?

Mistake #7. Investing huge money for the sake of profit. Putting in a large investment is a very risky step when it comes to network marketing. If you’re promised to double your investment after a given period, don’t believe it. Nobody can guarantee the result of business, especially not in networking. Better yet, stay away from online business opportunities that require you to submit a payment.

Mistake #8. Not considering the quality of the products. Before joining an online business, make sure that you’ve also done enough research on the products you’ll be selling. Are they of high quality? Would people be interested in buying? Do you have target prospects to sell your products to?

Mistake #9. Jumping from one MLM to another. Don’t get your hands full in managing different businesses at one time. Focus on just one online network marketing business instead and do your best to gain results.

Mistake #10. Giving up right away. As soon as you have found a legitimate online network marketing business, be sure to have enough patience and determination to stick with it. Not seeing results on the first few weeks is not a sign that you have chosen the wrong business.

Copyright (c) 2010 Luie De Von