Leadership vs. Management
Submitted by: Shannon Meaney
Edited by: Clare Hanman
LIBR 282 Literature Synthesis
December 11, 2011
Instructor: Dr. Ken Haycock
San Jose State University, School of Information and Library Science
1
Executive Summary
Leaders manage and managers lead, but the two activities are not synonymous.
Management functions can potentially provide leadership; leadership activities can
contribute to managing. Nevertheless, some managers do not lead, and some leaders
do not manage. (Stogdill, 1974)
A good manager focuses on doing things right, is efficient and a good leader
focuses on doing the right things, has vision and innovation (Bennis & Goldsmith,
Learning to Lead, 2003). Although, the words are sometimes interchanged and often
times not differentiated there are distinct differences between the two roles in
organizations.
Webster’s dictionary refers to “Management”, conducting or supervising of
something and “Leadership”, the power or ability to lead other people. A leader is a
person who plays a strategic role in an organization in decision making, setting a
direction, and developing and communicating a vision, A manager is a person with
critical roles and responsibilities on a tactical level helping the organization succeed in
achieving its vision.
What is the difference between a manager and a leader? Why is there a
difference? Are they synonymous with one another? Are they both necessary? This
paper will answer those questions and introduce the reader to multiple definitions,
characteristics, history, theories that are the basis of differences and similarities
between leadership and management.
2
Introduction
When you are in a supervisory role within an organization do you ever stop and
think, am I a manager or a leader? Leadership and management are considered by
many to be synonymous functions currently used in organizations .But are they? This
paper will examine that issue by reviewing literature that defines leadership and
management theories, presents historical significance and outlines the differences and
similarities of both these terms.
What are Leadership and Management?
According to Bennis, the leader’s job is to inspire and motivate and a manager’s
job is to plan, organize and coordinate (Bennis & Goldsmith, Learning to Lead, 2003),
Steven Covey, author of the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, believes that you lead
people and you manage things (Covey, 2004) and John Knotter of the Harvard
Business School believes that management is about coping with complexity while
leading is coping with change (Allman S. , 2009).
Gardner identified managers as those individuals who hold a directive post in an
organization, a person who organizes functions, allocates resources, and makes the
best use of people. He also noted that every time he encountered an effective manager
that the manager possessed a lot of leadership abilities but the focus was different
(Gardner, 1990).
With the emergence of complex organizations, leaders introduce the big ideas.
They create and implement the big picture and its operations then hand it over to a
manager to maintain its efficiency and processes, bringing order and consistency. Both
are vital to for a successful workplace (Kotterman, 2006).
3
Leadership
Leadership is the function of knowing, yourself, having vision that is well
communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize
their own leadership potential (Hernon & Rossiter, 2007). Leadership influences a group
of individuals to achieve a common goal. Vision, direction and focus, clear goals, a team
spirit, are leadership skills that successfully align people towards that common goal.
Leadership is the single biggest factor that drives change and organizational
improvement. A leader has a clear idea of what they want to do professionally and
personally and the strength to persist in the face of setbacks and failures (Bennis, On
Becoming A Leader, 2009).
A common description of leadership types include; Autocratic, one who makes all
the decisions, tells employees what to do, and micro manages their employees,
Democratic, one who encourages employee participation, works with employees to
determine what to do, and does not micro manage, and Laissez-Faire, one who allows
employees to make decisions and decide what to do.
Historical Perspective of Leadership Theories
Great Man Theory 1840
The Great Man theory assumes that great leaders are born not made. They are
destined at birth to be good leaders. Certain intrinsic qualities exist in some people that
result in them being great leaders. Historian Thomas Carlyle (1888) had a major
influence on this theory of leadership, at one point stating that, "The history of the world
is but the biography of great men." According to Carlyle, effective leaders are those
gifted with divine inspiration and the right characteristics (Carlyle, 1888).
4
Trait Theory 1930’s -1940’s
Trait Theory is based on the belief that certain people possess mental, physical,
or social traits that result in them being great leaders. These traits can be those one is
born with or obtain throughout life. Trait theories often identify particular personality or
behavioral characteristics shared by leaders. Although over 4000 personality traits have
been identified (Allport & Odbert, 1936) common traits found in recognized leaders were
used as indicators of successful leaders. Stogdill (1974) identified the following critical
traits of leaders; adaptable, alert, ambitious assertive, cooperative, decisive,
dependable, dominant, energetic, persistent, self-confident, tolerant of stress, willing to
assume responsibility. There was not total consensus among researchers on critical
traits (Stogdill, 1974).
Behavioral Theories 1940’s-1950
Eventually trait theory was sidelined when it became apparent that what leaders
actually did had significant impact on their ability to lead successfully. Behavioral
Theories are base on the belief that leaders are made not born. In contrast to Trait
Theories, Behavioral Theorists believe it is the behavior of leaders that make them great
leaders. These behaviors are considered definable and learnable.
Early experiments on types of leadership style based on how leaders behaved,
was researched by Kurt Lewin (1939). He identified three types of leadership,
particularly around decision-making. The three styles Lewin described are:
Autocratic Leadership: In the autocratic style, the leader takes decisions without
consulting with others. The decision is made without any form of consultation. In
Lewin's experiments, he found that this caused the most level of discontent.
5
Democratic Leadership: In the democratic style, the leader involves the people in
the decision-making, although the process for the final decision may vary from
the leader having the final say to them facilitating consensus in the group.
Laissez-Faire: The laissez-faire style is to minimize the leader's involvement in
decision-making, and hence allowing people to make their own decisions,
although they may still be responsible for the outcome
(Lewin, Llippit, & White, 1939).
In Lewin’s experiments, he discovered that the most effective style was
Democratic. Excessive autocratic styles led to revolution, while under a Laissez-faire
approach, people were not coherent in their work and did not put in the energy that they
did when being actively led. The three approaches to decision making were generalized
to apply to over all leadership styles and were highly influential for years (Changing
Minds , 2011).
Other studies were carried out to identify successful leadership behaviors,
including studies at Ohio State University and Michigan University. The first looked at
the dimensions of consideration (friendship, trust, respect, warmth) and Initiating
structure (roles, relationships, communication) and their relationship
to leadership. The conclusion of the Michigan studies was that an employee-oriented
and general, instead of close, supervision yielded better results. The Ohio State study
revealed that leadership behaviors related to both employee orientation (human
relations) and production orientation (getting the work done) correlated to leadership
effectiveness (Fleishman & Harris, 1962).
6
Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (1964) developed another theory called the
Leadership Grid, focusing on production/relationship orientations uncovered in the Ohio
State and Michigan University studies. They went a little further by creating a grid
based on Leaders’ concern for people (relationships) and production (tasks). It
suggests there is a best way to lead people the 9,9 way, refer to Figure. 1
Figure 1
(Blake & Mouton, 1964)
The Model
Impoverished: This leadership style features low production and low concern for people.
This means that not much work is getting done and the workers are not provided with
an environment that is motivating or rewarding.
7
Country Club Style: This leadership style features high concern for people and
low concern for production. While the work environment may be enjoyable,
production suffers as a result of the lack of leadership.
Authoritarian: This leadership style features high concern for production and low
concern for people. In this work environment, the needs of the employees are
always secondary to the bottom line. These managers are autocratic, with strict
work rules, and they prefer to use punishment to control their employees.
Middle-of-the-Road: This leadership style features medium production and
medium concern for people. Leaders who use this style are often satisfied with
average production and might even believe this is the most that can be expected.
Team Leader: This type of leadership style features high production and high
concern for people. Team style managers ensure employees understand and
contribute to the direction of the company. This is an environment where people’s
needs are met and production goals are reached (Mind Tools LTD, 2011).
Contingency Theories 1960’s-1980
These theories are based on the belief that a leader’s effectiveness depends on
how well the leader’s style fits the context of the work situation. The theory was
developed by studying the styles of leaders in situations and whether they were
effective (primarily in military organizations). Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) identified
three forces that led to the leader's action: the forces in the situation, the forces in the
8
follower and also forces in the leader. This recognizes that the leader's style is highly
variable.
The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership was developed to describe the way that leaders
encourage and support their followers in achieving the goals they have been set by
making the path that they should take clear and easy.
In particular, leaders:

Clarify the path so subordinates know which way to go.

Remove roadblocks that are stopping them going there.

Increasing the rewards along the route.
(Tannenbaum & Schmitt, How to choose a leadership pattern, 1958)
Leaders can take a strong or limited approach in these. In clarifying the path,
they may be directive or give vague hints. In removing roadblocks, they may scour the
path or help the follower move the bigger blocks. In increasing rewards, they may give
occasional encouragement or pave the way with gold. This variation in approach will
depend on the situation, including the follower's capability and motivation, as well as the
difficulty of the job and other contextual factors (Changing Minds , 2011).
Fred Fiedler’s situational contingency theory holds that group effectiveness
depends on an appropriate match between a leader’s style (essentially a trait measure)
and the demands of the situation. Fiedler considers situational control, the extent to
which a leader can determine what his or her group is going to do, to be the primary
contingency factor in determining the effectiveness of leader behavior. Many scholars
assumed that there was one best style of leadership. Fiedler’s contingency model
postulates that the leader’s effectiveness is based on “situational contingency”, which is
9
a result of interaction of two factors: leadership style and situational favorableness (later
called situational control). Fiedler’s leadership style of the leader was fixed and
measured by what he calls the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale. This is an
instrument for measuring an individual’s leadership orientation. The calculation on the
scale determined if the leader takes a human relations orientation or a task orientation
in leading individuals or groups (Vector Study, 2008).
In Hersey and Blanchard’s (1988) Situational Leadership Model four different
leadership styles could be drawn upon to successfully deal with the “readiness”
(willingness, ability, and confidence) of the individuals or groups they lead, see Figure 2.
Figure 2
Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Model
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1988)
Transformational Leadership Theories 1970’sThe term Transformational Leadership was first coined by Downton (1973),
however, its emergence did not really come about until James Burn's classic, and
Leadership (1978) was published. Burns (1978) noted that the majority of leadership
models and practices were based on transactional processes that focused on
10
exchanges between the leader and follow, such as promotions for excellent work or
punishment for being late.
Burns defined transformational leadership as a process where leaders and
followers engage in a mutual process of “raising one another to higher levels of morality
and motivation.”
Transformational leaders raise the bar by appealing to higher ideals and values
of followers. In doing so, they may model the values themselves and use charismatic
methods to attract people to the values and to the leader.
Burns' view is that transformational leadership is more effective than
transactional leadership, where the appeal is to more selfish concerns. An appeal to
social values thus encourages people to collaborate, rather than working as individuals
(and potentially competitively with one another). He also views transformational
leadership as an ongoing process rather than the discrete exchanges of the
transactional approach (Burns, 1978).
Bernard Bass (1997) has four interrelated components that he views as essential
for leaders to move followers into the transformational style. First is idealized influence.
He maintains that genuine trust must be built between leaders and followers. “If the
leadership is truly transformational, its charisma or idealized influence is characterized
by high moral and ethical standards.” Trust for both leader and follower is built on a
solid moral and ethical foundation. The second component is inspirational motivation. Its
[transformational leadership’s] inspirational motivation provides followers with
challenges and meaning for engaging in shared goals and undertakings. The leader’s
appeal to what is right and needs to be done provides the impetus for all to move
11
forward. Next, is intellectual stimulation, intellectual stimulation helps followers to
question assumptions and to generate more creative solutions to problems. The
leader’s vision provides the framework for followers to see how they connect to the
leader, the organization, each other, and the goal. Once they have this big picture view
and are allowed freedom from convention they can creatively overcome any obstacles
in the way of the mission. Lastly, is individual consideration, individual consideration
treats each follower as an individual and provides coaching, mentoring and growth
opportunities. This approach not only educates the next generation of leaders, but also
fulfills the individuals need for self-actualization, self-fulfillment, and self-worth. It also
naturally propels followers to further achievement and growth (Bass, 1997).
Transformational Leadership fits into the higher levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs, as it requires a high level of self-esteem and self-actualization to successfully be
an authentic transformational leader.
Historical Perspective of Management Theories
Management Theories
Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Charles Babbage (1792-1871) were considered
early pioneers in management theory development. Owens studied the welfare of
workers and other human resource issues while Babbage’s work centered on creating
efficiencies of production. However, the first popularly accepted theory of management
was the Scientific Management Theory of Frederick Taylor. Taylor (1856-1917)
consistently sought to overthrow management “by rule of thumb” and replace it with
actual timed observations leading to “the one best” practice. Taylor’s legacy was the
12
concept of breaking a complex task down into a number of subtasks, and optimizing the
performance of the subtasks; hence his stop- watch measured time trials. (Olum, 2004).
Classical Organizational Theory
The works of Max Weber’s (1864-1920) bureaucratic theory and Henri Fayol’s
(1841-1925) administrative theory form the basis of this theory. Max Weber stressed
that rational bureaucracies must be managed in accordance with carefully developed
rules and principles that can be learned and applied. Only with such rules and principles
can the activities of hundreds of managers at different levels in the organization be
predicted and coordinated. He felt that if we cannot predict what others will do, then we
cannot count on them.
These rules and principles included (1) functional specialization (2) clear lines of
hierarchical authority, (3) expert training of managers, and (4) decision making based
on rules and tactics developed to guarantee consistent and effective pursuit of
organizational goals. Weber’s bureaucracy guidelines influenced organizational
behavior for a long period (Borgatti, 2002).
Henri Fayol’s work focused on the personal duties of managers. He developed
14 principles of management that he considered to be universal truths of management.
Many of his principles are still followed today. He was the first to identify specific
management functions of planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and
controlling (Cutaja, 2010).
Behavioral Theories
At the turn of the 20th Century it was thought that Scientific Management and
Classical Organizational Theory approaches were not being successful because they
13
did not account for employee motivation and behavior. As a result the Behavior
Management approached emerged in importance. The behavioral management theory
is often called the human relations movement because it addresses the human
dimension of work. Behavioral theorists believed that a better understanding of human
behavior at work, such as motivation, conflict, expectations, and group dynamics,
improved productivity. There were several important studies that contributed to the
development of the Behavioral Theories.
Elton Mayo conducted the Hawthorne Studies (1927-1932) at a Chicago Western
Electric plant to find the best conditions for worker productivity, an activity consistent
with the Scientific Management approach popular at the time. To his surprise the
studied workers increased productivity when a number of different often-conflicting
conditions were presented. It was concluded that the worker perception of someone
caring about them and their working conditions in itself lead to higher productivity.
Several follow up studies in which workers were given special privileges and freedoms
also significantly increased productivity. It was beginning to become apparent that the
behaviors of managers toward workers to improve worker satisfaction and needs could
improve productivity (Anteby & Khurana, 2010).
Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) conducted a number of studies on human
motivation. Maslow studied people who were “self actualized” that is they were doing all
they were capable of. In 1954 he presented his “Hierarchy of Needs Pyramid” that
represented a progression of levels of needs that if satisfied would lead to selfactualization. Managers attempted to motivate employees by providing conditions and
support to help workers meet those needs (Mcleod, 2007).
14
In1966, Frederick Herzberg, a popular manage consultant and researcher,
presented lists of factors that he concluded related to motivation of workers n the
workplace. The first list (cited on p.139) he called “Hygiene Factors” or “Dissatisfies”.
The factors on this list included working conditions, policies and administrative
practices, salary and benefits, supervision status, job security, co-workers, and personal
life. The second list (cited on p.74 and 147) called “Motivators” or “Satisfiers” included
recognition, achievement, advancement, growth, responsibility, and job challenge.
Herzberg stated that all the Hygiene or Dissatisfies factors had to be in place before
workers could be motivated. Managers could then do “job enriching” actions on the
Motivator’s or Satisfiers list. This information had a profound effect on managers in how
they structured the work, how they dealt with workers and even how they structured
their own work. Managers had to give up some control over completion of tasks to
workers. Workers were given more freedom, asked for input, and sincerely recognized
for their accomplishments (Herberg, 1966).
Douglas McGregor’s (1906-1964), Human Side of Enterprise (1960) had a
significant effect on management behavior. Based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs he
developed two theories he called Theory X and Theory Y. The first was based on
Maslow’s lower-order needs while the second was based on Maslow’s higher order
needs. He suggested that management could use either set of needs to motivate
employees, but better results would be gained by the use of Theory Y, rather than
Theory X. These two opposing perceptions theorized how people view human behavior
at work and organizational life:
15
Theory x (‘authoritarian management’ style)
The average person dislikes work and will avoid it he/she can. Therefore most
people must be forced with the threat of punishment to work towards
organizational objectives. The average person prefers to be directed; to avoid
responsibility; is relatively unambitious, and wants security above all else.
Theory y (‘participative management’ style)
Effort in work is as natural as work and play. People will apply self-control and
self-direction in the pursuit of organizational objectives, without external control
or the threat of punishment. Commitment to objectives is a function of rewards
associated with their achievement. People usually accept and often seek
responsibility. The capacity to use a high degree of imagination, ingenuity and
creativity in solving organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in
the population. In industry the intellectual potential of the average person is only
partly utilized (Alan Chapman Review, 2010).
As a group those contributing to the development of the Behavioral Theory felt
that people worked for their inner satisfaction rather than rather than external rewards.
This had a profound effect on how managers worked with employee and how they
structured the workplace.
Contemporary Management Theories
A number of theories have driven management behavior from the recent decade
to today. W.H. Waddell (1992) describes the current, conventional management model
as having been developed by Alfred Sloan for General Motors early in this century. The
16
model, he points out, manages by the numbers "because every relevant aspect of the
operation flow[s] to and from the accounting system… . . . what we call the 'economic
model of the firm,' which is based on the principles of maximizing shareholder value."
They contend that everything in the conventional management model flows out of one
primary objective, maximizing shareholder wealth (Stupak & Leitner, 2001). Some call
this “Quantitative Management”. This management theory Griffin (2006) cautions cannot
fully explain or predict the behavior of the people in the organizations and may come at
a cost by raising mathematical sophistication at the expense of other managerial skills
(Griffin, Fundamentals of Management, 2006).
One management theory that has had a significant impact on U.S. businesses
and other organizations during the past few decades is Quality Management.
Edwards Deming is considered the founder of Quality Management and is regarded by
the Japanese as the key figure in their post war economic miracle. (Olum, 2004)
Quality Management, referred to also as Total Quality Management or TQM, has
garnered an enthusiastic group of adherents away from competing management
methodologies.
Total Quality Management is the organization-wide management of quality.
Management consists of planning, organizing, directing, control, and assurance. Total
quality is called total because it consists of two qualities: quality of return to satisfy the
needs of the shareholders, and quality of products. The key to this system is the
formation of collaborative problem solving teams of workers that constantly gather data
on outputs and suggest changes in work processes to improve quality.
17
Leadership and Management Differences
Although there are many differences between Leadership and Management
there are three core differences that standout from the rest.
1) Leadership is synthesis and Management analysis. Every synthesis is built
upon the results of a preceding analysis, and every analysis requires a
subsequent synthesis in order to verify and correct its results see Figure 4.
Figure 4
Synthesis and Analyze cycle
2) Leadership has long-term impact; management has short –term goals.
Leader’s decisions impact the future of an organization; they bring vision, motivating the
organization towards its strategic goals. Manager’s role is to maintain the day-to-day
operations and supervising staff, task driven, and measuring performance.
3) Leaders have clearly different roles, responsibilities, and functions from those
of managers. The competencies required to do each role well are quite different.
(Practical Mangement, 2010) .
Rowe (2001) found that organizations with strong management but weak or no
leadership will stifle creativity and innovation and be very bureaucratic. Conversely, an
18
organization with strong leadership and weak or nonexistent management can become
involved in change for the sake of change, change that is misdirected or meaningless
and has a negative effect on the organization. Kotter (1998) argues that organizations
are over managed and underled. However, strong leadership with weak management is
no better and may be worse. He suggests that organizations need strong leadership
and strong management. Managers are needed to handle complexity by instituting
planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, and controlling and problem solving.
Leaders are needed to handle change through setting a direction, aligning people, and
motivating and inspiring people. He argues that organizations need people who can do
both—they need leader-managers. Figure 5
Kotter Leader Manager Theory
Figure 5
(Kotter, 2011)
Conclusion
Good Leadership and good management are different and both are essential for
an organization to thrive. Leadership is similar to, and different from, management.
19
They both involve influencing people. They both require working with people. Both are
concerned with the achievement of common goals.
Leaders are focused on the “big picture” issues like vision, direction, and
strategies. Leadership is strategic in nature. Manager’s focus on tactical activities and
often times has a more directive and controlling approach. They ensure work gets done,
focus on day to day tasks, and manage the activities of others.
Leadership is a human process and management is a process of resource
allocation, both have their place and managers must also perform as leaders. All firstclass managers turn out to have quite a lot of leadership ability.
Leadership scholars take different views on their differences. Bennis and Nanus
define management as accomplishing activities and mastering routines, to lead means
to influence others and create visions for change. Leadership is a multidirectional
influences relationships; management an authoritative relationship.
Bennis and Nanus (1985) expressed the differences between managers and
leaders very clearly in their often quoted phrase: “Managers are people who do things
right and leaders are people who do the right thing” (cited on p. 221). Implicit in this
statement is that organizations need people who do the right thing and who do the “right
things right” (Bennis & Nanus, Leaders: The strategies for taking charge, 1985).
Although the literature states there are differences between managing and
leading, it is also evident that organizations need both managers and leaders to be
successful. This paper began by asking several questions. Upon conducting a literature
review of leadership and management, I conclude that leadership and management are
20
two distinctly different functions in organizations but have some similarities. Both are
necessary and if both are effective the organization has a dramatically better chance of
achieving it goals.
21
References
Alan Chapman Review. (2010). douglas mcgregor - theory x y. Retrieved 2011 28November from Businessballs: http://www.businessballs.com/mcgregor.htm
Allman, S. (2009). Leadership vs. Management. Successful Meetings , 12.
Allport, G., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological
Monographs, , 211.
Anteby, M., & Khurana, R. (2010). Harvard Business School and the Hawthorne
Experiements (1924- 1933). Retrieved 2011 29-November from The Human Relations
Movement: http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/hawthorne/intro.html#i
Antoine, P. (2010). Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership. Retrieved November
2011, 29, from St. Francis University:
http://www.stfrancis.edu/content/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/btopics/works/fied.htm
Bass, B. (1997, “The Ethics of Transformational Leadership.” 1997.). The ethics of
transformational leadership. In Kellogg Leadership Studies Project, Transformational
Leadership Working Papers Transformational Leadership Working Papers, The James
MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership, .
22
Bennis, W. (2009). On Becoming A Leader. Philadelphia: Perseus Books.
Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (2003). Learning to Lead. New York: Basic Books.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row .
Bernard M. Bass, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: theory,
research, and managerial applications. New York: New York Free PRess.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Huston: Gulf.
Borgatti, S. (2002 April). Bureaucracy. Retrieved 2011 29-November from Analytictech :
http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/bureau.htm
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Carlyle, T. (1888). On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. New York:
Fredrick A. Stokes & Brothe.
Changing Minds . (2011). Retrieved November 29, 2011, from Participative Leadership:
http://www.changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/participative_leadership.htm
Chemers, M. (1997). An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Covey, S. (2004). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York City: Free
Press.
Cutaja, M. (2010 July). Henri Foyol's Principles of Management. Retrieved 2011 29November from Business Manaement@ suite 101:
http://maureencutajar.suite101.com/henri-fayols-principles-of-management-a265588
23
Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership. Personnell Psychology ,
95-101.
Gardner, J. (1990). On Leadership. New York City: The Free Press.
Ghiselli, E. E. (1963). Management Talent. American Psychologist , 631-41.
Griffin, R. W. (2006). Fundamentals of Management. Boston.
Griffin, R. W. (2006). Fundamentals of Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Herberg, A. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing
Company.
Hernon, P., & Rossiter, N. (2007). Making a difference: Leadership and academic
libraries. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1988). Management and Organizational Behavior.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Kotter, J. P. (2011). Kotter International. Retrieved November 2011-25 from
Management vs. Leadership:
http://www.kotterinternational.com/kotterprinciples/management-vs-leadership
Kotterman, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: What's the difference? The
Journal of Quality and Participation , 13.
Lewin, K., Llippit, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology , 271-301.
Maier, N. (1963). Problem-solving discussions and conferences. New York City:
McGraw-Hill.
24
Mcleod, S. (2007). Hierarchy of Needs. Retrieved 2011 29-November from Simply
Psychology: http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Mind Tools LTD. (2011). Blake Mouton Managerial Grid. Retrieved November 28, 2011,
from Mind Tools: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_73.htm
Olum, Y. (2004). The modern management theories and pracitces. 15th East African
Central Banking Course (pp. 1-24). Kenya: Kenya School of Monetary Studies.
Practical Mangement. (2010). Leadership vs. Mangement. Retrieved November 28,
2011, from Practical Management: http://www.practical-management.com/LeadershipDevelopment/Leadership-Vs-Management.html
Rickeets, K. (2009). Leadership vs. Management. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from
University of Kentucky: http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/elk1/elk1103/elk1103.pdf
Rowe, G., & Guerrero, ,. L. (2011). Cases in Leadership . Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial
applications. New York: New York Free PRess.
Stupak, R., & Leitner, P. (2001). The handbook of public quality management . New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Tannenbaum, A. a. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business
Review , 95-100.
Tannenbaum, A. a., & Schmitt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern.
Harvard Business Review , 95-100.
Vector Study. (2008). Retrieved November 30, 2011, from Fiedler's Contingecy Model:
http://www.vectorstudy.com/management_theories/fiedlers_contingency_model.htm
25