This paper develops a framework to differentiate leadership and management by examining underlying power assumptions. It proposes a four-quadrant model where each quadrant represents a different relationship between leadership, management, and power: 1) managers "doing" leadership, 2) managers "becoming" leaders, 3) "being" leaders and managers, and 4) leaders "doing" management. The framework aims to reduce confusion in the literature and provide clarity on the constructs of leadership and management. It also identifies areas for further research around transitions between roles and understudied quadrants.
This paper develops a framework to differentiate leadership and management by examining underlying power assumptions. It proposes a four-quadrant model where each quadrant represents a different relationship between leadership, management, and power: 1) managers "doing" leadership, 2) managers "becoming" leaders, 3) "being" leaders and managers, and 4) leaders "doing" management. The framework aims to reduce confusion in the literature and provide clarity on the constructs of leadership and management. It also identifies areas for further research around transitions between roles and understudied quadrants.
This paper develops a framework to differentiate leadership and management by examining underlying power assumptions. It proposes a four-quadrant model where each quadrant represents a different relationship between leadership, management, and power: 1) managers "doing" leadership, 2) managers "becoming" leaders, 3) "being" leaders and managers, and 4) leaders "doing" management. The framework aims to reduce confusion in the literature and provide clarity on the constructs of leadership and management. It also identifies areas for further research around transitions between roles and understudied quadrants.
This paper develops a framework to differentiate leadership and management by examining underlying power assumptions. It proposes a four-quadrant model where each quadrant represents a different relationship between leadership, management, and power: 1) managers "doing" leadership, 2) managers "becoming" leaders, 3) "being" leaders and managers, and 4) leaders "doing" management. The framework aims to reduce confusion in the literature and provide clarity on the constructs of leadership and management. It also identifies areas for further research around transitions between roles and understudied quadrants.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Exploring power assumptions in the leadership and management debate
Introduction
This paper develops a conceptual framework for the leadership and management debate by examining power assumptions in the literature. It discusses the confusion surrounding the conceptual underpinnings of leadership and management and offers a framework to help differentiate between the two. The framework expands on the assumption that leadership is a subset of management and introduces the idea of management as a non-positional construct. This perspective has not been explored in leadership studies but is recognized in the general management literature. The paper concludes by offering the framework as a contribution to the field of leadership studies and a means to frame future research.
Relating leadership and management
The literature on leadership and management has been described as an enigma, with theories ranging from them being the same to being mutually exclusive or connected. Recent distinctions based on transactional and transformational leadership, emotional engagement, culture, or problem- solving offer little help in understanding the practical experiences within organizations. These distinctions still demarcate the difference based on basic notions of change in organizations and do not recognize the assumptions about power that underlie how leadership and management are constructed in theory and practice.
Exploring underlying power assumptions
This paper explores the assumptions regarding power in the leadership and management debate. The literature on leadership and management has been criticised for lacking discussion regarding underlying assumptions about power. The concept of leadership has the potential for confusion based on different underlying power constructs. Similarly, the writing on management has suffered criticism for a lack of discussion regarding underlying assumptions about power. Management can also be viewed from two perspectives, a positional power or assigned perspective and a personal or emergent perspective. The paper proposes a four-part conceptual framework that takes into account these different perspectives.
Framing the leadership and management debate through power perspectives
The paper highlights that assumptions about power can lead to confusion when discussing leadership and management. A four-part conceptual framework has been developed to represent these assumptions, including managers “doing” leadership, managers “becoming” leaders, “being” leaders and managers, and leaders “doing” management. The framework aims to bring greater clarity to the discussion and differentiate or connect the concepts of leadership and management.
Quadrant 1 – managers “doing” leadership
Quadrant 1 explores the traditional view of leadership as a set of behaviors required to be an
effective manager. It represents management as a position of responsibility and leadership as something the manager needs to earn through personal influence. The literature on trait theory, style theory, situational or contingency theory, LMX, and transformational and transactional leadership reflect attempts to understand managers "doing" leadership. The growing interest in distributed leadership may illustrate a shift in the literature away from researching managers "doing" leadership, but it still positions leadership within assumptions about hierarchy and domination. This quadrant suggests the need to understand distributed leadership alongside power, knowledge, ethics, society, and community.
Quadrant 2 – managers “becoming” leaders
Quadrant 2 sees both management and leadership as positions of responsibility, with a discourse that suggests leadership is a higher position. Leadership has traditionally been viewed as a figurehead role at the top of an organization, and much research in this area has focused on hierarchical assumptions. Future research could explore what distinguishes a manager from a leader in an organization, and the process of becoming a leader. The concept of "organizational becoming" may shed light on the complexities of organizational change. This challenges the clichéd generalizations about leadership and management and suggests that leadership can also involve resistance to change.
Quadrant 3 – “being” managers and leaders
Quadrant 3 is about "being" managers and leaders, derived from an emergent perspective. Management is seen as a coping mechanism for uncertainty reduction, not just in organizations but also in one's personal life. Leadership is also described as emergent and free from organizational authority, but it's unclear how it differs from management. This quadrant is a fertile area for research, and self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-coping are seen as contributory to the identity of being a "leader." Further discussion and empirical research based on the notion of "being" in organizations appear warranted.
Quadrant 4 – leaders “doing” management
Quadrant 4 is about leaders "doing" management and management "getting by". This quadrant has not been extensively researched, but there has been an increase in interest in biographies of successful leaders in both business and politics. Ethnographic research and autobiographical accounts could provide insights into personal management ability and how it contributes to assuming top-level positions in organizations. The literature on how managers learn to lead may also be helpful in better understanding this quadrant.
Implications for further research
Implications of the leadership and management framework include the need for researchers to be clear on which construct they are studying, the potential for further research on the transition between "doing" and "being" a leader or manager, and the need for more research on Quadrants 2-4. Further research is needed to understand power constructs in more detail, including charismatic power, gender, and ecological control power, as well as sociological, post-structural, and critical perspectives on power. Additionally, the framework has relevance to the area of distributed leadership and could extend our understanding of leadership in organizations.
Conclusions
This paper proposes a four-part framework for conceptualizing leadership and management, which clarifies the assumptions about power underlying each construct. The framework reduces confusion and complexity in the literature and offers potential for meaningful connections between psychological and sociological approaches. This paper fills a "missing link" in the leadership literature by recognizing assumptions about power related to management from a personal perspective. It concludes that this framework can provide a common method for categorizing leadership research within management studies.
