Leadership And Leadership: A Comparative Concept Analysis

Table of contents:

Video: Leadership And Leadership: A Comparative Concept Analysis

Video: Leadership And Leadership: A Comparative Concept Analysis
Video: Concept Analysis Assignment 2024, March
Leadership And Leadership: A Comparative Concept Analysis
Leadership And Leadership: A Comparative Concept Analysis
Anonim

From ancient times until the twentieth century, leadership was viewed exclusively in the context of the position of the ruler. The first attempts to study leadership can be seen in such treatises as: "Arthashastra", compiled by the adviser - the brahmana Kautilya, "The Art of War" [11] (Sun-tzu, VI-V centuries BC), "Hai Fei-tzu”(Hai Fei, III century BC) and“36 stratagems”[9], as well as in the works of Shen Buhai [14] (IV century BC). Of the late thinkers, we can note N. Machiavelli, who formed the image of the leader-sovereign in the book "Sovereign" [10]. However, all these attempts to describe leadership have little to do with the modern scientific approach to the problem.

On the other hand, despite the modern scientific method, the issue of distinguishing between leadership and leadership is relevant today for certain reasons. Thus, most research in the field of leadership is carried out abroad, and the leading theories, models and methods of leadership formation, most often, are supplied from the United States. The problem lies in the very concept of "leadership" abroad and in its Russian interpretation, which will be discussed further.

Foreign Attempts to Separate Leaders from Leaders

In foreign theories, a leader is most often understood as a person holding a certain position. The reason for this lies in the fact that the English word "leadership" is synonymous with the concepts of "leadership" and "leadership" in Russian. As a result, the phenomena of leadership and leadership in English-speaking countries are not separate from each other.

Of course, a number of English-speaking authors have attempted to separate these concepts by using the word "headship" as opposed to "leadership", but, unfortunately, in many Western theories, the concepts of leadership and leadership remain the same.

For the first time, S. Gibb drew attention to this problem, who tried to separate the given concepts (Table 1).

Table 1.

Differences between leadership and leadership according to S. Jibbu [2]

S. Gibb drew attention to the meaningful moments of the phenomena of leadership and leadership, describing them in various terms. Although some of them are controversial, they nevertheless indicated a certain trend in the study of this issue.

In 1977, Abraham Zaleznik also tried to articulate the difference between leaders and managers (Table 2).

Table 2.

Table of comparative characteristics of managers and leaders according to A. Zaleznik [4]

In the foreign literature, one more author can be noted, who formulated a number of differences between leaders and managers (Table 3). It was the modern American psychologist Warren Bennis.

Table 3.

The Difference Between Manager and Leader by Warren Bennis [1]

Approaches to the separation of leadership and leadership in Russian literature

Despite the fact that most Russian authors borrow the concept of leadership from foreign sources, we have seen a big breakthrough in this area. The specificity of the original Russian research on leadership lies in the opposition of the concepts of "leadership" and "leadership".

Russian authors distinguish two components in the phenomenon of leadership: leadership or administration and leadership. Leadership is understood as a factor in the formal structure that provides social organization and management of group activities [5]. Leadership is a purposeful impact on people, which leads to their conscious and active behavior, in accordance with the intentions of the leader [5, 49];

Leadership is understood as the process of a person's psychological influence on other people during their joint life, which is carried out on the basis of imitation, perception, understanding of each other, suggestion [12, 61].

Based on this, many authors have tried to present their classifications of the differences between the leader and the leader.

In 1971 B. D. Parygin, highlighted a number of differences between leadership and leadership:

  1. the leader regulates interpersonal relations in the group, and the head of official relations;
  2. leadership emerges in the microenvironment, while leadership is an element of the macroenvironment, acting in the system of social relations;
  3. leadership arises spontaneously, a leader is appointed or elected;
  4. leadership depends on the mood of the group, leadership is more stable;
  5. leadership, unlike leadership, has a system of sanctions;
  6. the decision-making process by the leader is more complex and does not always have its origins in the group, the leader's decisions always refer to the group;
  7. leader's field of activity - small group; the leader represents a small group in a wider social system.

Later, Russian researchers actively attempted to develop their own view of the opposition of these concepts. For example, R. S. Filonovich gives the following list of distinctive features of the leader from the leader:

Leader: an innovator, works according to his goals, inspires, the basis for action is a vision of perspective, uses emotions, relies on people, trusts, enthusiast, gives impetus to movement, implements solutions.

Manager: administrator, relies on the system, instructs, the basis of action is a plan, works according to the goals of others, uses arguments, controls, professional, supports the movement, makes decisions [12].

A. A. Romanov and A. A. Khodyrev identified their parameters as a leader and leader. They are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

The parameters of the leader and the leader in relation to each other [15]

A. A. Urbanovich formulates an extensive list of differences between leadership and leadership (Table 5).

Table 5.

Differences between leadership and leadership according to A. A. Urbanovich [13]

O. V. Evtikhov summarizing different ideas about the difference between leadership and leadership, gives his own classification of differences [3]:

  1. functional - leadership is an attribute of the formal structure and characterizes formal relationships. Leadership characterizes the psychological informal relationships that arise "vertically" (dominance-submission);
  2. conditions of emergence and termination - the head is officially appointed or elected. Official rights and obligations are removed upon dismissal. Leadership arises naturally through the interaction of group members. The leader's power persists as long as there are people willing to follow him;
  3. sources of power - the leader is endowed with official rights related to the organization of the group's activities. A leader's power is based on authority and reinforced by established group norms.

Criticism of modern approaches to the separation of leadership and leadership

  1. Differences in status. Indeed, we can talk about a certain degree of difference in status between leaders and followers and leaders and subordinates. This is confirmed by E. Hollander's theory of idiosyncratic credit [3]. However, social status can act both as a supportive factor in leadership, when it increases the authority of the leader, and as a factor leveling leadership, when followers negatively view the social status of the leader. Thus, it makes sense to talk not about the very fact of the gap in status, but about the size of this gap. Another important aspect is how the leader himself uses this gap: it is not the very fact of differences in status that is more important, but how a particular leader builds interpersonal relationships with subordinates.
  2. The leader is chosen spontaneously, while the leader is officially appointed. The author of the article defends the opinion that the appointment of a leader cannot be spontaneous. The leader is selected by exhibiting a certain behavior and the behavioral style that is most acceptable in a given situation. The leader can also be chosen as the most dominant individual in the group, based on the theory of social dominance. Thus, the leader is not chosen spontaneously, but in a different way than the leader.
  3. The leader is indifferent to the opinion of the group members, and he sets goals independently of them. To say that the leader does not take into account the interests of subordinates at all is an exaggerated opinion, if only for the reason that their productivity depends on the satisfaction of subordinates. The leader will ignore the opinion of subordinates only up to certain limits. Moreover, he will try to make subordinates satisfied with their work. The latter can be said about the leader, but for him the satisfaction of the needs of the followers will be a higher priority. Moreover, the leader may be encouraged to sacrifice his own interests and goals of the followers, for the sake of another group of people, or a higher goal. In the case of a manager, such an effect is extremely difficult to achieve. The difference manifests itself in the methods of meeting the needs of the followers. The leader will rely on external motivation, the leader - on internal. The leader will prioritize efficiency, the leader will prioritize meeting the needs of the followers.
  4. Novelty and routine. This parameter is gender specific. In a number of articles by the author and in his master's thesis, two leadership styles based on gender differences have been developed [4] [5]: masculine and feminine. One of them is inherent in a craving for novelty, the other for stability and order. Consequently, both qualities and the desire for novelty and the desire for order can be related to leadership, but the styles of leadership in this case will be different.
  5. Vision and goals. At this point, we note that it is not the fact of difference in vision or goals that is more important, but whether they reflect the needs of followers. The leader formulating this or that goal or vision will reflect the needs of people, while the leader will encourage people to accept what has already been established by the organization, regardless of whether it is a vision or a goal.
  6. Risk avoidance and pursuit. This point was also refuted in the author's model of leadership styles [4], since they again reflect gender characteristics rather than characteristics of leadership and leadership.
  7. Abstractness and concreteness, strategy and tactics. The division by time perspective only indicates differences in the planning system, as well as an attempt to once again present the leader as a more advanced leader. It should be noted, however, that the use of abstract concepts is indeed more inherent in leaders, but this is due to the peculiarities of the language. In abstract concepts, people can always find a reflection of their thoughts and ideas, as well as get a certain emotional charge. Specific information is not always capable of this, unless it directly responds to the goals of the followers.
  8. "People" and "staff". Many emphasize a more "humane" perception of followers by the leader and the view of people as impersonal "personnel" on the part of leaders. This point requires further specification of what the authors mean by the words "people" and "personnel", and what, in this case, is the difference in the relationship between the leader and the leader towards followers and subordinates.
  9. Efficiency and productivity. This clause separates concepts that cover two different aspects of the same phenomenon. In this case, it would be worthwhile to separate leadership and management in the following way: the leader takes care of increasing efficiency through better organization of work, and the leader through the ability to motivate.
  10. Imitation and creation of a new one. This point coincides with the point about novelty and routine. But it is even more divorced from reality, since it refers to a greater extent not to people, but to specific organizations, as leaders in the market. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain the ignorance of the fact that within companies engaged in imitation of goods, one can find their own personalities-leaders.
  11. The leadership lacks a system of sanctions. There is always a system of sanctions, only in the case of leadership - these are official sanctions, and in the case of leadership - unofficial and group.

Before considering the author's approach to the problem, it is worth mentioning another difference in the author's position in comparison with the above - this is a view of leadership and leadership, not as opposite concepts, but as mutually complementary concepts and phenomena. This approach allows us to see an opportunity to improve the efficiency of a leader using a synergistic effect. When we do not develop leadership skills to the detriment of leadership and vice versa, but when we make a real leader out of a leader, and an effective leader out of a leader.

The author's approach to the problem of differences between a leader and a leader

After analyzing the above approaches, it was possible to formulate the author's list of differences between leadership and leadership that may be needed to further study this problem (Table 6).

Table 6.

Table of differences between a leader and a leader (author's approach)

Thus, the differences between the phenomena of leadership and leadership were formulated. It is inappropriate to explain each of them in this case in view of the fact that most of the differences have already been discussed by the above authors, therefore, we will focus on only a few of them.

Thus, the leader has a socio-psychological impact on people, while the leader uses administrative and economic methods. At the same time, the leader is a product of the group and group dynamics, from which comes his power, goals, methods of punishment and encouragement, as well as the method of election. The manager is a product of the organizational structure, i.e. the leader is the mediator of the official structure, its goals, methods of reward and punishment. Since the leader is a product of the group, he also realizes the goals of the group. A group selects a leader when he can help achieve the goals of its followers. People also come to the official structure with their goals, interests and requests, but here they already come to the leader, who is the product of this structure, and not the group, respectively, he implements the goals of the official structure. Hence, a conflict of interest arises: personality and formal structure. It turns out that the interaction between the individual and the official structure is more reminiscent of negotiations, as a result of which the parties come to a compromise, each achieving its own goals. In the case of leadership, the goals of the followers and the leader are the same.

The leader is a unique person. It is tied to the personal relationships of people, their expectations, impressions, emotions, and their own responsibility, since it was they who chose this leader. Followers understand that this person is stronger than each of them individually (otherwise they would not have chosen him) and it is he who will help them achieve their goals. The leader is only an element of the environment. And the attitude towards the leader can be any, since he is appointed by someone from the outside, and not by the group itself.

Both, the leader and the leader, are aimed at improving the effectiveness of group activities. However, this is done using various control functions. The function of a leader is to motivate people, and a leader is an organization. Of course, a leader can also motivate, and a leader can organize, but this is done by different means.

Summarizing what has been said, let us give the following definition of a leader: a leader is the one who initially encourages to follow him.

Another understanding of leadership can be thought of as: Leadership is a way of instilling goals in people and encouraging them to achieve those goals.

The leader, on the other hand, performs the function of the correct organization of the created movement towards the goal.

Thus, from the article it becomes obvious the relationship between the concepts of leadership and leadership, as well as their complementarity. It also becomes clear what prospects this approach opens up, i.e. obtaining a synergistic effect from the development of skills of both a leader and a leader in one person.

Literature

  1. Bennis W. On Becoming a Leader. - New York: Addison Wesley, 1989/1994, - pp. 44-46 /
  2. Gibb C. Leadership // G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology. 2-nded. Reading (Mass.). - Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1969. - No. 4.
  3. Hollander E. P. Inclusive Leadership: The Essential Leader-Follower Relationship. - New York: Routledge. 2009.-- 263 p.
  4. Avdeev P. S. The mechanism of formation of leadership qualities of the head of a foreign trade organization on the example of LLC "Avangard": magician. dis. VAVT, Moscow, 2013.
  5. Avdeev P. A modern view of the formation of leadership styles in an organization // Prospects of the world economy in conditions of uncertainty: materials of scientific and practical conferences of the All-Russian Academy of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia. - M.: VAVT, 2013. (Collection of articles of students and graduate students; Issue 51)
  6. O. V. Evtikhov Leadership potential of a leader: specificity, content and development opportunities. - Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2011.-- P. 23.
  7. Zaleznik A., Managers and Leaders - Synonyms or Antonyms? The main difference between managers and leaders lies in their deep understanding of chaos and order. // Harvard Business Review. - M., 2008. - No. 1-2 (35). - S.109-117.
  8. Kabachenko, T. S. Management Psychology: Textbook. - M.: Pedagogical Society of Russia, 2000.-- 384 p.
  9. Malyavin V. V. Thirty-six stratagems. Chinese secrets of success. - M.: White Alves, 2000.-- 188 p.
  10. Machiavelli N. Sovereign: Works. - Kharkov: Folio, 2001.-- 656 p.
  11. Sun Tzu. The art of strategy. - SPB: Midgard, 2007.-- 528 p.
  12. Tolochek, V. A. Organizational psychology: personnel management of private security and security companies / V. A. Tolochek. - M.: NOU SHO "Bayard", 2004. - 176 p.
  13. Urbanovich A. A. Psychology of management. - Minsk: Harvest, 2005. S. 36-37.
  14. Shen Buhai. Political fragments / per. V. V. Malyavina // Art of Management. - M.: Astrel: AST, 2006.
  15. Shikun, A. F. Management psychology: textbook / A. F. Shikun, I. M. Filinova - M.: Aspect Press, 2002.-- 332 p.

Recommended: