What is the difference between a manager and a leader? Across the field of leadership, the answer to this question remains a topic of considerable debate and study. While we often may use management and leadership interchangeably, it is clear that they are not the same thing. The biggest difference between management and leadership revolves around the manner in which each motivates employees or followers. While managers and supervisors often have a team of employees to coordinate, the individuals filling these managerial roles may not necessarily be considered leaders. The terms manager and supervisor are considered job titles that describe what duties are to be done (e.g., manage, supervise) by the individuals holding those positions (Jex & Britt, 2014).
Leadership, on the other hand, deals with how these duties are carried out and how, in doing so, subordinates are affected. In particular, managers are characterized by their ability to delegate, communicate, coordinate, and solve problems, where leaders are expected to share the same abilities plus, they are also characterized by their personal relationships, charisma, and creativity. In sum, effective leaders must be good managers; however, not all managers are effective leaders (Jex & Britt, 2014).
Another way to establish the difference between managers/supervisors and leaders is to examine modern leadership theory because many of these theories highlight the behaviors and qualities indicative of strong leadership that a supervisor/manager may lack. One of the most well-known modern leadership approaches is transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985). Transformational leadership involves the interplay between leaders and subordinates in which each empowers, respects and motivates the other (Jex & Britt, 2014). Judge and Piccolo (2004) determined that there are four dimensions that are critical for a leader to be considered transformational, including idealized influence (i.e., charisma), inspirational motivation (i.e., providing vision), intellectual stimulation (i.e., challenging subordinates), and individualized consideration (i.e., makes subordinates feel appreciated). Transformational leaders are said to empower their employees and thus this type of leadership is related to many positive outcomes including enhanced subordinate performance, satisfaction, and engagement (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transformational leaders are often contrasted with transactional leaders who adopt a contingent reward approach. That is, transactional leaders, make sure that subordinates follow organizational rules and complete their work by using rewards and punishment; however, transactional leaders do not inspire or empower subordinates like transformational leaders do (Jex & Britt, 2014).
Another modern leadership approach stemming from transformational leadership theory is charismatic leadership. Charisma is a “personal magnetism, compelling charm, or attractiveness that inspires admiration and compliance from others” (Landy & Conte, 2013, p.500). The followers of charismatic leaders do not question their leaders’ beliefs or actions and tend to be emotionally attached to the leaders and the leaders’ goals. Charismatic leaders are confident and have a strong need for power; in fact, many charismatic leaders acquire their power from a situation (e.g., charismatic leaders often emerge during times of crisis). In addition, these leaders set high goals and articulate an appealing vision of the future; however, unlike their transformational counterparts, their need for personal loyalty may serve to weaken, rather than empower, their followers (Judge, Fluegge, Hurst & Livingston, 2006).
Up to this point, the leadership approaches discussed have focused on the leader. What about the subordinate, the follower? Leader-member exchange (LMX) is one theory that draws on the interplay between leaders and subordinates to define successful leadership (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Specifically, LMX proposes that leaders adopt different behaviors with individual subordinates and that these behaviors are influenced by the quality of the leader-subordinate relationship. In high-quality relationships, leaders are more likely to discuss performance with subordinates, initiate discussions of a personal nature with subordinates, and be interested in a subordinate’s work-related achievement and difficulties. These types of relationships are very beneficial to subordinates (i.e., in-group members), who also feel more involved in work-related decisions and are more likely to stay with an organization when they have a good relationship with their leader. Out-group members, on the other hand, have low-quality relationships with their leaders and thus experience higher turnover. LMX is a popular approach used to understand the differential relationships that exist between followers and leaders. More recent research on LMX views the leader-follower relationship as having a “life cycle” and is attempting to understand factors that cause leaders to develop high-quality relationships (Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, & Walker, 2007).
Be sure to review this week’s resources carefully. You are expected to apply the information from these resources when you prepare your assignments.
References
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Collier Macmillan.
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Leader–member social exchange (LMSX): Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 979-1003.
Dansereau, F. Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Jex, S. M., & Britt, T. W. (2014). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Judge, T. A., Fluegge, E., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B. (2006). Charismatic and transformational leadership: A review and an agenda for future research. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisations psychologie A&O, 50(4), 203-214.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-769.
Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2013). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
4
Assignment