Managers Can Be Developed, but Leaders Are Born, Not Made.

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 1460
  • Published : May 28, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
Managers can be developed, but leaders are born, not made.

Table of contents
Table of contentsii
1INTRODUCTION1
2BODY OF ARGUEMENT1
2.1THE ROLE OF THE MANAGER1
2.2THE ROLE OF THE LEADER1
2.3 OVERLAP BETWEEN THE ROLES OF MANAGER AND LEADER2
2.4CAN THE ROLES OF THE MANAGER AND LEADER BE DEVELOPED?2
2.5CAN GREAT LEADERS BE DEVELOPED, OR ARE THEY BORN?3
3CONCLUSION4
4REFERENCES4

1INTRODUCTION
To debate the statement ‘managers can be developed, but leaders are born, not made’ we first need to gain an understanding of the roles played by managers and leaders, outlining the perceived differences and how these have evolved over time. This will provide the context for discussion of whether management and leadership can be developed, and whether there are particular attributes people are born with that allow for the achievement of greatness. 2BODY OF ARGUEMENT

2.1THE ROLE OF THE MANAGER
Historical perceptions regarding the role of the manager focussed on implementation of processes to achieve set objectives, where final outcomes justified the means (El-Meligi, 2005). The position demanded tangible skills such as budgeting, planning and the organisation of staff (Angelucci, 2005). Zaleznik (1977) even inferred a robotic nature to the role when focussing on the importance of control, referring to systemic selection and attainment of goals with a management aim of reducing choices. Whilst he did refer to motivation and reward in his research, it was with little emphasis or importance. Drucker (1993) provided a contextual view, implying the definition of a manager has evolved over time. Moving from simply being responsible for subordinates shortly after World War II, to being responsible for the performance of others in the 1950’s, and now, in its broadest form, of being responsible for the application of performance and knowledge. Whilst the terms may differ between expert opinions, the common theme is the command of staff and management of knowledge in completing tasks. There is no reference to staff empowerment or the development of vision or strategy. 2.2THE ROLE OF THE LEADER

It is easiest to understand the role of a leader through comparison and differentiation from that of the manager. Angelucci (2005: 12) argues this difference can “…be simplified by understanding that managers manage results and leaders manage change”. Zaleznik (1977: 72) provides further context and attributes when suggesting leaders “…develop fresh approaches to long standing problems… being proactive instead of reactive, shaping ideas instead of responding to them”. This context was summarised by Covey (1990: 101) when saying “management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall”. Leaders focus on the intangible, working in tandem with managers who are more able to deal with below the line running of the business. This boundary somewhat suggests the role of a leader is so far removed from management that it is almost unattainable by them. To add practical reference, Bennis (2009: 198) completed a five year study of ninety of the most effective and successful leaders in the US from which he found “managers are people who do things right; leaders are people who do the right thing”. The study took the role of the leader further by suggesting that they have a significant part in the internal development of the organisation. Effective leadership led to empowerment as staff felt significant, part of a community, that work was challenging and that learning mattered. The vision created by leaders needed to “motivate through identification, rather than through rewards and punishments” (Bennis, 2009: 202). In addition to vision and strategy, leaders are responsible for the emotional wellbeing and increased productivity of staff through transformational management whilst Managers appear to be limited to...
tracking img