Select Page

the title is Theory Analysisno plagiarize, spell check, and check your grammar. In a paper of 2,500- words (10 pages, excluding title and references pages) The Yukl (2013) text describes classic theories of leadership and management as well as more contemporary approaches to leadership and management. , compare and contrast one of the classic theories of leadership and management with a current trend in leadership and management. Evaluate the efficacy of both approaches as they apply to your personal (or desired) tendencies to effectively lead others. Reference at least three additional resources in addition to the required course readings.References McLean, J. (2005). Management and Leadership. Manager: British Journal of Administrative Management, (49), 16. Retrieved from…. Plachy, R. J. (2009). WHEN TO LEAD? WHEN TO MANAGE? T + D, 63(12), 52-55,8. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy-library.ashford…. Pretorius, S., Steyn, H., & Bond-Barnard, T. J. (2018). Leadership Styles in Projects: Current Trends and Future Opportunities. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 29(3), 161–172.… Gary A. Yukl. “Chapter 1 Introduction: The Nature of Leadership”. Leadership in Organizations, 8/e Prentice Hall. 1. RedShelf,…Gary A. Yukl. “Chapter 2 Nature of Managerial Work”. Leadership in Organizations, 8/e Prentice Hall. 23. RedShelf,…Gary A. Yukl. “Chapter 3 Effective Leadership Behavior”. Leadership in Organizations, 8/ePrentice Hall. 48. RedShelf,


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Theory Analysis: Theories of leadership and management
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay


Unformatted Attachment Preview

June/July 2005
Regular Header
Management and Leadership
dispelling the myths
With good
Administrative Management…
Are Management
and Leadership
two separate
Jacqueline McLean
If you have any
views on this
subject, please
write to me
care of:
Roy Bass,
Production Editor,
Warners Group
West Street,
Bourne, Lincs
PE10 9PH.
I will publish the
best letters
Jacqueline McLean
FlnstAM is Senior
Lecturer in HRM
(Human Resources
Management) at
Metropolitan University
and a Non-Executive
Director and Trustee
(Member of Council) of
the IAM. Jacqueline,
who has worked with
the Institute since 1992,
is Chair of the IAM’s
Education Committee.
… the sky’s the limit
PART of the Management task (which is by no means an easy feat
in itself) includes the responsibility to lead others. Leadership could
therefore be described as a core activity of any manager. However,
there is a great deal of debate as to whether Management and
Leadership are two distinctly different activities, or whether they are,
in fact, one and the same.
Without doubt, no organisation can survive without Management
and without Leadership. History bears testament to this, and I’m
sure you could think of many examples where bad Management and
Leadership has sunk some of the most popular high street companies.
I’m going to focus, not on the shortcomings of such cases, however,
but on the debate surrounding Management and Leadership, and
on dispelling some of the myths that have built up over the years
about these essential organisational tasks.
Are Management and Leadership Different
The terms Management and Leadership are often used
interchangeably, but some theorists argue that there are distinct
differences between the two activities, as suggested by Rollinson
A manager:
n is formally appointed to a role in the hierarchy.
n is associated with formal authority.
n directs the actions of subordinates.
n plans, organises, directs and controls the activities of human
resources towards the achievement of set objectives.
A leader:
n occupies a role which involves conforming to a set of behavioural
norms and expectations that emanate from followers.
n is conferred power from followers that allow him/her to influence
their actions.
According to Iscoe (2005), if people are given a choice, they would
rather follow a leader than a manager. He adds “To manage is to
control and manipulate
,” which is a far cry from Henri Fayol’s original
definition of Management! I’m not sure whether I would put it that
strongly, but as Rollinson (and indeed Fayol) point out, a major part of
managing is being concerned with aspects of planning, organising,
directing and controlling. Maybe, included in all this, is an element of
manipulation – but is it a case of the end justifying the means?
In contrast, Iscoe adds that “to lead is to influence and persuade”.
This appears much ‘softer’ than the manager’s task but, in reality, just
how much of this ‘influencing and persuasion’ is open to manipulation?
You may have your own views, based on your experiences.
Management vs Leadership
In many academic circles, the Management task is often presented as
‘Management versus Leadership’. This gives the perception that they are
in competition with each other to be the organisation’s ‘Holy Grail’
solution! Far from being competitive activities, both are essential and both
have their place – they just have different emphases.
Some managers are born to manage and are very good at it, but they
are not necessarily good leaders. Similarly, some leaders are great at
rallying the troops and getting everyone singing from the same hymn
sheet, but they aren’t necessarily good managers. A manager manages
using authority – or the right to get others to do things by virtue of their
positional power or status in the hierarchy. A leader leads through the
ability to influence other people to do things, using a certain degree of
personal power or charisma. Pascale (1990) further suggests that
““managers do things right” (manage by the book/company policy), “while

leaders do the right thing”” (lead by intuition).
According to Kotter (2005), Leadership and Management are “two
distinctive and complementary systems of action. Each has its own
function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success in an
increasingly complex and volatile business environment…strong Leadership
with weak Management is no better, and is sometimes actually worse,
than the reverse. The real challenge is to combine strong Leadership and
strong Management, and use each to balance the other.”
Leadership as a Facet of Management
The scenario presented above does suggest that Management and
Leadership are two different activities. However, there is the argument
that Leadership is a facet of Management and therefore cannot be
separated. According to the School of Engineering and Electronics (SEE)
at the University of Edinburgh, a manager’s main aim is to “maximise the
output of the organisation through administrative implementation.”” It
does this through Fayol’s five functions of Management. Within these
functions is commanding or directing. This is essentially a Leadership
On the other hand, in many 21st Century organisations, self-managed
teams are predominantly used to complete day-to-day business activities.
In these teams, Leadership may not necessarily be required, as individuals
are self-motivated, empowered and autonomous. This, according to SEE,
suggests “the fact that a leader is not always required proves that
Leadership is just an asset and is not essential”. You may have your own
To conclude, the Management task is interwoven with elements of
Management and Leadership. Both activities are essential to enable
objectives and strategies to be achieved, business activities and human
resources to be managed, change to be effectively achieved, and projected
profits and organisational success to be achieved. In the words of Jim
Clemmer (2005) “Both Management and Leadership are needed to make
teams and organisations successful. Trying to decide which is more
important is like trying to decide whether the right or left wing is more
important to an airplane’s flight. I’ll take both please!”
South African Journal of Industrial Engineering November 2018 Vol 29(3) Special Edition, pp 161-172
S. Pretorius1*#, H.Steyn1 & T.J. Bond-Barnard1
Article details
Presented at the 29th annual conference
of the Southern African Institute for
Industrial Engineering (SAIIE), held from
24-26 October 2018 in Stellenbosch,
South Africa
Currently, many organisations experience challenges as a result of
uncertainty, fast-changing environments, globalisation, and
increasingly complex work tasks. In order to adapt to these
challenges, a shift in leadership style may be needed. Traditionally,
leadership has been seen as a vertical relationship (top-down
influence). For a number of decades, this vertical leadership model
has been the principal one in the leadership field; but lately, shared
and balanced leadership have gained importance, especially in the
project management literature. This theoretical study highlights
some differences between ‘leadership’ and ‘management’, and
explores current trends in the leadership literature. It especially
focuses on vertical, shared, and balanced leadership in project
management, and identifies future opportunities for research.
Available online
9 Nov 2018
Contact details
Corresponding author
[email protected]
Author affiliations
Department of Engineering and
Technology Management,
University of Pretoria, South
The author was enrolled for a PhD
(Project Management) in the
Department of Engineering and
Technology Management,
University of Pretoria, South
Baie organisasies ervaar vandag uitdagings as gevolg van
onsekerheid, vinnig-veranderende omgewings, globalisering, en
toenemend komplekse werkstake. ’n Verskuiwing in leierskapstyl
mag nodig wees om aan te pas by hierdie uitdagings. Tradisioneel
was leierskap gesien as ’n vertikale verhouding (bo-na-onder
invloed), en hierdie vertikale leierskapsmodel was die vernaamste
een in die leierskapsveld vir baie jare. Gedeelde en gebalanseerde
leierskap het onlangs begin om belangrik te word, veral in die
projekbestuursliteratuur. Hierdie teoretiese studie bespreek
sommige verskille tussen leierskap en bestuur, en ondersoek die
onlangse rigtings in die leierskapsliteratuur. Dit fokus veral op
vertikale, gedeelde, en gebalanseerde leierskap in projekbestuur,
en identifiseer toekomstige geleenthede vir navorsing.
Over the past two decades, the general perception of an organisation as a ‘machine’, in which
leaders at the top of the hierarchy direct and control processes, has changed [1]. In its place, the
organisation can be seen as a dynamic system of interrelated relationships and networks of
influence. In order to accommodate this paradigm shift in thinking about the organisation, a change
in the concept of leadership has also taken place [1].
The increasing application of empowered teams, coupled with the flattening of organisational
structures, results in the need for a shift in the more traditional models of leadership [2]. Turner
and Müller [3] demonstrate that leadership is a critical success factor for projects. Müller et al. [4]
state that research on project leadership is becoming increasingly important for project
management as a profession. Studies on balanced leadership are limited, and are not linked to a
general framework that would allow scholars to theorise about it or practitioners to use it
deliberately to the advantage of their projects [5].
Traditionally, leadership has been perceived as a single individual (the formally appointed leader)
leading a number of subordinates or followers. This relationship has been a vertical one of top-down
influence that could also be called ‘vertical’ leadership. For a number of decades, this leadership
model has been the principal one in the leadership field. Recently however, researchers have
challenged this notion [6]. New models of leadership have emerged, leading to the so-called ‘postheroic’ or shared leadership approach. The intention of this innovative approach to leadership is to
transform organisational practices, structures, and interdependencies. This evolving leadership
model holds that effective leadership does not depend on individual, heroic leaders, but rather on
leadership practices at different levels within the organisational hierarchy, as it is a group-level
phenomenon [1,4].
The objective of this study is to contribute to the body of knowledge in the field of leadership
pertaining to project management. This study is intended for both scholars and practitioners, as it
aims to provide them with new insights into current trends in the literature pertaining to leadership
— specifically, vertical and shared leadership — and future opportunities for research.
We start the literature review with a brief history of the development of leadership theory and
Leadership theories: A brief history
For more than a century, ‘leadership’ has been a focus of academic introspection. Finding a
definition for the term has proved to be challenging for researchers and practitioners alike, and no
consensus has been reached [7]. Barker [8] says that everyone generally knows what leadership is,
until asked to define it. The word ‘leadership’ has different meanings for different people. Modern
leadership theories started to develop during the Industrial Revolution, when mainly economists
started paying attention to it [9]. The industrial-era leadership theories were based on the
hierarchical outlook adopted by the early Christian Church, which believed that leadership was
centralised in the person at the top of the hierarchy and in that individual’s excellent qualities and
abilities to manage his subordinates, as well as the activities of this person in relation to goal
achievement [8].
Definitions of leadership have evolved constantly during the past decade [7]. Rost [10] studied
material written from 1900 to 1990, and found more than 200 different definitions for leadership. It
became increasingly clear to scholars that it is probably impossible to devise one common definition
of leadership, due to such factors as growing global influences and generational differences.
Leadership may continue to mean different things to different people [7].
Despite the diverse number of ways in which leadership has been conceptualised, there are certain
components that are most frequently central to the phenomenon. They are the following [7]:

Leadership is a process — i.e., a transactional occurrence that takes place between leaders and
followers. “The leader affects and is affected by followers”. Leadership is not limited to a
designated leader, but is available to everyone.
Leadership encompasses influence — i.e., how the leader affects followers. It is a continuous
social process [8].
Leadership takes place in groups — i.e., a leader influences a group of individuals who have a
common purpose.
Leadership involves common goals — i.e., leaders and followers have a mutual purpose.
Leadership is not the property of the project manager, but instead a property of the project
itself [11].
Leadership is both an individual and an institutional trait [12].
Leadership approaches, theories, and styles
A number of leadership approaches, theories, and styles have featured in the literature in the past
couple of decades. All of them have their strengths, weaknesses, and criticisms, which will not be
covered in this study due to scope limitations. These approaches, theories, and styles briefly include,
but are not limited to, the following:
2.2.1 Trait approach
This methodology is built on the theory that people are born with certain traits that make them
great leaders. The instinctive leadership talents of great social, political, and military leaders (e.g.,
Abraham Lincoln, Mohandas Gandhi, and Napoleon Bonaparte) were identified and used to
determine the specific traits that separated leaders from followers [7].
2.2.2 Skills approach
Leadership skills are those abilities that can be acquired and developed through practice and
training. They can be further divided into technical skills and human skills, and include problemsolving skills, social-judgement skills, and knowledge [13].
2.2.3 Behavioural approach
In this approach, it is believed that leaders are responsible for shaping an environment that
empowers followers to realise specific tasks. In other words, leaders can manage their subordinates’
behaviour through staging antecedents and consequences of behaviour. There is a dynamic, mutual
interaction between the leader, the follower, and the environment. Environmental factors include
technology, organisational structure, type of task, and the size of the organisation [14].
2.2.4 Situational approach
Hersey and Blanchard developed this approach in 1969, and it focuses on the principle that different
situations demand different kinds of leadership. Leadership comprises both a directive and a
supportive dimension, and each has to be applied in a particular situation. The core of the situational
approach requires that leaders match their style (directive or supportive) to the competence and
commitment of the followers [7].
2.2.5 Psychodynamic approach
This model uses one principal central concept, that of personality, which is defined as a constant
pattern of thinking, feeling, and acting toward the environment, which also includes other people.
This approach therefore concentrates on the personalities of leaders and subordinates [13].
2.2.6 Path-goal theory
According to this theory, effective leaders influence their followers’ motivation, ability to perform
well, and satisfaction. This theory focuses mainly on how the leader affects his/her followers’
perception of their work, personal goals, and paths to goal realisation. The leader’s behaviour should
increase subordinate goal achievement and illuminate the paths to these goals [15].
2.2.7 Leader-member exchange theory
This theory focuses on the relationship between leader and follower. The leaders develop
individualised relationships with each of their subordinates, and leadership becomes apparent when
leaders and followers are able to establish real interactions that result in reciprocal and incremental
influence [16].
2.2.8 Strategic leadership
This type of leadership focuses on how executive leaders influence organisational performance, thus
addressing leadership occurrences at the upper levels of organisations [17].
2.2.9 Transformational leadership
Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber [16] define transformational leadership as “leader behaviours that
transform and inspire followers to perform beyond expectations while transcending self-interest for
the good of the organisation”. This type of leadership includes the four aspects of idealised
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual motivation, and individualised attention [13]. An
example of transformational leadership in an organisation would be a manager who tries to change
his/her company’s corporate values “to reflect a more humane standard of fairness and justice”.
While doing this, both manager and subordinates may develop higher and stronger moral values [7].
This leadership type is primarily people-focused [3].
2.2.10 Transactional leadership
The bulk of the leadership models can be categorised under transactional leadership, which centres
on the interactions that occur between leaders and subordinates. It occurs when managers offer
promotions or financial incentives to employees who exceed their goals [7]. This leadership type is
largely task-focused [3].
2.2.11 Servant leadership
Servant leaders want to serve by ensuring that their followers’ highest priority needs are being
served. They place the good of their followers over their own self-interests, and exhibit strong moral
behaviour [7]. Servant leadership can be viewed as a trait or a behaviour [13].
2.2.12 Authentic leadership
Here the main emphasis is on the leader’s genuineness (authenticity/truthfulness). The leader is
transparent, and exhibits ethical behaviour that promotes openness in sharing the information
needed to make decisions while taking followers’ contributions in consideration. Authentic
leadership is collectively viewed in three diverse conducts: intrapersonal, developmental, and
interpersonal [13,16]. This leadership style centres around trust, and is motivated by the well-being
of the followers [18].
2.2.13 Charismatic leadership
This type of leadership arises in times of distress, uncertainty, or extreme enthusiasm, and exists in
a range of social relationships. It is powered by emotion and the frantic commitment of followers.
The charismatic leader can arise from outside of the formal organisational hierarchy, and does not
need to be an appointed leader. Charisma is seen as a talent that is innate to an individual.
Charismatic leaders usually disappear suddenly once their inborn talents are no longer needed or
when they no longer exist [19].
2.2.14 Laissez-faire
A laissez-faire leader typically circumvents making decisions, delegates responsibility, and does not
enforce authority [3].
Pearce and Wassenaar [20] are of the opinion that all the above labels are “simply the p …
Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP