EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION: SIMILARITIES,

DIFFERENCES AND THEIR APPLICABILITY

Education is a multi-faced discipline with various terms associated with it. When it comes to
execution of its function, educational leadership, management and administration come into
mind. These terms are sometimes interchangeably used to mean one common
denominator— of translating and ascertaining the goals and aspirations of an educational
institution into practice, and into measurable outputs; thereby changing and improving the
fortunes of a country. However, similarities and differences do exist among these terms. Thus,
it follows that for effective implementation of the function of education, these terms must be
comprehended first so that the rightful course of action should be undertaken; and that this
action can only then be justified. This is possible only if one is able to strike a balance and to
explain how closely related these terms are to each other. It is from this view that this paper
will strive to achieve; it will endeavour to discuss the definitions, the similarities, the
differences and their applicability to the practice. The first paragraphs will bear the definitions,
followed by the similarities, differences and applicability. However, discussions on the
similarities, differences and applicability will be done simultaneously basing on goal setting,
employee relations, governance and operations.

Educational leadership, according to Lunenburg (2011), is a process whereby an individual

influences or guides the behaviour and activities of others to contribute voluntarily to the
achievement of group goals in a given situation. Popovici (2012) concurs when he narrates
that leadership has a main component of change, providing vision, and dedication necessarily
for its realization. “Leadership is a skill that is formed by education, experiences, interaction
with people and inspiring, of course, practice. Effective leadership depends largely on how
their leaders define, follow and share the vision to followers. Leadership is just one important
component of the directing function,” (Popovici, 2012; p. 126).

1
Leadership is about gaining people’s trust to achieve a common goal. This means that a
leader is flexible to twist some laid-down rules to suit a unique environment. A leader takes a
risk to influence change in an institution to improve undesirable situation. In a school setting,
a leader will forego some procedural dictates when addressing an emerging problem. For
example, when there is funeral close to the school campus, a prescribed norm is to assign
few individuals to represent the school at the funeral and after that school business should
go on without disruption. However, a leader will say no; this is not acceptable. He or she will
cancel or postpone the teaching and learning exercise and other activities until the funeral
rites (especially the burial ceremony) has been executed and normality has been restored.

Interestingly, educational management is the act of getting people together to accomplish

desired goals using available resources efficiently and effectively (Lunenburg, 2007).
Popovici (2012) recognizes that management is the process of setting and achieving
organizational goals through its functions: forecasting, organizing, coordination, training and
monitoring-evaluation. From this perceptive, it can be seen that management is about
following the laid-down procedures and regulations to attain a predetermined goal of an
institution. A manager does not influence his or her subordinates, but is obeyed by the virtue
of his position. A manager may only have obtained his position of authority through time and
loyalty given to the company; not as a result of his leadership qualities (Algahtani, 2014).
Hence a manager does not take risks and thus is not popular among the subordinates.

In a school, a manager will not accept a bereaved teacher to borrow money from the school
for purchase of coffin for a deceased spouse because the rules do not permit such
transactions. This teacher will be demoralized to the core and that his or her spirits will dwindle
down up to the point of contemplating to call it quits—offering his or her services to an
ungrateful institution. Conversely, a leader will play around with rules and procedures up until
he or she sees a way-out to assist this teacher without completely violating those procedures.

2
Furthermore, House & Aditya (1997) gives another broader view of management when they
said that management consists of implementing the vision and direction provided by leaders,
coordinating and staffing the organization, and handling day-to-day problems. In other words
educational management ensures that the available resources are well organized and applied
for the best results. School manager ascertains that there is an optimal number of teachers
in each department, be it science, humanities, and/ or languages; and that if there are
shortfalls he or she sees to it that the available teachers work to their full potential. The same
applies to resource allocation.

Educational administration is the next and final term to be defined. Brennen (2002) in his own
perception describes administration as the careful and systematic arrangement and use of
human and material resources, situations and opportunities for the achievement of specific
objectives. This careful and systematic arrangement and use of human and resources include
policy-making, financing, staffing, organizing, procedure analysis, controlling and managing.
In Malawian education system, educational administrators can be understood as the ones
tasked with formulation of policies, recruitment and hiring of staff, financing the schools,
providing guidelines in terms of operational process, controlling and managing high-level
situations and problems rocking the schools. These administrators operate at the Capital Hill-
a central administrative headquarter. Educational administrators draft and propose bills,
regulations which are thereafter passed into law by legislative branch of government, and
hence are interpreted to become policies. Thus these policies are implemented by the
educational managers and leaders.

Educational administrators are there to provide guidance and direction on how the visions of
an education system can be accomplished. This implies that both educational managers and
leaders are answerable to the administrators. Educational administration has full control over
the activities of the school. They have an overall authority of how the school is to be run and
managed. However, on a small-scale level, a school head teacher is an administrator since

3
he or she is the overall controlling officer at the school. Has a final decision to make on what
to be done. While deputy head teacher is a manager, and has to seek advice from the head
teacher. A head teacher can decide to terminate the contract of a supplier who has not
complied to the agreed terms in the contract. Likewise head teacher recommends for approval
decision made by a disciplinary committee of which the deputy head teacher chaired. In this
case the deputy head teacher is answerable to the head teacher.

Surbhi (2015) brings in another dimension to the definition by stating that educational
administration lays down the fundamental framework of an organization, within which the
management of the institution functions. It is a broader term as it involves forecasting,
planning, organizing and decision-making functions at the highest level of the enterprise or
institution. Administration represents the top layer of the management hierarchy of the
organization. These top level authorities are either owners or business partners who invest
their capital in starting the business (Surbhi, 2015).

From the definitions it can be seen that schools need both strong leadership and
management. These two terms complement each other. Not all good managers are good
leaders, and not all good leaders are good manager. Schools require both leadership and
management skills for full effective execution of the operation process, and thus resulting into
accomplishment of the set standards provided by the educational administration.

Reaching this point, a chart can be drawn out to summarise the definitions of the terms and
their relationships. Therefore, the chart below explains what these terms are to each other in
terms of their definition and how related they are to one another. However, the arrow in the
chart between educational leadership and management mean that these terms can be used
interchangeably depending on the situation at hand.

4
 Educational Administration
formulation of policies and objectives of an institution.
guides and directs manager or leader on operational process

Educational Management
Educational Leadership
implements the policies and
implements the policies and objectives by sticking to laid-
objecives through his or her own down procedures; not by his or
means or vision. Empowers her own initiative or vision.
colleagues. Delegates subordinates.

Apart from the definitions, another way of looking at these terms is through analysis of their
similarities and differences; and of course, on how these terminologies can be applied. Thus
the following paragraphs have been dedicated into an exposition of the same.

Goal setting is a prevalent characteristic among the educational terms. All activities done lead
to achievement of prescribed goals. In educational administration, the formulation of policies
and strategies are all geared to accomplish a goal. The recruitment and hiring of staff, the
financing and even the controlling are there to ascertain the aspirations of the society it is
trying to serve. So too is educational leadership and management. Leaders or managers are
hired to transform these aspirations and objectives formulated by the administrator to
measurable outputs. When goals are not met the administrator will fire a leader or manager.

However, though administrator, leader or manager strive to attain presumed goals of an

institution but how these goals are articulated differ. Administration is there to provide the
roadmap and direction to where an organization or institution is supposed to go (Surbhi,
2015). It is mandated to provide the paperwork of how this are supposed to be carried out.
For example, a curriculum is a policy document which stipulates what is supposed to be

5
taught, what materials are required to be utilized in teaching those areas, the period when
those concepts are expected to be tackled, and other aspects. Formulation of the curriculum
is a task of educational administrators. In the curriculum, there are goals and objectives for
each subject which are streamlined into learning objectives and outcomes. If these learning
objectives and outcomes are not in tandem with what the public out there is expecting, then
the educational administrators are at fault; for offering educational service that is not
answering to the needs and demands of the market. This shall necessitate these
administrators to call for a review of the curriculum so that it should be reformed to match the
current trends in the society. Furthermore, in road transport, Global Positioning System
(GPS)’s function can hence be equated to educational administration. GPS provides the exact
location, direction and detailed description of the route a person is anticipated to take when
he or she asks it to furnish such information. So too administration does a similar task of
ascertaining the course of educational goals and how such goals can be attained.

In leadership, goals formulated by administrators are implemented based on a leader’s vision

and intuition. Leaders articulates the vision to the followers. Leaders aim to create passion to
follow their vision, to reach long term goals, take risks to accomplish common agenda, and
challenge the current status quo (Bennis & Nanus, 1997). Leaders create future and see the
forest; looks at the bigger picture, not into detail. Leadership process creates uncertainity and
change in the organization (Lunnenburg, 2011). In the example of road transport above, a
leader is that driver who does not follow to detail the road signs along the way in order to
reach his preferred destination in the quickest time possible. In the case of curriculum
implementation, a school leader may not follow some of the prescribed guidelines like
commencing classes earlier due to climatic conditions the school might be in. Even he or she
will empower teachers to improvise some teaching and learning resources than to stick to
what is stipulated in the curriculum.

6
For management, implementation of the goals is based on following what has been put in
black and white. Managers execute plans, improve the present and see the trees (not the
forest as the case in leadership). Management’s responsibility is task-oriented: seeing to it
that work is being carried out according to the guidelines and frameworks (Lunenburg, 2011).
Referring to the road transport example, a manager is that driver who follows each and every
road signs on the way; making sure that he or she does not get involved in any accident due
to negligence. There is no risk taking in management. A manager tries all his or her might to
avoid conflicts. The same applies to curriculum implementation, a manager takes into practice
every detail of the dictates of the curriculum.

On employee relations, educational administration, leadership and management subscribe to

it. Administrator, leader and manager all take efforts in establishing a rapport with the people
they work with, for the betterment of the institution they serve. Administrators work in close
contact with leaders or managers in an organisation. Likewise leaders and managers work
closely with colleagues and subordinates respectively (Lunenburg, 2011). For example,
Educational Divisional Manager (EDM) as an educational administrator invites school
managers or leaders (head teachers) to a management meeting where the EDM outlines to
them how they are expected to run the schools. This meeting usually happens a week or two
prior to opening of new term. The EDM does emphasise to the school leaders and/ or
managers that they too should organize a staff meeting with their teachers so that they should
relay the messages they have gathered from that meeting. This hence is a typical example of
employee relations that exist in these terms. There is an interaction across all these officers;
administrators with leaders and managers; leaders and/ or managers with their immediate
subordinates.

However, the difference comes in on how the relations are handled in respect to attainment
of institutional goals. In educational administration, administrators do hardly work with
employees of an organisation but with the managers or leaders. Administrators supervise the

7
leaders and managers on how the jobs are being executed. Administration gives authority to
the leadership and management. Likewise leadership and management give feedback to the
administration. Hence administration has absolute authority over both the leader and
manager (Surbhi, 2015).

On the same page of employee relations, a leader use empowerment over control to put
across what he or she desires to be executed. Leadership is all about empowering
colleagues; what matters to the leader is ultimate fulfilment of the task given. How that task
will be carried out is not an area of concern to the leader. In leadership, there are elements
of flexibility and trust among the leader and the employees. The leader does not view
employees as subordinates but as colleagues whose collective efforts can be channeled
towards one common purpose. With this element, a leader is popular among the colleagues
and hence tasks are executed with minimal supervision but at the end of the day, maximum
outputs are generated. On top of that, leadership is concerned with understanding people’s
beliefs and gaining their commitment (Lunenburg, 2011). With this good working relationship,
employees can freely present their grievances and problems to the leader with an expectation
that their grievances will be sorted out. However, too much of everything is detrimental to
attainment of an obvious course. So too much of this flexibility and leeway can lead to laxity;
employees can start to formulate their own norms and traditions such as reporting to duty at
their own time, missing classes while attending to their businesses. In schools located in
towns, teachers might tend to patronize vending, and even going to neighbouring countries
to buy merchandise while learners are left unattended to.

Unlike leadership, management discerns employees as subordinates. Employees must obey

the manager, and whatever the manager says is taken as a gospel truth. According to
Algahtani (2014), managers focus on formal directing and controlling of their assistants,
resources, structures, and systems. Managers aim to reach short term goals, avoid any risks,
and establish standardization to improve efficiency (Kotterman, 2006). Thus, employees

8
follow a manager’s direction in exchange for being paid a salary, known as a transactional
style (Kotter, 2001). This makes the manager not popular since the manager separates
himself or herself from the rest. Due to this unpopularity among the subordinates the manager
finds it hard to implement change. Popovici (2012) agrees to the effect that a manager
provides direction to any action, is the decision-maker in any endeavour. Hence subordinates
are not independent in full exercise of their intellect to some of the operations of specialized
tasks, because doing so shall disturb and destabilise what ought to be done as per the
instructions. A manager might not vouch a teacher who has been offered a place to further
his or her academic credentials for the mere fact the teacher has not attained recommended
years for one to be considered for a study leave. Even though the university that has offered
the teacher the place is very close to his working place, still the manager will resist to grant
the teacher the permission. Thus management can be a barrier to establishment of good
rapport between the manager and the subordinates.

There is also a similarity among these in terms of governance. Governance in this discourse
will denote the ability to convince employees to work towards a goal (Lunenburg, 2011).
Administrators, leaders and mangers all have social status in an organisation; or are holding
bigger positions than the other employees. So they exert some executive powers in deciding
the course of action to be taken. By the virtue of their positions, their subordinates do look up
to them to offer them alternatives and guidance to what is supposed to be prioritized. Leaders
and managers ask for direction from the administrator while leaders and managers exert
authority over the junior employees. This hence brings in the governance. The ability to
govern others is prevalent in all these officers.

Despite this similarity, the level of governance and the execution of this governance differ.
Surbhi (2015) provides that administrator has more powers than the leader or manager, in
particular if he or she is an investor in the company. He continues by stating that an
administrator does not face competition within the organisation, unlike a manager or leader.

9
Algahtani (2014) gives another insight when he points out that a leader uses influence to
inspire employees to execute a certain task. Leadership is a multi-directional influence
relation, while management is a unidirectional authority relationship. Lunenburg (2011)
concurs by emphasizing that leaders use influence, conflict and acts decisively. Conversely,
management uses authority, avoids conflict and acts responsibly. Moreover, a manager
wants to make things done; hence uses every tactic in books to enforce standards upon the
subordinates. In fact management is more of science as the managers are exact, planned,
standard, logical and more of mind (Algahtani, 2014). This style can be equated to
McGregor’s theory X.

Theory X is fundamentally a philosophy of direction and control. Theory X relies almost

exclusively on external control of human behaviour. So if teachers show the characteristics
in theory X, it is because managers and administrators have such expectations of them.
Sensing negative assumptions and expectations, teachers are likely to respond in a negative
way (Brennen, 2002). Being over authoritarian, inhibits growth of symbiotic understanding
and trust across both sides. Subordinates will eventually withdraw, little by little, their services
in search of new pastures elsewhere.

Finally, operation is another common characteristic in all these terms. Operation is thus
putting into practice the strategies to accomplish a predetermined future (Lunenburg, 2011).
Brennen (2002) admits that administration is a process of working through others (leaders
and managers) to attain institutional or school goals efficiently. Likewise management is also
concerned with tasks such as planning, coordinating, directing, defining objectives,
supporting the work of others, and evaluating performance. On the other hand, leadership is
the exercise of high-level conceptual skills and decisiveness. It is envisioning mission,
developing strategy, inspiring people, and changing culture (Brennen, 2002). It can be noted
that the same characteristics of operation is evident in administration, management and
leadership. In all of these, efforts are being harnessed to achieve a goal. Administration

10
provides necessary tools, be it financial, human or material resources, for both the manager
and the leader to put them into proper use for the betterment of the school. School managers
or leaders will translate these resources into worthwhile outputs using their knowledge and
experiences. School as a system has inputs to be processed, transformational process (the
operation), the outputs (knowledge and skills gained), and feedback from the environment.
Therefore, the administrator provides these inputs from the environment into the school
system together with the transformation process. Managers and leaders are tasked to fuse
these inputs and transformation process into prescribed outputs according to the standards
provided by the administration.

Nonetheless, the way the operation is done among these terms is dissimilar. Managers and
administrators perform tasks that includes demands, constraints, and an in-between area of
choices to maximize resources for the fulfillment of specific objectives. The distinguishing
factor between leaders and administrators is that leaders initiate new structures or procedures
to realise organizational goals or objectives, whereas administrators utilize existing structures
or procedures for this purpose. Administrators and managers make many decisions and get
involved in the nitty gritty of day-to-day operations. Effective leaders do not make many
decisions. They focus on important ones that have impact on the larger aspects of the
organisation. Leaders try to think through what is generic and strategies rather than solve
daily problems or put out fires (Brennen, 2002).

A manager does the thing right (following what is prescribed), while a leader does the right
thing (executing what is supposed to be done according to the situation at hand) (Lunenburg,
2011). For example, a teacher has been absent from duty for five consecutive days. Manager
and administrator will rush to refer to Malawi Public Service Regulations (MPSR) to seek a
befitting punishment for this teacher, without hearing out the teacher on his or her reasons for
such action. However, a leader will first of all sit down with the teacher to find out why he or
she did such unbecoming behaviour. Thereafter, he or she will weigh out the situation basing

11
on both the guidelines in the MPSR and the teacher’s reasons. The leader will finally make
his or her verdict known to the teacher; and that the past behaviours of this teacher will also
inform the verdict given.

In conclusion, as per the definitions, educational administration is a top-level hierarchy of

authority in an institution; while educational leadership and management are middle-level
hierarchy of authority. However, educational management and leadership differ in the way
tasks are implemented to ascertain the goals and objectives set aside by an administrator.
From the discussions in this paper, it can be noted that organisations or institutions provide
its managers or leaders with legitimate authority to lead, but there is no guarantee that they
will be able to lead effectively. Organisations such as schools need both strong leadership
and strong management for optimal effectiveness. Thus good managers are not necessarily
good leaders; and good leaders are not necessarily good managers. This calls for striking a
balance and knowing what is required to be done at a particular time according to the
situation. Therefore organizational success requires a combination of effective leadership and
management. In today’s ever-changing working environments, leaders are required to
question the status quo (of doing business as usual) and to inspire and persuade institution
members. Managers are also required to aid in developing and maintaining a healthy
functioning environments.

12