Businesses issue their managers with the power to lead, however, there is no guarantee that they will know how to lead commendably. Businesses must have strong leadership and management for the greatest efficiency. In the current dynamic place of work, businesses require leaders that challenge the status quo, in addition, to motivating plus influencing business participants. They as well require managers to help in maintaining and developing a functioning business. This paper will discuss the differences between the manager and a leader and compares arguments of two articles,
There is a major difference in the ways leaders and managers relate with others. From the time people are small, they are likely evaluated on ways they interact with others around them. After joining the working world people have to work well with others, which is an important sign of their future success and this skill is actually rather non-negotiable, although some have to work extra harder at acquiring it. According to Zalezink, managers work with people but they retain minimal emotional involvement and do not have empathy. On the other hand, leaders will be attracted to ideas, directly relate to others empathetically and intuitively. This clearly shows that, unlike leaders, managers do not have the capability of feeling or understanding what someone else is going through in their frame of reference, which means, the capability of placing themselves in someone else’s position. Moreover, Zalezink states that managers will communicate by sending ambiguous signals and subordinates consider leaders to be emotionally rich with feelings such as love and hate. This shows that managers communicate in an uncertain way since some words, signs or sentences could have more than one meaning. Usually, it is important to avoid ambiguity like the managers. As a result, subordinates identify leaders as detached, inscrutable and manipulative and the business ends up accumulating political and bureaucracy intrigue. While leaders’ relations appear intense, turbulent and disorganized and have the motivation that unanticipated and intensifies outcomes proliferate
They have different attitudes toward goals. According to Zalezink, managers take an impersonal, passive point of view and on the other hand, the leaders take a personal, active point of view. Managers do not have references and are not connected to a specific individual. They do not have a personality, they are devoid of human character and do not have human emotion or warmth, unlike leaders. As a result, the leaders will shape instead of responding to ideas and alter moods; evoke images and expectations. Moreover, due to their outlook, Zalezink says that managers’ goals originate from necessities, not desires out for the leaders, they set company direction by altering ways individuals think about what is possible and desirable. It shows that the leaders will work based on what they wish for and desire to do, unlike managers who work because they require something since it is essential rather than just desirable.
Moreover, the leaders and managers’ conceptions of work differ. Zalezink says that managers design compromises and limit choices while leaders increase options and they turn ideas into exciting images. When there is no compromise the chance of discovering is weakened and a manager could actually be wrong. A leader should at all times reach a mutually agreeable resolution based on subjective conditions, demands or variables otherwise unaccounted for. Leaders work in the differing direction. Leaders come up with new strategies to long-standing challenges and open concerns to fresh alternatives where managers act to limit choices. leaders ought to project their ideas to be effective, onto images exciting individuals and create selections giving those images substance. According to Zalezink, managers avoid risk while leaders try to find risk when opportunities seem promising. By avoiding the risk, managers change their plan to eliminate the probability of the risk that occurs completely or the effect of the risk in case it occurs. Leaders will accept greater risk, which may be related to issues such as uncertainty in trading or investments, price volatility and in exchange for the probable for higher returns. Moreover, Zalezink says that managers are be able to negotiate, coerce and have the capacity to balance opposing views unlike leaders while the leaders develop fresh approaches to problems. When faced with a difficult situation, a leader will be defining a problem, find out the cause of the issue. This will be achieved through identifying, prioritizing, as well as selecting alternatives for a way out; and employing the solution. On the other hand, when the manager is faced with a problem, he will persuade people even if they are unwilling person to do come up with solutions and obtain or bring about by discussion. Afterward the manager will balance opposing views to come up with a solution.
From both articles, it is evident that leaders are made and not born since this can be achieved it a person learns and adopt all the characteristics listed in the articles. leadership skills are established and enhanced, just like other capabilities. According to Forbes Coaches Council, leaders can closely work with upcoming experts to assist them turn into better and more effective leaders. The trainers are as well excellently in agreement with the place of work developments, and based the current transforming environment, they understand the skills that upcoming leaders must have to be successful. Moreover, the arguments of both articles relate to each other because they both discuss what an effective leader requires to excel. The articles discuss of the ways a leader can be developed and the skills needed which contribute to shaping someone to be an effective leader. According to Zaleznik, companies require both leaders and managers to excel. On the other hand, they never build the appropriate atmosphere for leaders to flourish. Zaleznik has therefore offered a way out to this. He has recommended two means that can be used to improve leaders. First, there should be avoidance of depending too much on peer-learning circumstances like the work forces. They stifle the initiative and aggressiveness fueling leadership. Zaleznik also advocates for cultivating on one-to-one associations between apprentices and mentors such as the CEO choosing a talented novice to be his or her special assistant. The close working interactions boost tolerance of competitive impulses, penetrating emotional interchange, and enthusiasm to challenge concepts which as all the needed characteristics of leadership. On the other hand, Forbes Coaches Council outlines and discusses the 16 skills that a contemporary leader requires. The skills listed are linked to Zaleznik’s arguments and some of the include:
According to Forbes Coaches Council, the speed of our workplaces and the market, driven by the continuous flow of innovative technology in addition to the “on demand” prospects it has formed, will continue increasing. To keep up with the fast-changing, leaders need to be quickly yet effectively think, decide as well as inspire. This is linked to Zaleznik’s arguments because they both advocate for leaders to have the power of act quickly and with ease in their work and when faced with a challenge. Zaleznik’s arguments supports Forbes Coaches Council argument because he says that to for one to be develop fearless agility, he ought to be in a position of developing fresh approaches to problems, and this will help the leader to increase options. Zaleznik’s also says that a leader has to be able to turn ideas into exciting images which will help a leader to keep up with the fast-changing workplaces and the market.
Forbes Coaches Council, argues that the future of leadership revolves around the leaders’ abilities of creating emotional intelligence in themselves, and individuals whose lives they touch. Compassion and empathy are foundations that unit people in common comprehension around complex, vital and at times alienating economic and socio-political concerns. This is linked to Zaleznik’s arguments because they both advocate for leaders to be to recognize their emotions and be understanding. Zaleznik’s arguments supports Forbes Coaches Council argument because he states that leaders should relate directly to others empathetically and intuitively. This will help them have the ability to recognize their emotions, and realize how your emotions affect people around them. Also subordinates consider leaders to be emotionally rich with feelings such as love and hate (Zaleznik, 1977).
According to Forbes Coaches Council, the speed of work, technology and transformation increase continually. Leaders ought to be extremely skillful listeners so that they can constantly stay ahead of the curve on of their clients, their teams and their partners. That need to learn to listen on multiple levels, such as tuning in better to the emotional conversations of people they work with, serve and lead. This is linked to Zaleznik’s arguments because they both advocate for leaders to be pay attention to stay ahead of others in terms of business. Zaleznik’s arguments supports Forbes Coaches Council argument because he states leaders need to increase options and also turn ideas into exciting images. This options can include listeners so that they can stay ahead of the curve on of their clients, their teams and their partners. Also according to Zaleznik, leaders need to come up with new approaches to problems such as need knowledge in listening multiple levels.
Forbes Coaches Council. (2017, December 27). Council Post: 16 Essential Leadership Skills For The Workplace Of Tomorrow. Retrieved January 28, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/12/27/16-essential-leadership-skills-for-the-workplace-of-tomorrow/?sh=3ea3037d54ce
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different. Harvard Business ReviewOrder Now