Management is frequently referred to words like efficiency, planning, paperwork, processs, ordinances, control, and consistence whereas Leadership is frequently associated with words like vision, creativeness and risk-taking ( Yukl, 2005 ) . It has besides been said that direction is fundamentally a control-laden activity ; whereas leading is fundamentally a value-choosing, and therefore a value-laden activity ( Bass et al. , 1990 ) .
Overall Management is defined as The organisational procedure that includes strategic planning, puting aims, managing resources, deploying the human and fiscal assets needed to accomplish aims, and mensurating consequences ” ( Burgoyne, 1989 ) .
Leadership is defined as A procedure in which leader and followings interact in a manner that enables the leader to act upon the actions of the followings in a non-coercive manner, towards the accomplishment of certain purposes or aims ” ( Rollinson and Broadfield, 2002 )
In Kotter ‘s ( 1996 ) position Management relates to be after, commanding and organizing whereas leading relates to visioning, networking, making, get bying with alteration and edifice relationship. Leadership is frequently considered grander, more moneymaking and admirable, in a word: better, than the less seeable, basically based, direction ( Hughes et al. , 2009 ) . The relationship between direction and leading is summarised in Appendix 1.
From this we can reason are directors leaders or frailty versa. As Zaleznik ( 1977 ) claims that in a bureaucratic society which breeds directors may keep immature leaders who need wise man and emotional interchange to develop. But Raelin ( 2004 ) argued that directors are non excluded from leading. He says there is a possible for leading to emerge from any single under the right sets of fortunes.
I would reason from my personal experience that directors can be leaders and frailty versa depending on single capablenesss, accomplishments and accommodating alteration, as in Lloyds banking Group ( LBG ) we have directors as our squad leaders and are rather successful in exchanging their functions and understanding the duties of both directors and leaders. The construct was that as directors have some formal authorization to act upon subsidiaries behaviour they can easy busy the function of leading.
However, merely because the authorization was at that place, it did non intend that subsidiaries will volitionally accede to its usage. There had been issues ab initio when they find it difficult to exchange over and look from leader ‘s point of position, which caused jobs in adhering with employees and deficiency of motive.
This resulted in acquiring all the directors trained on leading programmes and understanding the demands or demands of employees from their leaders. This was once more based on how single directors reacted to state of affairss where they were able to maintain their managerial self-importance aside and believe as a squad. Some of the directors were really good at exchanging over and believing from a squad position whereas some struggled.
Overall we can reason that Zaleznik argument sing direction and leading requires different types of people can be true, if an person can non get by with the altering administration demands. But in LBG we have seen that directors successfully play leader ‘s function and frailty versa to salvage cost or to accommodate alteration and therefore distort Zaleznik ‘s statement.
But as Rollinson and Broadfield ( 2002 ) frequently focus on directors can be leaders, this is non an inevitable province of personal businesss. Even though it is widely assumed that leading can be taught to anybody, it is likely far more realistic to see direction and leading as two complementary activities ( Kotter, 1988 ) , each one holding its ain alone maps.
Quality work being top precedence in administrations all over universe as the usage of contingent workers is on the rise. Pull offing cognition workers continues to vex experient directors across divergent industries. And globalisation and the challenges of pull offing across boundary lines are now the norm alternatively of the exclusion. These alterations can hold a profound influence on how companies attempt to pull, retain, and actuate their employees ( Steers et al. , 2004 )
Motivation, in contrast, consequences when the individual believes that prosecuting in the behavior will ensue in some coveted experience or result. Motivation is so differentiated into intrinsic motive and extrinsic motive ( Herzberg et al. , 1957 )
Intrinsic Motivation is where people may be motivated by the relationship between the worker and the undertaking. It takes topographic point when people feel that the work they do is interesting, disputing and have chances for promotion and growing.
Extrinsic Motivation takes topographic point when people may be motivated by factors in the external environment such as wage, supervising, benefits, and occupation fringe benefits
The procedure of motive is loosely based on a figure of motivational theories. In this paper we will asses few motivational theories ( Appendix 2 ) and asses these theories to place what motivates people.
Instrumental Theory: Initially in the 2nd half of nineteenth century a construct of Instrumental Theory stated that people work merely for money. Motivation utilizing this attack is entirely based on system of external control and fails to recognize a figure of other human demands ( Armstrong and Stephens, 2005 ) .
Maslow Needs Theory: The BASIC of this theory is the belief that an unsated demand creates tenseness and disequilibrium. Maslow ( 1954 ) formulated the construct of hierarchy of demands and believed that grounds people go to work alterations. It starts from the cardinal physiological demands and leads through safety, societal and esteems demands to the demand for self-fulfilment. He believed that merely an unsated demand can actuate behavior and the dominant demand is the premier incentive of behavior.
Herzberg ‘s Two-Factor Model ( Motivation-Hygiene ) : Herzberg ‘s ( 1957 ) theory sates that the factors giving rise to occupation satisfaction are distinct from the factors that lead to occupation dissatisfaction. His research led him to reason that hygiene factors such as wage, position, security, company policies and disposal were seldom high incentives. Peoples tend to take periphery benefits and good working conditions for granted, but when they are removed they had a extremely demotivating consequence. A salary addition had a short-run motivation consequence when it was felt to be deserved, while what was felt to be an unjust wage was a durable demotivator.
Overall all these theories adopt a psychologically cosmopolitan position, which assumes that everyone has a common set of demands and conveys the feeling that people are predictable in footings of what motivates them. Furthermore all these theories largely ignore the important issue of single differences and besides to the potentially powerful effects of different national and organizational civilizations as factors that can determine human demands ( Bagher, 2010 ) .
In a work environment, it is sometimes viewed as the difference between what people can make and what they will make. In the practical workplace LBG uses assorted motive theoretical accounts one of the extremely used motivational theoretical accounts is Support and Challenge Principles Model.
Support and Challenge Principles Model ( Sheppard Moscow, 1980 ) : This theoretical account suggests that to accomplish working relationship requires a balance of appropriate and agreed supportive and ambitious behaviors. The two axes of support and challenge when set together make four possible workplace environments as shown in fig below:
S public presentation public presentation
U environment environment
T apathetic stressful
public presentation public presentation
CHALLENGE High Challenge
To acquire the most from your working relationships, it is of import to hold how best to work together to maximize public presentation and minimise tenseness. One manner of believing about this is to believe of in the footings of developing a manner of working that is both disputing and supportive. The list of behaviors in each of the classs is detailed in Appendix 3.
Different functions and state of affairss will utilize different mixes of these two classs and depending upon the state of affairs, the same single can happen any of these conditions or features back uping or disputing. If the workplace state of affairs remains really comfy or alphabetic for a long clip, so extra challenges will excite the move towards high public presentation.
On the other manus if the workplace state of affairs remains really nerve-racking for excessively long, so support to assist pull off the deductions is extremely effectual. Though, there will be times when short periods of high challenges or high support are appropriate e.g. at the terminal of a peculiar busy period, comfort is a wages and high challenges can be really stimulating and exciting in short explosions ( LBG, 2011 ) .
Management ‘s chief involvement in motive is in the chances it offers for conveying employee behavior under tight control. Therefore what involvement directors most is non the procedure of motive but employee behavior. However we can barely fault directors for believing that motive theory offers this chance, because content and procedure theories both imply that if we know o individual ‘s demands, the individual can be motivated ( Armstrong and Stephens, 2005 ) .
Therefore from the above we have seen different facets of motive and it might look that there is an component of contradiction in what they say. Contented theories trade with the demands that give rise to actuate behavior, but possibly oversimplify affairs because they tend to portray human existences as holding a homogeneous set of demands. However, every bit long as due allowance is made for single differences, this does non take away from their possible utility. Procedure theories have a different accent: they seek to explicate the kineticss of the motive procedure and so much greater history is taken of single differences ( Bagher, 2010 ) .
Historically, leading has been conceived around a individual person in a specialized function, the relationship of that person to subsidiaries or followings, and the person ‘s actions. There are several major paradigms of leading ( Appendix 4 ) , such as the traits ( great adult male ” ) , accomplishments and manners attacks, situational and eventuality attacks, magnetic and transformational attacks ( Northouse, 2007, p2 ; Bass, 1990 ) .
The action-centred theory of leading is based on extended research by John Adair ‘s ( 1984 ) , which focuses on the group and the demands that leader must run into. Adair argues that there are eight maps you must transport out, to run into these demands.
These maps can be learned, practised, ascertained and refined.
Beginning: ( Bagher, 2010: 186 )
Task demand: A squad leader demands to convey together the group to accomplish a undertaking by supplying clear instructions and grounds so each member must cognize and understand what is expected of them.
Team demand: Good leaders create groups which function best when they portion the sense of intent along with join forcesing work expeditiously, efficaciously, with a sense of pride and duty by keeping or puting new criterions.
Individual demand: Peoples or persons are bosom of any squad but they have physical and psychological demands like better working conditions, position, chances to develop, construct assurance and motive.
From this it follows that being effectual as a leader is non merely a affair of taking a specific manner of behavior, but geting at an appropriate balance between the three maps. Promoting communicating between squad members is cardinal to making a squad that will go on to work good when the leader is absent. This resiliency is valuable and might be referred to as ‘team sustainability ‘ .
Leadership & A ; Power
The nexus between leading and power is a strong one and many of the theories of leading can every bit be framed as theories of power. Effective taking depends on trusting on different power bases at different times as per demand. At its simplest, the manner you wield power to acquire conformity can be appropriate or inappropriate. Appropriate usage of power can be described as influence, while inappropriate usage can be described as intimidation.
Beginning: Gallic and Raven ( 1960 )
Armstrong, M. and Stephens, T. ( 2005 ) Employee Reward Management and Practice, London: Kogan Page Limited.
Bagher, M. ( 2010 ) Organisational Behavior: a modern-day attack, 2nd Edition, Harlow: Pearson.
Bass, B. , Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. ( 1990 ) Bass & A ; Stogdill ‘s Handbook of Leadership, New York: Simon & A ; Schuster.
Burgoyne, J. ( 1989 ) Management Development: Context and Strategies, Aldershot: Gower.
Herzberg, F. , Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. ( 1957 ) The Motivation to Work, New York: Wiley
Hughes, R. , Ginnett, R. and Curphy, G. ( 2009 ) Leadership, 6th ed. , Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Kotter, J. ( 1988 ) The Leadership Factor, New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. ( 1996 ) Leading Change, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kurtzman, J. ( 2010 ) Common Purpose: How Great Leaders Get Organizations to Achieve the Extraordinary, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maslow, A. ( 1954 ) Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper & A ; Row.
Raelin, J. A. ( 2004 ) Do n’t trouble oneself seting leading into people, Academy of Management Executive, 18 ( 3 ) : 12-28.
Rollinson, D. and Broadfield, A. ( 2002 ) Organisational Behaviour and Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.
Tips, R. , Mowday, R. and Shapiro, D. ( 2004 ) The Future of Work Motivation Theory, Academy of Management Review, 29 ( 3 ) : 379-387.
Yukl, G. ( 2005 ) Leadership in Organizations, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zaleznik, A. ( 1977 ) Managers and Leaderships: are they different? , Harvard Business Review, ( May/June ) 55 ( 3 ) : 67-77.
Gallic, J. P. R. , and Raven, B. ( 1960 ) The bases of societal power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander ( explosive detection systems. ) , Group kineticss ( pp. 607-623 ) , New York: Harper and Row.
A Comparison of Management and Leadership Competencies.
Beginning: Northouse, 2007, p. 10.
Summary of Motivation Theories and their practical deductions
Summary of theory
Peoples will be motivated to work if wagess and punishments are tied straight to their public presentation.
Conceptual footing of inducements and pay for public presentation strategies.
Unsatisfied demands create tenseness and disequilibrium. To reconstruct the balance a end is identified which will fulfill the demand, and a behaviour tract is selected which will take to the accomplishment of the end. Merely unsated demands motivate.
Identifies a figure of cardinal demands for consideration in developing entire wages policies.
The factors giving rise to occupation satisfaction ( and motive ) are distinguishable from the factors that lead to occupation dissatisfaction. Any feeling of satisfaction ensuing from wage addition is likely to be ephemeral compared with the durable satisfaction from the work itself. Make a differentiation between intrinsic motive originating from the work itself and extrinsic motive provided by employer, e.g. wage.
A utile differentiation is made between intrinsic and extrinsic motive which influences entire wages determinations. The limited motivational effects of wage additions are deserving retrieving when sing the portion contingent wage can play in actuating people.
Motivation is likely merely when a clear perceived and useable relationship exists between public presentation and result and the result is seen as a agency of fulfilling demands.
Provides the foundation for good pattern in the design and direction of contingent wage. The footing for the construct of the ‘line of sight ‘ which emphasises the importance of set uping a clear nexus between the wages and what has to be done to accomplish it.
Latham and Locke
Motivation and public presentation are higher when persons are set specific ends, when the ends are hard but recognized and when there is feedback on public presentation.
Provides a theoretical underpinning for public presentation direction processes to guarantee that they contribute to motive through end scene and feedback.
Peoples will be better motivated if they are treated equitably and de-motivated if they are treated inequitably.
Emphasis the demand to develop an just wages system affecting the usage of occupation rating.
Beginning: ( Armstrong and Stephens, 2005 )
Definitions of cardinal Job Dimensions
Job Dimensions Definition
Work Satisfaction: The extent to which an employee is satisfied with work, including chances for creativeness and undertaking assortment, leting an person to increase his or her cognition, alterations in duty, sum of work, security, and occupation enrichment ( Balzer and Smith et Al, 1990 ; Smith et Al, 1969 )
Pay Satisfaction: The extent to which an employee signifiers an attitude toward wage based on sensed difference between existent wage and the expected wage. Expected wage is based on the value of perceived inputs and end products of the occupation and the wage of other employees keeping similar occupations or possessing similar makings ( Balzer and Smith et Al, 1990 )
Supervision Satisfaction: The extent to which an employee is satisfied with his or supervising, as measured by consideration and employee-centred actions of the supervisor and the sensed competence of the supervisor by the subsidiary ( Balzer and Smith et Al, 1990, Herzberg et Al, 1957 )
Satisfaction with publicities: The grade to which an employee is satisfied with the Company ‘s publicity policy, including frequence of publicities, and the desirableness of publicities ( Balzer and Smith et Al, 1990, Herzberg et al 1957 )
Colleagues ‘ Satisfaction: The work-related interaction and the common liking or esteem of fellow employees ( Bazler and Smith et Al, 1990, Smith et Al, 1969, Alderfer, 1969 )
Overall Job Satisfaction: The extent to which an person ‘s desires, outlooks and demands are fulfilled by employment ( Szilagi, Sims, and Terrill, 1977 )
Construct on STRENGTHS
Offer HELP and counsel
Ask OPEN inquiries
DISCLOSE similar experiences
Ask PROBING inquiries
Point out AVOIDANCE behavior
Offer ALTERNATIVE sentiments
State people what you EXPECT
Set STRETCHING marks
ASSERT your positions
Having Thingss Like
Tools or Methods
A clime of openness and honestness
Having Thingss Like
Confronting feedback from others
Making things in a different manner
Working with fresh people
Learning new behaviors
New tools or procedures
High work volumes