1

Is It Leadership or Management?
Joseph Roof, Kristy Presswood.
College and University. Washington: Spring 2004.Vol.79, Iss. 4
Document URL:
http://0-proquest.umi.com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph:80/pqdweb?did=642860791&sid=3&Fmt=3&clientId=47883&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Abstract (Document Summary)

Two somewhat confused and possibly misused terms in higher education
today are "leadership" and "management." Many times, the word leadership or
leader is substituted for what is really management or manager, and vice
versa. Roof and Presswood explore the concepts of leadership and
management and they provide some observations as to what people need in
the enrollment management and services offices of today.

Defining Leadership and Management

First, let's explore the two terms by reviewing what dictionaries provide as
definitions of leadership and management.

LEADERSHIP

As defined in The American Heritage Dictionary (2000)

The position or office of a leader: ascended to the leadership of the party.

Capacity or ability to lead: showed strong leadership during her first term in
office.

A group of leaders: met with the leadership of the nation's top unions.

Guidance; direction: The business prospered under the leadership of the new
president.

As defined in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1998)

The office of a leader.

As defined in WordNet 1.6 (1997)

The activity of leading.

The body of people who lead a group; "the national leadership adopted his
plan."

The status of a leader; "they challenged his leadership of the union."

The ability to lead: "he believed that leadership can be taught."

 2

MANAGEMENT

As defined in The American Heritage Dictionary (2000)

The act, manner, or practice of managing; handling, supervision, or control:

management of a crisis; management of factory workers.

The person or persons who control or direct a business or other enterprise.

Skill in managing; executive ability.

As defined in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1998)

* The act or art of managing; the manner of treating, directing, carrying on, or
using, for a purpose; conduct; administration; guidance; control; as, the
management of a family or of a farm; the management of state affairs.

* Business dealing; negotiation; arrangement.

* Judicious use of means to accomplish an end; conduct directed by art or

address; skillful treatment; cunning practice; - often in a bad sense.

* The collective body of those who manage or direct any enterprise or interest;
the board of managers.

As defined in WordNet 1.6 (1997)

* The act of managing something; "he was given overall management of the
program"; "is the direction of the economy a function of government?"

* Those in charge of running a business.

The definitions of leadership reference the term leader and lead. In essence,
leadership refers to the act of leading or being a leader, which is defined in
WordNet as "a person who rules or guides or inspires others."The definitions
of management utilize the term manage and managing. The term manage, as
a verb, is defined in Webster's as "to direct affairs; to carry on business or
affairs; to administer." In addition to the traditional dictionary definitions, there
are a number of leadership experts who express their notions of leadership
and management. Hersey and Blanchard (1993) define leadership as "any
time one attempts to influence the behavior of an individual or group," and
management as "working with and through individuals and groups and other
resources to accomplish organizational goals" (pg 5). Thus according to these
definitions, leadership and management are two very different concepts, and
are not easily interchangeable.

Author Observations

If you have ever visited the leadership or management section of a book store,
you know that there are hundreds of authors, concepts, and ideas on the
subject. Tom Peters and John C. Maxwell are viewed by many as "gurus" in the
areas of leadership; while Peter Drucker and Richard Parson answer
 3

management questions. Each of the authors we will discuss provides some

interesting observations on leadership and management today.

Tom Peters (2002) in his Leadership 2002 series, Leading in Totally Screwed
Up Times, provides 50 different contexts for the term leadership, beginning with
"leadership is a mutual discovery process" and ending with "leaders know
when to leave." In between he offers such observations as "great leading =
great mentoring...the leader is rarely/never the best performer...leaders groove
on ambiguity...leaders know when to wait...and leaders create leaders."

John C. Maxwell (1993) highlights the five levels of leadership in his book,
Developing the Leader Within You. The levels describe the different types of
leadership roles and the growth that occurs. The following is a summary of the
leadership 'ladder':

* Position-a leader by title and people follow because they have to

* Permission-people follow because they want to

* Production-people follow because of what you have done for the organization

* People Development-people follow because of what you have done for them

* Personhood-people follow because of who you are and what you represent

Personhood is the level we should all strive to achieve. This is "reserved for
leaders who have spent years growing people and organizations" (p. 13).
Examples of personhood leaders could be Martin Luther King, Jr. or John F.
Kennedy.

The following description provided in a leadership course (author unknown),

compares leadership to growing bamboo:

"It takes patience and discipline to develop and empower people; in fact, it's
like growing bamboo. Once the seed is planted, the farmer must water it daily
for four years before the tree breaks ground-then it grows sixty feet in ninety
days! Executives who nurture people can get similar results... How, you ask,
can such rapid growth be possible? It results from the miles of roots that
develop in those first four years. Preparing people to perform is the task of
leadership. "

Peter Drucker (1998) claims the knowledge economy has caused many of the
"basic assumptions underlying much of what is taught and practiced in the
name of management are hopelessly out of date." Most of these assumptions
are over 50 years old. These assumptions are tied to the belief that there is
only "one right form of organization." Interestingly, he points out that the first job
in which the term manager was used was not even in business, but in
government-the city manager, and the first systematic application of
management principles was the reorganization of the U.S. Army. Despite the
many changes that have occurred in management, there continues to be the
pursuit of the "one size fits all" organization.
 4

Drucker identifies seven underlying assumptions about organizations and

management that are now out of date. These assumptions range from "there is
only one right form of an organization" to "there is only one way to manage
people." Hc goes on to discuss the skills needed to manage what is known
today as the "knowledge employee." Since these employees often know more
about their jobs than their supervisor, they are often motivated by the same
desires that motivate volunteers. he states that job satisfaction, challenge, and
most importantly an organizations mission motivate volunteers. As a result,
Drucker claims you must lead these employees, not manage them.

Parson's (1997) book, Mangement of the Absurd: Paradoxes in Leadership,

provides a new twist to the old standbys of management. His book takes a
scries of standard 'by the book' methods for managing people and describes
why they may not be the best approach. For example, "praising people does not
motivate them" (p. 64). Most managers follow the school of thought that
employees should be praised when a job is done well because it will motivate
them to do more. Parson explains that praise can be perceived as threatening
and thus cause a reverse effect. Praise can be viewed as a form of gaining
status over them because it establishes that you are in the position to give it.
This is not a standard we typically practice, but the concept does make sense.

Another of Parson's paradoxes is that "once you find a management technique

that works, give it up" (p.35). This concept gets at the heart of human nature.
Once an employee recognizes the technique, it will no longer be eficctivc. For
example, if you praise an employee to get better results, it might be effective the
first time, but after numerous repetitions, it will become less effective and
possibly expected by the employee.

Morley and Eadic (2001) provide an excellent analysis of the difference between
management and leadership in higher education. Much has been written on
the issue of whether management is an art or a science. According to Morley
and Eadie, management is more science oriented since it focuses on the
applications of technical knowledge and skills needed within the organization.
It requires the use of operational discipline and control within specified limits
set by the organization, otherwise known as working "within the walls of the
institutional box." Organizational managers tend to work toward meeting their
goals in an efficient manner, staying within budget. Managers are the stewards
of the organization's resources. Some of the management skills needed in
higher education today are the ability to set measurable goals and
performance indicators, developing unit plans to meet the goals, supervising
staff and measuring their performance, project management expertise, and
keeping up to date with technology and how it impacts our profession.

Morley and Radie provide some excellent observations on key aspects of

leadership.

* Leadership is critical at the top of the organization.

* Leaders focus on strategic issues.

* Leaders develop and foster a creative capacity.

 5

* Leaders are "passionate about bottom-line results." It is not enough to aim

high; leaders must hit the target.

* Leaders build the capacity that is needed for an institution's strategic agenda.

* Leaders lead through "inspiring, motivating, and empowering" those who

work with them.

* Leaders are constantly scanning the horizon, interacting with the external
environment.

* Leaders use "total intelligence" in leading, which is a combination of acquired

knowledge and skills, as well as emotional intelligence.

* "Strong leaders are courageous," as they are willing to grow and change, yet
they "walk the talk" to ensure core institutional values are reinforced.

Based on the analysis provided by Morlcy and Eadie, a generalization could be

made that managers tend to focus their efforts on working "within the box" or
working within the organizational structure and staying within defined
boundaries.

Others, including Mcyerson (2002), argue that some managers take on

leadership characteristics when they "challenge the status quo." Mcyerson
calls these individuals "tempered radicals"-people within the organization who
may have different values, ideals, and identities than the dominant
organizational culture. These people manage to succeed within the
organization, yet do not sacrifice their core values. They have learned to utilize
their differences, in small doses, to change the organizational norm.
"Tempered radicals" have learned to open the doors to change without
threatening the entire organizational culture. In essence, while most tempered
radicals are organizational managers, they often become de facto leaders.
However, few of them see themselves as leaders and most are middle
managers that have learned to seize those opportunities that can make a
difference.

University of Southern California president, Steven Sample (2001), offers some

very interesting leadership principles. Sample takes a very different approach to
a common theory in leadership decision-making that leaders should never put
off a decision that should be made today. He claims the "clean-platc-and-tidy-
desk mentality" may work for managers and bureaucrats, but is "terrible advice
for leaders."

He offers six "contrarian principles" to leadership to support his approach.

1 Leaders should "think gray," rejecting the impulse to make instant decisions.
Most people, including leaders, tend to categorize issues in a binary mode,
seeing issues in extremes as yes or no, black or white, true or false, friend or
foe. Too often leaders form opinions and conclusions before all of the facts are
available. As a result, the leader is often in the position of defending a bad
decision or "nip-flopping" on a decision based on the most recent data.
 6

Sample believes that by "thinking gray," a leader is not drawing conclusions as

information is being gathered.

2 Listen gray. Sample's second principle is somewhat of a corollary to thinking

gray. The point is to try and listen to information, whether they be reports,
stories, complaints, etc., without forming a conclusion. This does not mean a
leader should be unresponsive to complaints; just don't form a conclusion until
all the information is gathered.

3 Procrastination should be done artfully, not cowardly. Leaders should

determine how much time they have to make a decision. There is no need to
rush a decision, especially one that could affect many and needs input from
others. Often, leaders feel pressure from subordinates for immediate
decisions, but this may not be the best decision for the organization.

4 Determine if) in fact, the decision belongs to the leader. According to Sample,
leaders are often caught in the trap of making decisions that should cither be
delegated to a subordinate or are decisions that are outside the leader's span
of authority. Since making a good decision takes time and effort, ensuring the
decision is the leader's to make should be the first decision point in the
process.

5 "Ignore sunk costs." Leaders should not let a bad investment, whether it is an
asset or employee, influence a decision. Leaders must realize when an
investment or sunk costs are a lost cause, admit the mistake or problem, and
move forward. This will permit the leader to make a decision without the undue
influence of this bad investment.

6 "Showing the flag." This principle does not involve a decision by the leader.
Quite simply, leaders often need to have a presence and offer reassurance
during difficult times even though others, usually subordinates, are making
decisions.

Sample concludes with two observations on leadership: chance or luck does

play a part in decision-making, and contrarian leaders listen to their
conscience when making important decisions. Many leaders hate to admit the
role that chance or gambling play in decision-making and most people who try
to have a "conversation with their inner voice" do all of the talking and never
listen. Sample claims the ability to intertwine his contrarian principles together,
which results in a very "powerful tool for effective leadership."

Frances Hesselbein (1998) raises the issue of leadership development in

what she calls The One Big Question. She claims leadership development is
an area that most organizations ignore, often relying on a strategy of just
"raiding talent from competitors."Tlic weakness in this strategy is that
organizations begin to cannibalize each other in attempting to attract the best
talent. Hesselbein urges organizations to think futuristically by determining who
the future customers will be and how they will be different from the customers
of today. Organizations must then determine how they must change to meet
this future need and from this analysis determine what kinds of leaders are
needed to match this future vision. Leadership development should then be
 7

based on preparing for the future, not meeting the needs of today.

It is disappointing that there is so little employee development in higher

education. Our foundation is of providing continual education and we
sometimes lose that focus when it comes to our own staff. There is a true need
for leaders in higher education. According to George Boggs, president and
CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACc), it is
estimated that community colleges will lose nearly half of their presidents to
retirement by the year 2007 (Campbell 2002). In addition, large numbers of
faculty, administrators, and other staff are also due to retire. This will leave a
large demand for future leaders that we need to be preparing for today.

Warren Bcnnis (1999) discusses the concept of the "Leadership Advantage" by

outlining "seven attributes essential to leadership as technical competence,
conceptual skills, track record, people skills, taste, judgment and character."
Most senior members of management will have the first three characteristics,
but it is the last four that truly are important for future leaders. Character, the
most important of all attributes, is comprised of drive, competence, and
integrity. Bennis states that many leaders have drive and competence, but lack
the third ingredient of integrity. These leaders have no moral compass and are
labeled "destructive achievers." Effective leaders have that "voice inside" and
know how to lead. Bennis concludes by stating that leaders must be able to
satisfy their followers' needs by creating a sense of purpose, building trust,
nurturing hope, and getting results. he quotes hockey great Wayne Gretzky, who
said "you miss ioo percent of the shots you don't take." The key is having
developed an organization that allows for the misses, knowing the leader is
taking "the best shot."

A somewhat simplistic observation on leadership comes from Stanley Fish,

dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at
Chicago. Rsh (2001) claims there is a "golden rule of administration," which
consists of three parts. "Part one is, always tell the truth. Part two is, always tell
more of the truth than you have too. And part three, is always tell the truth before
anyone asks you to." He goes on to provide real life examples to support his
observations and claims the "golden rule" is an effective leadership strategy,
not merely moral advice.

What Is Needed In Our Offices Today?

This brings us back to the beginning. Is it leadership or management that is

needed in our offices today? We actually believe it is both. The following are our
observations on leadership and management.

Our first observation is to know your role; know when to wear the manager's
"visor" and when to wear the leaders "hat." As assistant or associate directors,
coordinators, managers, directors, deans, and vice presidents, we are often
called upon to wear both hats. However, we believe the key is understanding
your role, specifically your role at the moment in the organization, and not
wearing the wrong hat at the wrong time.

For example, let's assume you are the director of admissions and you are
 8

questioned by the vice president of finance on why you exceeded your travel
budget by 50 percent. In this specific role, you probably want to wear your
manager's visor. If the over-expenditure has been approved or is justified, you
may want to provide the approvals and/or justifications, and specifically how
this cost was related to department or even college goals. If you can cover the
costs by reallocating other funds, you should explain exactly how you will
reallocate your budget. This may not be the best time to put on your leadership
hat and claim that you took the courageous step to spend more money on
travel since you are an expert in recruitment and know this is the way to
increase potential inquiries and increase enrollment. That conversation should
have occurred during the planning and budgeting process, where you could
and should provide leadership in the development of an enrollment
management plan and budget.

Obviously, as one moves up in an organization, more leadership opportunities

or roles are available and more leadership is expected. If you are the vice
president of enrollment management, the president probably does not want
you to spend 85 percent of your time monitoring budgets, completing
performance appraisals for the support staff, submitting budget requisitions,
reviewing the catalog for errors, or managing the software conversion project.
Knowing your role and when to be a manager and when to be a leader is
crucial for success and future career growth.

Our second observation is that leaders must understand management. As

Morley and Eadie (2001) noted, higher education leaders have usually been
successful managers prior to becoming leaders. However, being a successful
manager docs not always translate into being a successful leader. The two
roles are different, and the leader must demonstrate different traits than the
manager. Remember, one of Morley and Eadic's key elements of leadership is
to inspire, motivate, and empower those who work for you. We believe a leader
would have difficulty being effective if she or he had never managed a
department or office, and did not have an appreciation as to the everyday
expectations of the job. How does a leader sustain inspiration, motivation, and
empowerment if she or he does not have a clue as to what is happening? On
the other hand, successful managers have limited opportunities to genuinely
inspire and motivate their staff, with the possible exception of Mcyerson's
"tempered radicals" who seize an opportunity and make a difference, yet don't
see themselves as leaders.

Our third observation is to realize and accept the reality that being a leader in
higher education is different than being a leader in business. Many of the
management principles in business easily transfer to higher education,
however, when it comes to leadership, there may be more differences than
similarities. Sample's (2001) principles of contrarian leadership are probably
more applicable, acceptable, and effective in higher education than in
business. Too often, educational leaders try to replicate business leadership
principles, yet they do not succeed. What they fail to realize is that most
business leaders have the capacity to react to changes quickly and to provide
monetary incentives for employee performance that are not available to most
higher education leaders. While some educational leaders are able to "rally the
 9

troops" and inspire employees to work harder, faster, and smarter for some
period of time, these efforts lose their steam when there are no incentives for
employees to sustain the effort. A successful educational leader would work
with managers to develop non-salary incentives-paid leave, tuition waivers, and
meaningful employee recognition-to reward the effort.

Our final observation is to know thyself, whether you are in your manager role or
leader role. While this may sound somewhat spiritual, managers and leaders
must know and understand their core values. As Sample says, pause and take
time to "listen to yourself." Our integrity is crucial to our success and the
success of those we lead and manage. Seek counsel when facing difficult
situations, but always remember your core values and integrity when making
the final decision. And finally, remember Stanley Fish's (2001) "golden rule" to
"always tell the truth...always tell more of the truth than you have to...and always
tell the truth before anyone asks you to."

[Reference]
References
Bennis, W. 1989. On Becoming a Leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
_____. 1999. The leadership advantage. Leader to Leader (12). Available at:
www.prdf.org/leaderbooks/121/spring99/bennis.html
Campbell, D. 2002. The Leadership Gap. Washington, D.C.: Community College Press.
Drucker, P. 1998. Management's new paradigms. Forbes.com. Available at:
www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/1005/6207152a_print.html
Farson, R. 1997. Management of the Absurd: Paradoxes in Leadership. New York: Touchstone.
Fish, S. 2001 The golden rule. The Chronic le of Higher Education. Available at:
http://chronic le.com/jobs/2001/09/2001092101c.htm
Hersey, P., and K.H. Blanchard. 1993. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing
Human Resources (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hesselbein, F. 1998. The one big question. Leader to Leader. (10). Available at:
http://drucker.org/leaderbooks/121/fall98/fh.html
Maxwell, John C. 1993. Developing the Leader Within You. Georgia: Injoy, Inc.
Meyerson, D. 2002. Everyday leaders: the power of difference. Leader to Leader. (23). Available
at: http://drucker.org/leaderbooks/121/winter2002/ meyerson.html
Morley, J., and D. Eadie. 2001 Moving from manager to leader. NACUBO Business Officer.
34(12): 22-25
Peters, T. 2002. Leading in totally screwed up times. Tom Peters' Leadership 2002 Available
at: http://www.tompeters.com/pptview/?slide=/slides/ uploaded/Ldrshp030302.ppt
Sample, S.B. 2001. When the buck stops, think contrarily. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Available at: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i08/ 08b01101.htm
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2000. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. 1998. MICRA, Inc.
WordNet 1.6. 1997. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

[Author Affiliation]
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Joseph Roof is Dean of Enrollment Development at Daytona Beach Community College, (FL).
He received his M.B.A. from the University of South Florida with an emphasis in management.
In addition to participating in several leadership programs, he has served as President of his
state association, FACRAO, and regional association, SACRAO. He currently serves as the Vice
President of Finance for AACRAO.

Kristy Presswood is the Director of Enrollment Services at Daytona Beach Community College.
She has been at DBCC for n years. Ms. Presswood holds an M.B.A. and is currently pursuing her
Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration. She is also the President-Elect of the Florida
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers (FACRAO).