Colleagues,
Sorry about the false start. First, let me agree with Rick that Fayol's
classic, General and Industrial Management, the first comprehensive theory
of management ever published, did indeed contend that leadership (or
directing) was but one function of management. One of the problems with
many of us in academia is that we quote and reference folks like Fayol,
Taylor, Mayo, etc, without ever reading them in the original text. Just a
pet peeve - on to the management vs leadership argument.
What do we (as social scientists) mean by "leadership"? It is nothing more
than a construct. If a construct is to be useful (i.e., to help us
understand and predict a phenomenon), it should have some specific
properties. It should be precisely and uniquely defined, it should be
measureable, and those measurements should be reliable and valid.
At this point, let me ask a simple question. What is your definition of
"management"? While it may have a number of dimensions, most of us would
agree that it has something to do with organizing, allocating and using
resources to achieve some goal or outcome in an efficient manner.
What is "leadership?" Part of the answer can be found in the OB literature
going back to the 1950s. There is: the trait approach, the Ohio State and
Michigan studies, the Blake Mouton leadership grid, the Feidler
contingency model, the House and Mitchell path-goal model, the Schmidt and
Tannebaum behavioral model, the Vroom-Yetton-Jago model, the leader-member
exchange model, the life cycle model and now, the all new and improved
"transformational" leader model. Near as I can tell, we do not have a
unique, operational definition to even start the debate. So, how can we
proceed with the measurement of the phenomenon in any reliable and valid
way if we can't even define it? If the answer is that there are "many"
definitions, then the arguement still holds, if leadership is 'everything"
then it is nothing.
So where does that leave us? Much like the arguments about pornography - I
can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Just because leadership has
no construct validity in social science doesn't mean that there are not
certain people who can influence people to do things they might not
otherwise do, like throw themselves on live hand grenades or work 90 hour
weeks developing software. Rather, we are left to ask ourselves, what is
the nature of that phenomenon, and how do we understand it?
Going back full circle to Fayol, I would argue that those in organizations
who do managerial kinds of things sometimes exhibit that phenomenon in any
number of ways - communication skills, interpersonal skills, listening
skills, etc. All of these can be taught in management classes (or at least
practiced in the low threat environment of the classroom). Teach
leadership? I don't think so - remember, we can't even define it! Teach
management ideas/concepts-sure! Develop, hone and practice management
skills (speaking, writing working in teams, etc. - absolutely!
Anyway, I hoped to bring a new dimension to the debate. Arguing that
behavior A is manangement and behavior B is leadership is fruitless, in my
humble opinion.
Trivia question: What did Fayol say was the best safeguard against abuse
of authority in organizations?
Enjoy! With thanks and acknowledgement to Col Chuck Yoos, U.S. Air Force
Academy, for many bouts of intellectual jousting in this and other arenas.
Regards to all
Dave Lemak