The Systematic and Scholarly Study of Leadership

The systematic and scholarly study of leadership consumed much of the twentieth century and continues to remain a vital topic of discussion today. Theories abound as to what makes one a good leader and, despite the continued efforts of many, no single operable expression of the meaning of leadership exists. In an attempt to address this issue James Kotterman wrote, “Leadership Versus Management: What’s the Difference.” The following review shall briefly summarize Kotterman’s article and follow with conclusions based on the experiences of this author.

Kotterman begins by highlighting the varying connotations often attached to the terms management and leadership; the former being primarily negative and the latter generally positive. From here he highlights the necessity to more clearly define these two terms and the means by which he shall do so. Kotterman uses the results of numerous management and leadership studies, the majority of data being based on subordinate opinions of role and effectiveness, to draw his comparison and thereby define the key terms. He juxtaposes management and leadership via a set of four processes. These processes are vision establishment, human development and networking, vision execution, and vision outcome (Kotterman, 2006). Following from each of these processes, a set of descriptors is offered for both management and leadership from which Kotterman draws meaning. Kotterman concludes that the two roles vary conceptually but are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Management is essentially task-centered, concerned with physical process, production, budget, and structure. Leadership is primarily human-centered, concentrating on motivation, inspiration, and needs. (Kotterman, 2006). This concl...

... middle of paper ...

... the nature of power as it relates to the rise of individuals into such positions and Kotterman does this only in a limited fashion.

Having expressed the need to broaden the search for meaning, this work must conclude much as Kotterman does in accepting that the debate over the nature of management and leadership must continue. Moving beyond the respective task and human-centered foci, if one were to conduct a similar analysis concentrating more on studies concerned with leader identification across a broader spectrum it is likely results would be more telling. Rather than examining primarily subordinate responses to aid in classification seek data from all levels of an organization irrespective of position relationships and ask subjects to identify leaders and/or managers. In so doing we may draw ever closer to a definitive meaning of leadership and management.