Blog

LDR 711A University of Phoenix Wk 2 Source Comparison Worksheet

Uncategorized

LDR 711A University of Phoenix Wk 2 Source Comparison Worksheet

Description

  Content

Complete the Source Comparison Worksheet.
 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

LDR/711A v11
Source Comparison Worksheet
Read Distinguishing Sources by Type from the University Library.
Read the Porr and Zimmerman articles (see Learning Activities folder).
Analyze and evaluate the Porr and Zimmerman articles for their credibility as a doctoral research source.
Complete the table below. The first row has been completed as an example.
Source Evaluation Criteria
Use of APA format for in-text
citations and references
Porr Article
Use of in-text citations
Zimmerman Article
No APA in-text citations
Authors’ credentials and
affiliation
Source publication (Is the
source peer reviewed according
to Ulrich’s?)
Scholarly writing (comment on
author’s use of scholarly writing)
Use of supporting evidence
Value as a doctoral research
source
Reflection question: Both articles addressed the same topic—leadership versus management. What
insights can you gain from comparing the two sources’ research value? How will you apply these insights
in your doctoral research?
Based on the readings, write a 125-word evaluative discussion on the differences and similarities
between management and leadership styles. Use the pre-formatted pages following this page.
Include in-text citations and a reference list.
Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Source Comparison Worksheet
LDR/711A v11
Page 2 of 5
Title of the Paper
Your Name
Institution Name
Course Name
Instructor’s Name
Assignment Due Date
Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Source Comparison Worksheet
LDR/711A v11
Page 3 of 5
Title of the Paper
Begin the paper here. Double space the entire document. Indent the first line by one-tab
key (0.5 inches). University of Phoenix accepts one space after a period. The first paragraph is
the introduction in every paper and does not contain a subheading. Provide a brief overview of
the general topic and end with a preview of the topics discussed in the paper. Unless the paper is
a self-assessment analysis or a reflections paper, never write using first person: I, me, my, mine,
etc. Never write academic papers using second person: you, your, yours, etc. Using editorial
“we” and “our” is not acceptable. For more information on writing style and grammar, review
the APA Manual, Chapter 4.
Conclusion
The final Level 1 heading in every paper is for the conclusion section and eliminates the
need to add “In summary,” or “In conclusion” as the start of the final paragraph. The conclusion
summarizes the key points made in the paper with no new information or analysis. The
conclusion is simply a recap of the most notable information presented in the paper.
Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Source Comparison Worksheet
LDR/711A v11
Page 4 of 5
References
[NOTE: References are listed in alphabetical order. All references listed in the reference list
must have an in-text citation from that source in the body of the paper. For additional examples
of reference formatting, see Chapter 10 of the APA Manual]
Journal Article Example
Ainsworth, S., & Purss, A. (2009). Same time, next year? Personnel Review, 38(3), 217-235.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480910943304
Authored Book Example
Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007). Management: Leading and collaborating in a competitive
world (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Chapter in an Edited Book Example
Eatough, V., & Smith, J. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In C. Willig & W.
Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp.
179-195). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607927.n11
Magazine Article Example
Kuttner, R. (2003, September 8). The great American pension-fund robbery. Business Week, 2426. http://www.businessweek.com/
Dissertation Example
Lisbon, E. I. (2010). A study of leadership preferences by generation. (Publication No. 3455137)
[Doctoral dissertation, Our Lady of the Lake University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
Webpage on a Website Example
Moore, T. G. (2017, December). Self-compassion may improve resiliency. Mayo Clinic.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/self-compassion
Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Source Comparison Worksheet
LDR/711A v11
Page 5 of 5
Website Example
World Health Organization (2018, March). Questions and answers on immunization and vaccine
safety. https://www.who.int/mongolia/health-topics/vaccines/faq
Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
LDR/711A
Week 2: Leadership and Management
LDR/711A
Week 2: Source Comparison
CONTENT CRITERIA
Follows directions
Read and analyzed Porr and Zimmerman articles
Answered questions on matrix
Provided reflective insights
Provided response to applying insights to doctoral research
Provided a minimum 125-word evaluative discussion on differences and
similarities between management and leadership styles
APA FORMATTING
Properly formatted title page
Properly formatted citations
Properly formatted reference page
Properly formatted references
APA STYLE

Proper Grammar & Punctuation:
Total Points
Comments:




POSSIBLE
POINTS
20
5
5
5
5
5
45
POINTS
EARNED
Paragraphing with the MEAL Plan
M-
Main Idea
Every paragraph should have one main idea. If you find that your paragraphs have more than one
main idea, separate your paragraphs so that each has only one main point. The idea behind a
paragraph is to introduce an idea and expand upon it. If you veer off into a new topic, begin a new
paragraph.
E – Evidence or Examples
Your main idea needs support, either in the form of evidence that buttresses your argument or
examples that explain your idea. If you don’t have any evidence or examples to support your main
idea, your idea may not be strong enough to warrant a complete paragraph. In this case, reevaluate your idea and see whether you need even to keep it in the paper.
A – Analysis
Analysis is the heart of academic writing. While your readers want to see evidence or examples
of your idea, the real “meat” of your idea is your interpretation of your evidence or examples:
how you break them apart, compare them to other ideas, use them to build a persuasive case,
demonstrate their strengths or weaknesses, and so on. Analysis is especially important if your
evidence (E) is a quote from another author. Always follow a quote with your analysis of the
quote, demonstrating how that quote helps you to make your case. If you let a quote stand on its
own, then the author of that quote will have a stronger voice in your paragraph (and maybe even
your paper) than you will.
L –
Link
Links help your reader to see how your paragraphs fit together. When you end a paragraph, try to
link it to something else in your paper, such as your thesis or argument, the previous paragraph or
main idea, or the following paragraph. Creating links will help your reader understand the logic and
organization of your paper, as well as the logic and organization of your argument or main points.
Reference
Duke University (2006). Paragraphing: The MEAL plan. Retrieved from https://twp.duke.edu/uploads/assets/meal_plan.pdf
Supporters and opponents of the death penalty have justified their beliefs on several
grounds. Supporters, for instance, argued the death penalty is the ultimate specific deterrent
as someone who is put to death will never be able to murder again (Pataki, 1997). The threat
of being put to death for an offense may also act as a general deterrent, promoting a safer
community (van den Haag & Conrad, 1983). Further, Fein (1993) argued the death penalty
provides retribution, answers individual and societal needs to punish offenders, and the death
penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment. Based on these arguments, supporters believe the
justice system has a duty to impose the death penalty on certain offenders (van den Haag &
Conrad, 1983).
M
Supporters and opponents of the death penalty have justified their
beliefs on several grounds.
E
Supporters, for instance, argue the death penalty is the ultimate
specific deterrent as someone who is put to death will never be able to
murder again (Pataki, 1997).
A
The threat of being put to death for an offense may also act as a
general deterrent, promoting a safer community (van den Haag &
Conrad, 1983).
Further, Fein (1993) argued the death penalty provides retribution,
answers individual and societal needs to punish offenders, and the
death penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment.
L
Based on these arguments, supporters believe the justice system has a
duty to impose the death penalty on certain offenders (van den Haag &
Conrad, 1983).
what’s under the hood?
the mechanics of leadership versus management
E.L. Zimmerman
B
elieve it or not, there are
those rare individuals in the
world of work who describe
themselves as “great managers.”
Focusing primarily on the
enterprise’s
revenues,
this
professional tends to be a master at
organizing a workforce in meeting
or exceeding annual profit
projections. Typically, great
managers have staked their
reputations, if not their careers, on
maintaining bottom-line results for
the betterment of the organization.
While perhaps losing sight of a
commonly accepted business truth
— it’s “all” the members of any
workforce who ultimately make
things happen — a great manager
more often than not runs the risk
of being labeled an “ogre” by
subordinates for an unrelenting
dedications to the monthly P&L
statements.
Yet, there are others out there
who would scoff at the title
“manager,” qualifying themselves as
a class of “good leaders.”
Typically, good leaders sacrifice
micromanagement of the bottomline in favor of a macroscopic
understanding of the enterprise, its
associates and its strategic direction.
While it has never been conclusively
proven leaders produce lower profits
than mangers, they do tend to create
more inspired, more empowered
associates — willing to serve to the
ends of the Earth — and leaders are
significantly less likely to be deemed
a “workaholic,” “ogre” or
“bossmonster” by their associates or
colleagues.
Despite arguments to the
contrar y, there are fundamental
differences in the philosophical
approaches to management versus
leadership. While these differences
are not as definitive as night and
day, they do draw unique contrast
with one another while also
complementing
related
competencies.
Leadership
(1) Visionary
Articulating
a
strategic
direction for the enterprise in a
clear and compelling manner, the
leader fosters relationships
founded on trust and respect with
all stakeholders, not just the
shareholders, of the organization.
Professionally, a leader dissects
business situations with a view to
the future while maintaining a firm
grasp of the enterprise’s current
elements (product line, corporate
philosophy, workforce, etc.).
Remaining true to the core and
functional competencies necessary
to support the vision, the leader
13
understands the associate’s
perspective and only endorses
action that integrates the
associate’s needs. With a knack
for prophecy, a leader
investigates, recommends and
implements activity with
appreciation of the enterprise
and the associates’ interests.
Personally,
a
leader
understands the present staff is,
even today, learning by doing;
they are collectively taking steps
in the direction of becoming
the productive workforce they
ultimately will be. A leader sees
beyond the immediacy of
decisions, exercising the ability
to often predict the effects of
actions, policy and even words.
In order to maintain status as a
prophet, a leader keeps up with
current industry research and
best practices in hopes of
benefiting the enterprise with
such knowledge.
Additionally, the leader will
seek out self-improvement
opportunities in order to meet
personal career objectives.
(2) Collaborator
The leader sets an example and
leads through it. This has been
called “collaborating with the
vision.”
By doing so, a leader
demonstrates
a
clear
understanding of the strategic
direction of the enterprise in
aligning work and personal
behavior with that vision.
In such a way, a leader
develops an organization and a
corporate
culture
that
14
encourages, supports and rewards
individual and team achievements.
In addition, a leader surrenders
“the self to the squad,”
collaborating at all times with
associates to help them.
Adapting his/her management
style to the unique needs of
individuals, a leader displays an
understanding
that
truly
meritorious effort should be spent
on eliminating barriers to superior
associate performance. He/she
engages willingly in coaching,
feedback,
recognition,
brainstorming and mentoring in
order to maximize the enterprise’s
results.
Lastly, the successful leader
defies limitations. He/she works
effectively not only with his/her
immediate work group but also
those outside the formal line of
authority in order to accomplish
any of the enterprise’s goals.
(3) Salesperson
Demonstrating a charismatic selfassurance of ideas, judgments and
capabilities, a leader tactically
inf luences others within the
enterprise through participation in
all processes and decision-making.
The goal is elementary: a leader
seeks an organization that supports
individual and team achievement,
and therefore he/she works at
building and sustaining group
cohesion through mutual trust and
respect. Once the enterprise has its
professional dynamic, the leader
manages to it.
To accomplish the challenge of
creating unity, a leader will provide
his enterprise with the vision,
direction and inspiration necessary
for its continued longevity.
He/she maintains good rapport
with all departments of the
enterprise, and he/she gets to
know (in great detail) the people
and resources that can provide
assistance.
(4) Negotiator
Ever the focused optimist during
tough times as well as the good, the
leader espouses one guiding
premise: “change” is the new
corporate religion. As someone
once said, “ The past is only
reference, not residence.”
The leader reacts and adjusts
positively to new ways of
accomplishing tasks. First and
foremost on the leader’s mind is
making the tough decisions that
ensure associate satisfaction and
departmental efficiency. To that
end, most leaders willingly serve
as self-fueled process improvement
“think tanks” or change agent
specialists, developing imaginative
solutions to solving problems
despite the element of risk.
Critical to the leader’s perspective
is his/her ability to enhance
existing processes and procedures
that ensure associate satisfaction
and departmental efficiency.
Setbacks are inevitable and,
therefore, embraced rather than
shunned, for it is only in failure
that we learn. However, because
risk persists, the leader will not
sacrifice common sense or sound
business judgment solely for the
sake of change. Ser ving as a
catalyst for positive organizational
turbulence, a leader will assist
managers and associates in
responding effectively to new
circumstances in the workplace.
Ever resilient, the leader will
actively seek assignments, guidance
and feedback that are necessary in
order to prepare for handling
current or future objectives.
Management
(1) Captain
Displaying
energy
and
initiative, the manager develops
and applies personal knowledge
of the business, products, systems
and technology to advance the
enterprise’s agenda. This applied
knowledge will not only include
industry specifics, but also involve
applying industry terminology,
paper-f low and structure to
problem
solving,
communication, training and
implementation. Additionally,
the successful manager will often
interpret the laws, regulations,
policies and procedures that
impact (positively or negatively)
the associates in order to ensure
a
productive
working
environment.
Accepting feedback and
criticism professionally and
constructively, the manager
assumes ownership for work by
setting priorities and utilizing
department resources. Not only
does the manager add economic
value through the strategic use of
the enterprise’s programs and
practices,
he/she
also
understands
and
applies
corporate procedures and
departmental standards to
consistently produce error-free
results in a timely manner. He/she
ensures the team is striving to
overcome obstacles before seeking
support.
(2) Analyst
Possessing keen analytical skills
coupled with a grasp of the
enterprise’s budget, the successful
manager works diligently to gather
current and accurate information
about situations and technology.
Without it, the manager cannot
(and will not) make educated
decisions on behalf of the
organization. Before engaging a
course of action, the manager
conducts an in-depth analysis of
the requirements and specifications
in order to determine which course
will deliver maximum results.
Additionally, he/she uses this
information to drive his/her own
learning as well as nurturing the
business’ continued success. After
careful review of all the collected
data and alternatives, only then
will the manager make timely
decisions.
Understanding talent is what will
make any department efficient, the
manager
analyzes,
designs,
recommends and administers a fair
and equitable reward system to
attract, motivate and retain qualified
associates.
(3) Conductor
Focusing on potential business
opportunities, the successful
manager
understands
the
differences and similarities
between individual, departmental
and enterprise goals. Like a
workhorse, the manager endeavors
to accomplish all of them,
applying knowledge and training
to support whatever the need.
His/her emphasis will remain on
the client: understanding their
needs, the manager will take
actions necessar y to either
integrate or balance them with
the enterprise’s products and
strategic direction. At all times,
the manager will use whatever
resources are appropriate to
identify issues, plan work,
eliminate concerns, resolve
problems and make the
necessary adjustments to reach
optimum performance.
In determining key personnel
to fill out a results-driven team,
a manager analyzes departmental
needs, selects the best-qualified
candidates and assigns tasks
based on skills and abilities.
Reaching outside of the sphere
of influence, the manager will
also organize, gain the
involvement of and manage
diverse work groups and/or task
forces to achieve specific project
or enterprise goals.
(4) Controller
For the manager, an accurate
picture of the enterprise’s
profitability can only be achieved
through careful consideration of
all of the details comprising typical
business activity. This examination
starts with the basics: a review of
common elements of success, and
it extends all the way to
determination of obstacles to
performance in the workplace.
By
demanding
work
performed to the best of any
15
associate’s ability, a manager’s
primar y objective is simple:
meeting or exceeding professional,
enterprise, task force or
departmental goals. Through an
exhaustive examination of data
meant to identify the most critical
components
of
exemplar y
performance, the successful
manager recognizes trends,
inconsistencies, deficiencies, and
impact, he/she never loses focus of
monitoring results, controlling
resources (including employees) and
modifying business activity to better
achieve project plan. However, the
manager always demonstrates
sensitivity to the impact of change
on the individuals who are aiding in
the achievements.
The exceptional manager
identifies client problems and
maintains ownership until the
issue is fully resolved, providing the
client with detailed follow-up.
Those issues that fall outside the
manager’s sphere of influence are
appropriately escalated to the
proper department’s staff.
To Lead Or Not To Lead
While
management
and
leadership do have their
philosophical differences, they both
share the common element of
attaining goals.
If the goal becomes the team’s
destination, then the method (i.e.
management versus leadership) is
the journey, and there are many
roads available to the successful
professional in today’s competitive
world. The strategies and practices
that ensure success are limitless as
work-place technology continues to
16
evolve faster than at any other time
in our history. Clearly, what sets one
manager apart from another is
whether he/she chooses to lead,
manage or combine the best elements
of both disciplines most needed for
optimum results.S
V
Ed Zimmerman is a professional
in the human resources field and
has worked with hundreds of
managers and leaders to capture a
variety of supervisory experiences.
Copyright of Supervision is the property of National Research Bureau and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
LDR/711A v11
Distinguishing Sources by Type
Doctoral students should cite and reference sources in their work. To produce scholarly essays, students
must integrate scholarly sources. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish scholarly from non-scholarly
sources. The following chart distinguishes sources by type.
Sources by Type
Scholarly Journals
Trade Publications
Popular Press
Internet
Primary purpose is to
present research,
theories and
methodology
Primary purpose is to
present industry trends,
new products, and
organizational news
Primary purpose is to
provide general
information and/or to
entertain
Primary purpose is to
communicate
organizational
information
Geared toward
scholars, researchers,
and serious graduate
students
Geared toward
business or industry
members
Geared toward nonprofessionals and/or
the general public
Geared toward nonprofessionals and/or
the general public
Scholars and
researchers author the
articles
Journal staff writes
articles
Publication staff or
freelance writers
contribute articles
Authors tend to be
internal sources or
anonymous
contributors
Articles contain the
language of the
discipline in a formal,
academic tone
Articles contain the
language of the
industry, including
technical or
professional jargon
Articles contain casual,
everyday language
geared toward a broadbased audience
Contains casual,
everyday language
geared toward a broadbased audience
Writers always cite and
reference sources
Some but not all
articles contain
citations and
references
Articles do not contain
citations and
references
Frequently articles do
not contain citations
and references
Articles generally have
a sober, serious
appearance, may
contain graphs and/or
charts
Articles have less
sober appearance and
may contain glossy and
exciting pictures.
Articles have slick and
attractive appearance
and contain
photographs, drawings,
etc.
Have slick and
attractive appearance,
and contain pop-up ads
and graphics
Journals contain few or
no advertisements
May contain
advertisements
Contains
advertisements
Contains
advertisements
Professional
organization or
Professional
organizations usually
produce
A company often owns
and publishes
Often published by
organizations or
unknown sources
Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Distinguishing Sources by Type
LDR/711A v11
Page 2 of 2
Scholarly Journals
Trade Publications
Popular Press
Internet
academic press
produced
Editorial board peer
reviews article
submissions
Contributions are not
peer-reviewed
Contributions are not
peer-reviewed
Rarely peer-reviewed
Examples
Scholarly Journals


Journal of
Leadership Studies
Journal of Applied
Psychology
Trade Publications


Advertising Age
Workforce
Magazine
Popular Press


Time
Newsweek
Internet


Corporate web
Sites
Wikipedia
Tip: Sometimes it is hard to know if a source is peer reviewed. Although the Harvard Business Review
has the name “Harvard” in the title, it is actually a trade magazine. Ulrich’s Publication Directory provides
information on more than 300,000 publications. By consulting Ulrich’s Publication’s Directory, students
can determine a publication’s credibility as a doctoral source. By typing the name of a source in the
search field, Ulrich’s will indicate type of source, such as trade publication, scholarly/academic journal, or
consumer magazine.
Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Toward More Inclusive Leadership Pedagogy: Expanding
the Management versus Leadership Comparison
Dean Porr, Kent State University, Ohio, USA
Abstract: The management versus leadership comparison is a recognized instructional tool in leadership
pedagogy. Like other leadership concepts, this two- factor model has a history of controversy concerning
the extent to which the terms are independent of each other and how inclusive the model is in describing
various types of influence. This paper explores these deficiencies and expands the two-factor model
by introducing the additional concepts of administration and operations.
Keywords: Management, Leadership, Administration, Operations
Introduction
M
OST MANAGEMENT EDUCATORS now agree that leadership is both a skill
and a behavior that exhibits that skill (Doh, 2003). The comparison of skills and
behaviors linked directly to the process of management and those more closely
associated with the process of leadership is an accepted tool in leadership pedagogy. Although many leadership theorists believe there are distinct differences between
the concepts, the two terms are interchanged so often that the differences have become
blurred (Kotter, 1999; Terry, 1993; Toor & Ofori, 2008; Zaleznik, 1977). This confusion
has reduced the accuracy and precision of leadership and management research (Gordon &
Yukl, 2004; Kotter, 2006; Zaccaro & Horn, 2003).
The definition of these terms has become an issue, as there appear to be as many ways of
defining management and leadership as there are researchers in the field. If you can’t define
leadership or management, you can’t measure, test, make assessments, or hire and promote
for them (Kotter, 2006). The term manage means to handle (Sanborn, 1996), whereas management is the process of getting things done through other persons (Fagiano, 1997). A
leader is a person who is followed; however leadership is the process of influencing the
activities of an organized group toward goal achievement (Rausch & Behling, 1984). The
opportunity for confusion is apparent. This paper explores the problems associated with the
management versus leadership comparison by identifying the deficiencies of the two-factor
model and expanding it to be more inclusive leadership pedagogy.
Changes in Management and Leadership Perspectives
Modern management instruction is routinely aided by stressing an understanding of the basic
functions that make up the management process. The functions of management accepted by
the academic community have changed as management research has progressed. In 1916
Fayol created a list of four primary functions of management: planning, organizing, staffing,
and controlling. As management research evolved the function of directing was added, and
The International Journal of Learning
Volume 17, Number 5, 2010, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494
© Common Ground, Dean Porr, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
[email protected]
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
many management textbooks of the 1970’s dissected the subfields of management into
planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling (Carlisle, 1976).
Changes in societal norms and expectations were accompanied by the development of
human resource specialists. HR personnel began assuming a greater share of the responsibility for recruiting, hiring, transferring, promoting, and terminating employees. Scholars
eventually dropped staffing as one of the functions of management when it became more of
a specialist’s responsibility.
Progressive management techniques caused researchers to take a critical look at the
comparatively hard term directing. As advances were made in leadership research, the
function of directing was replaced with the softer term leading. By the 1980’s many management textbooks were structured around the four accepted managerial functions of planning,
organizing, leading, and controlling (Griffin, 1984). This breakdown is still common today
(Robbins & Coulter, 2009). A summary of the changes in the functions of management can
be found in table 1.
The opportunity for confusion between the two terms is apparent when research discussing
the differences between management and leadership is considered alongside research
identifying leadership as a function of management. Mangham and Pye (1991) support the
inclusion of leadership as a function of management, claiming that leading is not a specialized
phenomenon nor an entirely distinct activity, but simply an aspect of managing. Conversely,
Plachy (2009) insists that leadership is not a wiser posture than managership, or a substitute
for managership, or a kind of managership.
Leadership is an increasingly ubiquitous subject in business school curricula, a theme of
popular business books, and a topic for academic practice and research (Doh, 2003). Numerous descriptions of leadership have been created by these researchers. A well-known and
relatively short list of leadership practices was created by Kouzes and Posner (1987). They
134
DEAN PORR
described five fundamental practices which enable leaders to get extraordinary things accomplished. These practices serve as the basis for the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), an
assessment tool widely used in leadership training (Kouzes & Posner, 1987). Their leadership
practices are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Model the way
Inspire a shared vision
Challenge the process
Enable others to act
Encourage the heart
The Task versus Relations Comparison
An accepted leadership concept in the early twentieth century was the one-dimensional
continuum between leader behaviors described as being task-oriented and those that were
more people-oriented. It was acceptable to describe someone in the simplistic terms of being
a task-master or a people-person. A few modern researchers continue to think in these terms.
Bryman (1992) referred to leadership and management as two sides of the same coin. Plachy
(2009) suggested that managing and leading form a continuum, one to the other. He felt the
concepts fit together neatly.
This one-dimensional philosophy was challenged in the 1950’s by the work of scholars
at Ohio State (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Stogdill,
1963) and the University of Michigan (Cartwright & Zander, 1960; Katz & Kahn, 1951;
Likert, 1961). These pioneering researchers separated the concern for task and the concern
for relations into separate behaviors capable of independent measurement. The findings became the basis for various two-dimensional grids used in other leadership theories.
Important additions have been made to the two-dimensional theories as leadership scholars
build on the original model. Yukl (2004) created Tri-dimensional leadership theory, identifying the important concept of change into a new dimension apart from either task or relations.
The task versus relations comparison has evolved from a one-dimensional continuum to
numerous two-dimensional theories to expanded multi-dimensional concepts. If expanding
our knowledge of task and relations has been beneficial in advancing leadership pedagogy,
the same may be true for the concepts of management and leadership.
Problem Statement
The two-factor model of management versus leadership is a dichotomy that provides some
insights, but it oversimplifies a complex phenomenon and encourages stereotyping of individuals (Yukl, 1999). This oversimplification is recognized, as scholarly interest in differentiating leadership from other related phenomena such as management is growing (Cogliser
& Brigham, 2004). Scholars realize there are additional ways of describing the skills and
behaviors of influential people that are not contained in the two-factor model.
This paper asks the question: if the task versus relations comparison can be expanded to
increase our understanding of leadership, why can’t the same reasoning be applied to the
management versus leadership comparison? The two-factor model is deficient in its ability
135
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
to adequately describe all types of influence. An initial step in this process is to investigate
what is known in existing literature.
Management versus Leadership Literature Review
Management and leadership have been found to be quantitatively different and mutually
exclusive, requiring different skills and personality traits (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Zaleznik,
1977). Toor and Ofori (2008) concur, claiming management and leadership are entirely
different functions based on their underlying philosophies, functions, and outcomes. They
believe leaders and managers are not the same people, and many people just know intuitively
that leadership is different than management (Toor & Ofori, 2008). Kotter (2006) insists
that it is unusual for one person to have the skills to serve as both an aspiring leader and a
professional manager. He also found a tendency in large organizations to set leadership skills
aside in favor of managing the workplace.
Researchers have often looked at personal characteristics as a means of differentiating
between the two groups. In comparison to managers, leaders have been found to be more
emotional and oriented to the future (Bacon & Struggles, 2004), more flexible, innovative,
and adaptive (Yukl, 2002), and more inclined toward movement and change (Kotter, 2006).
From a communication perspective, leaders are more frank and participative than managers
(Toor & Ofori, 2008), and more multidirectional in their influence with followers (Rost,
1991).
Managers have been described as more scientific in nature, structured and deliberate in
their approach, authoritative and stabilizing in their behavior, and persistent and tough minded
in their routine (Toor & Ofori, 2008). Because managers favor order and efficiency, a managerial orientation seems more appropriate when the external environment is relatively stable
and maintaining efficient operations is critical (Yukl, 2002). Change oriented people (leaders)
seem more appropriate in times of environmental turmoil when it is necessary to make strategic changes to deal with opportunities and threats (Yukl, 2002).
Another view of the management versus leadership comparison deals with the similarities
between the two terms. Plachy (2009) believes leaders and managers are kindred spirits who
believe in the same visions and values. Northouse (2007) stresses that both leadership and
management involve influence, working with people, and effective goal accomplishment.
Although some researchers view leading and managing as distinct processes, they do not
assume that leaders and managers are different types of people (Bass, 1990; Hickman, 1990;
Kotter, 1999; Mintzberg, 1973; Rost, 1991).
The similarities between management and leadership create a functional overlap. Management functions potentially provide leadership and leadership activities potentially contribute
to managing (Bass, 1990; Zaleznik, 1977). Numerous scholars point out that leadership and
management are interrelated and may sometimes perform a similar function and achieve the
same goals; however they are different and distinct skills (Bass, 1990; Bateman & Snell,
1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1992; Hay & Hodgkinson, 2006; Kotter, 1990; Perloff, 2004;
Yukl, 1999; Zaleznik, 1977).
In real life, hard management can be combined with soft leadership to provide the best of
both worlds (Watson, 1983). Today’s organization needs both kinds of people; managers
and leaders (Goetsch & Davis, 2001; Taffinder, 2001). This is true at all levels, from first
136
DEAN PORR
line supervisors to executives (Hay & Hodgkinson, 2006). A more credible view is that
people can use a mix of leading and managing behaviors (Hickman, 1990; Kotter, 1990).
Expanding the Two-factor Model
The influence concepts of timelines and personal choice help identify the inadequacies of
the simple two-factor model. Plachy (2009) believes that the decision to manage or lead
depends on whose needs are most demanding at the moment. Eden and Levitan (1975)
concluded that leadership is in the mind of the follower, a basic premise of intrinsic leadership
theory. People are more likely to voluntarily follow someone who they believe to be competent, and that judgment of competence can vary with time.
A judgment of competence can be based on the follower’s perceptions of the leader’s
specific knowledge and abilities. Two potential areas of such knowledge and abilities are
administrative or operational processes. The term administration has many definitions, but
the practice of implementing policy (answers.com) is brief and appropriate for this application.
The term operations refers to a system that transforms inputs into outputs of greater value
(Russell & Taylor, 2007). Operations are the main reason that an organization exists (Russell
& Taylor, 2007), the justification for existence of the enterprise (Millett, 1967).
The addition of the concepts of administration and operations to the two-factor model of
management versus leadership creates new possibilities for explaining influence. One
method of understanding these additional influence considerations is to look at various types
of ineffectiveness due to deficiencies in the two new areas. Figure 1 is a visual representation
of the expanded four-factor model which may be helpful in understanding the examples.
Figure 1: Expanded Four-factor Model
137
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
Examples of Administrative and Operational Deficiencies
Example 1: Weak Administrative Skills
Mary is the new Superintendent for the local public school district. She is well organized
and practices many good management skills. She is considered charismatic, inspirational,
with good leadership skills. As a successful former teacher, she has experience in the operational portion of public education. Mary’s weakness is in the areas of administration. She
was hired from out-of-state without any experience in a union environment. She has a poor
knowledge of the state laws governing public schools and a poor understanding of the two
union contracts with teachers and staff. She has made inaccurate comments in public and
exercised poor judgment in executive meetings. Her credibility with the community and
school employees is poor.
Example 2: Weak Operational Skills
Bill is the manager of a local manufacturing plant. He is considered a well-organized person
with many desirable management attributes. He is an inspirational speaker, constantly challenging plant employees with his successful leadership style. He has created an efficient
administrative network to keep abreast of new policies. Bill’s weakness is his limited understanding of the plant’s manufacturing processes. His previous career in sales only required
a superficial understanding of how the product was manufactured. Bill has very little credibility in his organization, from the hourly employees on the production floor to his corporate
bosses.
Example 3: Excessive Concern for Administration
Jane was recently promoted to manager of the Purchasing department. She worked her way
up through the organization without the benefit of a formal education. Her personal perspective on the position causes her to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the
minor details of her department. This procedural compulsion leaves her with too little time
for activities such as budgeting (management), challenging supplier quotes (leadership), or
improving department efficiency (operations). Jane has less influence within her company
than her peers who exhibit a more balanced perspective on job responsibilities.
Example 4: Excessive Concern for Operations
John has been the manager of the Engineering department for many years. Reminiscent of
when the department was much smaller, he still insists on doing a great deal of routine engineering work. This preoccupation with operations causes his other influence areas to suffer.
He spends too little time planning (management), developing his new employees (leadership),
or keeping up with new company policies (administration). John is viewed as an old-fashioned
manager who prefers operational activities to more pertinent responsibilities. His influence
in the company has diminished over the years.
138
DEAN PORR
Conclusion and Recommendations
Weak administrative or operational skills can reduce a person’s ability to influence others.
Excessive time spent in either of these areas can also have a detrimental effect on the ability
to perform well in the other areas. In addition to the traditional management versus leadership
comparison, a balance between the administrative and operational areas is needed in order
for a person of influence to be most effective.
Strengths in one area of influence may not be able to make up for deficiencies in another.
Capowski (1994) claimed that vision without structure (leadership without management) is
likely to result in chaos, while structure without vision (management without leadership)
will result in complacency. The introduction of administration and operations creates additional considerations. Structure and vision without knowledge of policies (administration)
may result in oversights. Structure and vision without accomplishment (operations) may
result in decreased competitiveness.
The need to clarify the different types of influence factors is becoming more apparent.
Misunderstanding between the concept of management and leadership may cause organizations to face difficulties in efforts to develop the right talent for the right job (Toor & Ofori,
2008; Zaleznik, 1977). Making these types of staffing decisions without proper regard for
administrative and operational concerns could be just as harmful. One solution to this problem
lies in developing more inclusive leadership pedagogy.
This paper is a pilot study, an invitation for instructors and scholars of leadership to consider expanding the two-factor model to include administration and operations. Discussing
the skills and behaviors of these two additional concepts can improve leadership pedagogy.
Future leadership students and the organizations they influence may benefit from the efforts
of such expansion.
References
Answers.com. (2010). “Dictionary: administration” Viewed on May 14, 2010 on http://answers.com/topic/administration.
Bacon, T., & Struggles, H. (2004). Developing Better Asset Management Leadership. Duango, CO:
International Institute.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, 3rd ed. New York, Free Press.
Bateman, T. S. & Snell, S. A. (1999). Management: Building Competitive Advantage, 4th ed. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harpers
& Row.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations, New York: Sage.
Capowski, G. (1994). Anatomy of a leader: Where are the leaders of tomorrow? Management Review,
83(3), 10-14.
Carlisle, H. M. (1976). Management: Concepts and Situations. Chicago: Science Research Associates,
Inc.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1960). Group dynamics research and theory. Evanston, IL: Row,
Peterson.
139
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2004) The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual
lessons to be learned. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 771-799.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1992). Perceived behavioral attributes of charismatic leadership.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24(1), 86-102.
Doh, J. P. (2003). Can leadership be taught? Perspectives from management educators. Academy of.
Management Learning and Education. 2(1), 54-67.
Eden, D., & Levitan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60, 736-741.
Fagiano, D. (1997) Managers vs. leaders: A corporate fable. Management Review. 86(10), 5-9.
Fayol, H. (1916). General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1-6.
Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2001). Total Quality Handbook. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Gordon, A. & Yukl, G. (2004). The future of leadership research: Challenges and opportunities. German
Journal of Human Resource Research. 18, 359-365.
Griffin, R. W. (1984) Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M.
Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (39-51).
Columbus Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Hay, A., & Hodginson, M. (2006). Rethinking leadership: A way forward for teaching leadership?
Leadership and Organizational Development. 27(2), 144-158.
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire.
In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement
(6-38). Columbus Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Hickman, C. F. (1990). Mind of a manager, soul of a leader. New York: John Wiley.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1951). Human organization and worker motivation. In L. R. Tripp (Ed.), Industrial Productivity. 146-171. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York: Free
Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1999). John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press Books.
Kotter, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: What’s the difference? The Journal for Quality &
Participation. Summer, 2006, 13-17.
Kouzes, J. M.,& Posner, B. N. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things
done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Likert, R. (1961). New pattern of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mangham, I. & Pye, A. (1991). The Doing of Managing. Oxford: Blackwell.
Millett, J. D. (1967). Enterprise – Operations and Administration: Some notes on a systematic theory
of organized endeavor. Public Administration Review, December 1967.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Perloff, R. (2004). Managing and Leading: The Universal Importance of, and Differentiation between,
Two Essential Functions. Talk presented at Oxford University, July 14-15.
Plachy, R. J. (2009). When to lead? When to manage? T+D , 63(12), 52-55.
Rausch, C. F., & Behling, O. (1984). Functionalism: Basis for an alternate approach to the study of
leadership. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders
and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavioral and leadership. 45-62.
Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Robbins, S. R., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management, 10th ed., New Jersey, Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Praeger.
140
DEAN PORR
Russell, R. S. & Taylor, B. W. (2007). Operations management: Creating value along the supply
chain, 6 th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sanborn, M. (1996). Are you a leader or a manager? American Agent and Broker, 68(12), 43-47.
Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire form XII. Columbus:
Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Taffinder, P. (2001). The leadership crash course: A 6 step fast-track self-development program.
London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Terry, R. W. (1993). Authentic Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2008). Leadership versus management: How they are different, and why.
Leadership and Management in Engineering. 8(2), 61-71.
Watson, C. M. (1983). Leadership, management and the seven keys. The McKinsey Quarterly, Autumn,
1983, 44-52.
Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 33-48.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (2004). Tridimensional leadership theory: A road-map for flexible, adaptive leaders. In
Burke, R. J., and Cooper, C. (Eds.) Leading in Turbulent Times. Blackwell, Oxford, 75-91.
Zaccaro, S. J. & Horn, Z. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective symbiosis.
Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 769-806.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 6778.
About the Author
Dr. Dean Porr
I joined Kent State University 5 years ago after spending 30 years in industry and receiving
my Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership. My work experiences were quite broad, involving
8 organizations in numerous locations in the United States, Canada, and England. I teach
various undergraduate management courses at a regional campus. My students are non-traditional; many work full-time and represent the first generation in their family to attend
college. I have established a local Community Leadership Program and provide leadership
instruction to civic organizations. My research interests include various leadership projects
and instructional areas that I believe will help my students. I am currently involved in creating
a hybrid course delivery system that offers certain benefits over either traditional or on-line
courses for regional campus students.
141
Copyright of International Journal of Learning is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Alumnihelp’s honor code & terms of service.