Which of the following statements best reflects the relationship between management and leadership

Defining the attributes of change catalysts within high functioning organizations, including the academic enterprise, is desirable. An understanding of these attributes within our academy may foster faculty interest and engagement in seeking administrative roles and serve to bolster succession planning within our schools. On one hand, there have been numerous publications teasing out the purported differences between leadership and management. On the other hand, does segregating these important characteristics based upon arbitrary distinctions do more harm than good? This commentary represents the work of a group of academic leaders participating in the 2015-2016 AACP Academic Leadership Fellowship Program. This work was presented as a debate at the 2016 AACP Interim Meeting in Tampa, Florida, in February 2016.

In 1977, Abraham Zaleznik1 authored an opinion piece that became the first publication to describe leadership and management as two separate functions. Since then, there has been much effort dedicated to studying the differences between managing and leading, with more than 4000 documented definitions of leadership existing alone. Based upon the existing literature, leadership skills are generally glorified as being “visionary” and “doing the right thing,” while managerial skills are dismissed as being “task-oriented” and “doing things right.” However, no scientific evidence exists to support the described differences between leadership and management; what remains is an abstraction of two concepts with no consensus and little application. The authors of this paper are of the opinion that the terms leadership and management are arbitrarily and yet similarly defined. One of the classic leadership definitions often recited, “Leadership is the quality that sets great managers apart from good ones,” further validates this idea as it is simply an illustration of the lexical concept of polysemy.2 That is, the practice of using words in one lexical context, in a different form, to describe a related concept, such that the word “leadership,” derived from the verb “leading,” acquires the meanings of those engaged in the activity “managing,” or as in the case above, as the result of performing the activity as a “manager” satisfactorily. Thus, leading and managing are not merely complementary, they are essentially the same concept used to describe different levels of a taxonomy related to performance or organizational effectiveness.

Together, the two terms “leading” and “managing” form the framework for skills and abilities that are necessary for an individual to drive team success. In fact, the concepts of leadership and management are transposable, especially in describing performance effectiveness within organizations. As shown in Table 1, the functions of leadership and management flow in a continuum that are not separable. Many of these functions are used in describing the roles of both “leaders” and “managers,” causing the definitions and functions to blur as a continuum of one role. Over time, Zaleznik’s separation of these functions has been perpetuated as a false dichotomy through the continued ambiguous use of these words. For example, according to a 2012 Forbes article,7 “leading” is described as who you are as a person, while “managing” is described as more of a craft, primarily skill-based, that may be learned, suggesting the former as an identity to be cultivated within the individual and the latter as a set of behaviors demonstrating a form of competency. Portraying leadership development as an internal process of self-reflection, in contrast to becoming a better manager through honing of a craft, provides a misleading understanding of purportedly different concepts and grossly oversimplifies human and organizational development.

Leadership and Management Continuum1, 3-6

Upon examining the academic environment, one will notice that successful administrators share the traditional qualities of leaders and managers. Therefore, in both the academic setting, and especially within high-performing organizations, leading and managing are not just inseparable, they are one and the same. Even if we entertain the possibilities that these are two processes for creating the same goal; a leader (eg, a school dean) who has the vision and plans for the school is ineffective if she cannot use the managerial skills to procure and efficiently allocate the resources to accomplish the vision. Conversely, a manager (eg, department chair) who can efficiently allocate resources is ineffective if she has no vision or sense of direction for how those resources should be utilized.

The two processes, even if differentiated theoretically, are not effective without each other working in tandem, and are thus inseparable. Continuing to differentiate rather ambiguously similar concepts, takes us away from being able to explain phenomena they were meant to address in the first place: how to leverage human capital as intangible assets toward accomplishing the organization’s mission. With the constantly evolving nature of today’s organizations, there is a need for adaptable individuals. Academic institutions, like many organizations, must rapidly adapt in order to survive. Within such structures, leadership and management are a continuum of a single construct. We have encapsulated this concept within a Venn diagram (Figure 1), where the circle of leading is who you are, and the circle of managing is how you make use of resources. However, the two circles overlap in several key areas, including optimism, decisiveness, integrity, and open communications. Highly effective organizations require a culture of resilience with individuals demonstrating these core attributes.

Leadership and Management Continuum.

As an academy, we need individuals who can lead and manage simultaneously in their day-to-day activities. Every individual must act in a manner appropriate to the context of the situation and should be ready and open to lead and manage as necessary to be effective. To be successful, individuals must display a combination of strategic vision and tactical skills, which together serve as a powerful catalyst for performance improvements throughout an organization. We believe that leading and managing are one and the same and that developing the skills of both a leader and a manager are really the same way of developing individuals who can adapt to change and become a source of strategic advantage.

This topic was debated live at the 2016 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Interim Meeting in Tampa, Florida, in a session titled, “Academic Leadership Fellows Program (ALFP) Debate #3: Leading and Managing are One and the Same.” This article represents the pro position affirming the statement.

The authors include a six-member team of fellows and their leadership facilitator completing the ALFP in 2015-2016 as part of the 12th cohort. The team began collaborating in September 2015 by performing a literature search using PubMed, EBSCO, Scopus, Emerald, JSTOR, Business Source Premier, Google Scholar, and ERIC databases. All searches were performed using several key search terms individually and combined. These search terms included: lead, leading, leadership, leader, manage, managing, management, and manager. Searches using these terms also were conducted in the Harvard Business Review archives and general, web-based search engines such as Google. Articles, book chapters, and passages were reviewed and used to identify additional relevant references.

Authors individually constructed primary claims in favor of the assigned position and discussed and debated to determine the three most compelling claims supporting the position. Analytical, empirical, and emotional warrants along with overall impact were developed for each claim. Finally, likely counterpoints were determined, based on the literature review, to develop evidence-based refutations for the opposing debate positions.

Leadership and management are both theorized to predict decision-maker behavior.8 The theory that leadership and management are different is offered as a truth where the two are suggested as unique predictors of decision-making behavior.

Acknowledging leadership and management as unique requires our acceptance of the two, distinct definitions as truth. Defining “truth” in any situation is difficult.9 This difficulty is influenced by our individually held perspective on what is true.

For example, suppose it is stated that a rose is red and smells good. Now consider a population of color-blind individuals or individuals who are anosmic. Would these individuals perceive a rose as red when the color red is unperceptive? Would they perceive the rose as aromatic when the sense of smell is absent?

Truth itself is dependent upon identification of propositions (ie, a non-linguistic representation of truth value that lead to beliefs – or an accepted world view). The propositions we perceive, or accept, as true form the basis for belief. This relationship between proposition, perception or acceptance, and belief can result in situations where what is accepted as truth may not represent reality.

The contention that leadership and management are different is an example of proposition and belief not representing reality. A clear, universal delineation of the skills believed to designate leadership and management as unique concepts or activities is lacking.1,4,10 Without an existing standard, the expected set of abilities for individuals accepting positions termed leadership or management are irrelevant. Anyone can define the terms to meet the “truth” they wish to defend.

The truth of the relationship between leadership and management is difficult to ascertain because of the realities of practical application. The higher education environment is not conducive to hiring individuals who only manage or lead, as historically defined. Those assuming administrative positions within our academy must encompass abilities, skills, and attitudes attributed to both leading and managing. For example, all decanal deans have individuals who are direct reports. These deans have authority and responsibility for the activities and productivity of those individuals. Hiring individuals specifically to manage or lead would be cost prohibitive and impractical. Recruiting individuals with only management responsibilities is inefficient and would negatively impact an institution’s ability to grow and improve.11 Managing is essential, and developing management-related skills is the first step toward developing leadership-related skills.12

The idea that there exist employees who are excited by the concept of managing is unrealistic. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs13 would suggest that if this were true, retention would be difficult to maintain, as people would have no ability to grow. Leadership and management being different may or may not be true, but the delineation of the two concepts within the work environment is meaningless. The idea that leaders and managers are two extremes of one continuum is more realistic and practically applicable.

The debate of whether leading and managing are different is certainly interesting and has sustained the academic and corporate careers of many. However, this is an exercise in futility. In an examination of high-performing organizations, it becomes clear that the concepts of leading and managing are interchangeable processes of change catalysts. A culture of organizational resilience is largely built upon change catalysts that increase group cohesion and dedication to the mission.14,15

Highly effective organizations require a culture of resilience with individuals demonstrating critical attributes of optimism, decisiveness, integrity, and open communications,15 among others. Yet these attributes have been described as discrete characteristics (leading or managing) of individuals at varying levels of the organization. It is time to abandon the idea that leading and managing are distinct responsibilities. This belief fosters self-delusion and irresponsibility in those who see themselves as leaders, and it can lead to inaction and dangerous forms of dependency in those who do not see themselves as leaders, but merely managers.

As many top consulting organizations and performance management scholars have concluded over the years, individuals at all levels of highly effective organizations must be able to communicate, motivate, inspire, and encourage other employees toward a higher level of productivity. These capabilities are foundational for anyone who wants to get results with and for other people. Such an understanding facilitates opportunities for organizational effectiveness that are more outcome-based when leading and managing processes are one and the same. Leading and managing being different makes for a great ontological discussion, but if we are striving for highly effective organizations, this distinction is meaningless. The reality is that leading and managing are one and the same within the spectrum of organizational effectiveness.

In academia, faculty and administrators engage in knowledge management. As such, there is a need for individuals who can adapt to the evolution of our ever-changing academic organizations. Individuals who are champions in academic organizations must be adaptable and have visionary qualities as well as be able to organize and implement those visions. This “leading-by-example” style has been described by Harris16 as “thought leadership.” The thought leader shows colleagues how a task can be done rather than just giving orders. The ambidextrous nature of such thought leaders has been supported by results of a Delphi study.3 According to this study, when qualities of leaders and managers are assigned, these two traditionally separate roles share four critical features: learning from others, integrity, openness to new ideas, along with adaptability and flexibility. These are characteristics often associated with leaders, yet these are critical common features of managers. Thus, leaders and managers are one and the same.

As Alan Murray17 has noted in The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management, “from Zaleznik, to Kotter to Bennis, much ink has been utilized to delineate the differences between leadership and management… Perhaps there was a time when the calling of the manager and that of a 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.” The focus was on efficiency and getting the job done. However in the new millennium, value comes from knowledge of people, and when workers are not merely cogs in an industrial machine, management and leadership can no longer be separated. The late Peter Drucker was the first to recognize this truth and many others. He was the first to identify the emergence of the “knowledge worker” and the impact on organizational structure. According to Drucker,18 with the rise of the knowledge worker, “one does not manage people. The task is to lead people and the goal is to make productive the specific strengths and knowledge of every individual.” Kent4 also supports that the functions of leadership and management are inseparable. The functions of leaders and managers can be studied separately, but “in reality, they reside within and are practiced by single individuals.” Therefore, it is not only reasonable, but logical rather, to conclude that the roles of the leader and manager are one and the same.

We, in academia, undoubtedly engage in knowledge management. Knowledge management is concerned with three elements: creating repositories of knowledge that can be used within organizations; developing technologies and social networks that facilitate access to this knowledge; and creating culture and environments in which knowledge sharing is valued and expected. Power-added managers are essential in knowledge management.19 Power-added managers are the strategic leaders of any organization and are described as managers with exceptional competence and expertise in their dealings with people and knowledge and, as such, are strategic leaders for any organization. Power-added managers approach their role as an equal within the team they manage and within other teams within the organization. Yet, power-added managers are able to accept leadership, when it is appropriate, and adopt different roles as the situation warrants. They know how to deploy their talents in whatever way necessary to complete tasks that add to the power and success of the organization and, therefore, illustrate that leaders and managers are one and the same.

Looking back at the academy, we find that these types of individuals are being sought after to lead and manage our organizations. Consider the following excerpt from a recent posting for an academic dean’s job description: “leads faculty and staff in planning, securing resources, implementing and evaluating activities related to academic operations, research, service and patient care programs; represents the school both internally to the university and externally to the various stakeholders; serves as part of the institution’s administrative team through active participation in various institutional planning, implementing and evaluating activities.” Are these the tasks of a manager or a leader or, rather, a power-added manager, an ambidextrous individual? While traditionally viewed as leaders, deans are both manager and leader – thus leaders and managers in academia are one and the same.

Through the exercise of a formal debate, our ALFP group was able to fully research the idea that managing and leading could indeed be the same. At first, it appeared that our opponents would have the advantage since the current thought is that these two principles are different. For those students of business education grounded in works from the ’70s, most would be of the mindset that leading and managing are separate. But what has happened since that first introduction of separate units, is that the lines are not delineated as clearly as first defined. So upon full review, we determined that the two thoughts were not as far apart as once thought. As such, we created the following three arguments: the definitions of leading and managing are arbitrary and similarly defined; the concepts of leadership and management are transposable in high- performing organizations; in academic settings and any high-performing organization, leading and managing are inseparable.

Terms, as argued, are defined to meet the truth they wish to defend. Upon seeing multiple definitions and variations of the skills of leadership and management, we determined that these definitions were created to fit the mindset of the individual creating that definition. What might appear to define a leader was often seen in another definition of a manager. And many of the skills of managing showed up in the skillset of a leader. At times, it was hard to discern which role the author intended the term to define. As such, we concluded that there is no clear definition of leader or manager.

During our research of this topic, what also became apparent was the role held by individuals in high-performing organizations. We saw that the qualities first categorized in one area, began bleeding into the other, and the roles of the leader and manager are entwined. In fact, based on our research, there cannot be effective leadership within an organization without the combination of the two, and each person titled with either leader or manager also must have the skillset of the other.

This thought of high performance and success in organizations is not autonomous. As we examine our own academy, we saw that these same principles hold true within the leadership of our academic institutions. Power-added managers are essential in knowledge management and confirm our belief that the roles of leader and manager are intertwined in our academic leaders.

It is for these arguments that we could defend our position and now believe that leadership and management are one and the same.

1. Zaleznik A. Manager and leaders: are they different? Harvard Business Review. 1977;55:67–78. [Google Scholar]

2. Ostler N, Atkins BTS. 1991. Predictable meaning shift: some linguistic properties of lexical implication rules. In: Pustejovsky J, Bergler S, (eds). Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation. SIGLEX 1991. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence), Vol. 627. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1991.

3. Caldwell R. Change leaders and change managers: different or complementary? Leader Org Dev J. 2003;2003(24):285–293. [Google Scholar]

4. Kent TW. Leading and managing: it takes two to tango. Manage Dec. 2005;2005(43):1010–1017. [Google Scholar]

5. Lunenberg FC. Leadership versus management: a key distinction – at least in theory. Int’l J Manage Bus Admin. 2011;2011;14(1):1–3. [Google Scholar]

6. Bennis W. On Becoming a Leader. New York, NY: Addison Wesley; 1989.

7. Andersen E. (2012). Manage or lead? Do both. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/04/10/manage-or-lead-do-both/#426b933d373c. Accessed November 20, 2016.

8. Udo-Akang D. Theoretical constructs, concepts, and applications. Am Int’l J Contemp Res. 2012;2(9):89–97. [Google Scholar]

9. Pardi P. What is truth? Philosophy News. 2015. http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2015/01/29/What-is-Truth.aspx.

10. Yukl G, Lepsinger R. Why integrating the leading and managing roles is essential for organizational effectiveness. Organiz Dynamics. 2005;34(4):361–375. [Google Scholar]

11. Tucker RB. Driving Growth Through Innovation. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc; 2008.

12. Maxwell JC. The 360 Degree Leader. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.;2011.

13. Bolman LE, Deal TE. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, & Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand; 2013.

14. Bhalla V, Caye JM, Dyer A, Dymond L, Morieux Y, Orlander P. High-Performance Organizations: The Secrets of Their Success. Boston, MA: The Boston Consulting Group; 2011.

15. Gladwell M. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown; 2000. [Google Scholar]

16. Harris P. Leadership role models earn trust and profits. Human Res Manage Int’l Digest. 2010;18(6) [Google Scholar]

17. Murray A. What is the difference between management and leadership? In: The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide to Management. New York, NY: Harper Business; 2009.

18. Drucker PF. Knowledge management. Harvard Bus Rev. 1998 [Google Scholar]

19. Rowley J. The power-added manager: strategic leaders for the new millennium. Indust Comm Train. 2003;35(3):109–111. [Google Scholar]