Leadership

Leadership, although having several similar traits to management, is essentially very different. Leadership is described by Stacey (1996) as being as ‘transferring directives of those higher up in the hierarchy into the goals and tasks of the group.’ Leaders are present to create ideas; to build and motivate a ‘cohesive team’ {Stacey 1996}, in order to perform tasks effectively and efficiently. A natural born leader is insinuated as possessing the traits to inspire and instigate passion within his peers.

Management on the other hand, is seen as very much formal, consisting of ‘formal administrative bureaucracy.’ The manager’s job is primarily to plan, control, organise and, in turn, to achieve results. As a result, managers are seen as more impersonal and less emotionally involved; where a leader requires to be able to understand and interpet his peers on an emotional level, no such skills are required in management, which is primarily autocratic.

The variance in leadership styles has been developed through many different theories, one of which being Blake and Mouton’s ‘Managerial Grid.’ (1964).

As shown in the grid above, Blake and Mouton suggest that there are five main types of leaders: ‘Impoverished,’ ‘Country club’ (social), Authoritarian,’ ‘Middle of the Road’ and ‘Team leader.’

 According to Mullins (2010), the impoverished manager has low concern for both production and people and tend to be remote from both. The idea with this leadership style is that too much attention to production will cause difficulties with staff and vice versa.

In turn, the country club manager is said to have low concern for production and high concern for people. Such managers believe that ‘a contented staff will undertake what is required of them and achieve a reasonable level of output,’ (Mullins 2010). However, this means production is second to avoidance of conflict and maintaining a content staff, which may mean organisational output suffers as a result. Alternatively, the authoritarian manager has a high concern for production and low concern for people and tends to ‘rely on a centralised system’ (Mullins 2010), and the use of authority. Staff are regarded as a means of production and is motivated through competition amongst them in order to get the job done.

The middle-of-the-road management style refers to managers who have moderate concern for both staff and production. According to Mullins (2010), such managers are usually referred to as ‘dampened pendulums,’ with them swinging between concern for production and concern for people, dependant on the pressure they are put under.

Finally, the highest rated style of management refers to team managers, who, as a result of having high concern for both production and people, combine and integrate task needs with the needs of staff, therefore managing both tasks and employees efficiently.

To apply the theory behind the Blake-Mouton managerial grid practically, I have chosen to use the scenario of the team leader I worked under as part of an advertising sales team for a local newspaper. Due to the fact that the team leader continually alternated from prioritising the task OF ensuring maximum advertising space was sold for maximum price, to the needs of staff, dependant on the pressure to address each, the leader’s management style was relatable to that of a middle-of-the-road manager. This is as a result of the fact that although at times the team leader would entirely focus on the task at hand, she would then alternate to focusing on staff concerns, regardless of production, such as general staff difficulties in meeting sales targets meaning the targets had to be lowered, irrespective of the affect to sales figures.

In general, however, there are many well-known figures which epitomise good leadership. One such person I feel shows strong leadership qualities is Martin Luther king, the American civil rights campaigner for black people. King, in my opinion, effectively characterised aforementioned traits of good leadership. One such skill is inspiring and instigating passion within your peers, which King was known for, proven through the fact that his campaign was the major cornerstone in improving the rights of black people in America. King effectively conveyed his message in a way that inspired people to understand and act upon his way of thinking. This shows his method of leadership is directly relatable to Stacey’s (1996) theory on leadership, as King effectively ‘took’ directives and turned them into ‘goals and aims,’ which he achieved through instigating passion within his peers.

Conclusively, my research on leadership has shown me that there are major differences between leaders and managers, with distinct qualities defining each. Whilst the latter is usually impersonal and autocratic, focused on organisation, plan and control, the former is more concerned with personally directing and inspiring people, and the best leaders are able to do so to the extent of bringing out the best in their peers in terms of output and achievement.

References: