research support services

Management (or managing) is the administration of an organization, whether it be a business, a not-for-profit organization, or government body. Management includes the activities of setting the strategy of an organization and coordinating the efforts of its employees or volunteers to accomplish its objectives through the application of available resources, such as financial, natural, technological, and human resources. The term “management” may also refer to the people who manage an organization.

Management is also an academic discipline, a social science whose objective is to study social organization and organizational leadership. Management is studied at colleges and universities; some important degrees in management are the Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com.) and Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) and, for the public sector, the Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree. Individuals who aim at becoming management researchers or professors may complete the Doctor of Management (DM), the Doctor of Business Administration (DBA), or the PhD in Business Administration or Management.

In larger organizations, there are generally three levels of managers, which are typically organized in a hierarchical, pyramid structure. Senior managers, such as the Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or President of an organization, set the strategic goals of the organization and make decisions on how the overall organization will operate. Senior managers provide direction to the middle managers who report to them. Middle managers, examples of which would include branch managers, regional managers and section managers, provide direction to front-line managers. Middle managers communicate the strategic goals of senior management to the front-line managers. Lower managers, such as supervisors and front-line team leaders, oversee the work of regular employees (or volunteers, in some voluntary organizations) and provide direction on their work.

In smaller organizations, the roles of managers have much wider scopes. A manager can perform several roles or even all of the roles commonly observed in a large organization.

Contents

[hide]

Definitions[edit]

Views on the definition and scope of management include:

According to Henri Fayol, “to manage is to forecast and to plan, to organise, to command, to co-ordinate and to control.”^[1]
Fredmund Malikdefines it as “the transformation of resources into utility.”
Management included as one of the factors of production – along with machines, materials and money.
Ghislain Deslandesdefines it as “a vulnerable force, under pressure to achieve results and endowed with the triple power of constraint, imitation and imagination, operating on subjective, interpersonal, institutional and environmental levels”.^[2]
Peter Drucker(1909–2005) saw the basic task of management as twofold: marketing and innovation. Nevertheless, innovation is also linked to marketing (product innovation is a central strategic marketing issue). Peter Drucker identifies marketing as a key essence for business success, but management and marketing are generally understood^{[by whom?]}as two different branches of business administration knowledge.

Theoretical scope[edit]

Management involves identifying the mission, objective, procedures, rules and manipulation^[3] of the human capital of an enterprise to contribute to the success of the enterprise.^[^{citation needed}^] This implies effective communication: an enterprise environment (as opposed to a physical or mechanical mechanism) implies human motivation and implies some sort of successful progress or system outcome.^[^{citation needed}^] As such, management is not the manipulation of a mechanism (machine or automated program), not the herding of animals, and can occur either in a legal or in an illegal enterprise or environment. Management does not need to be seen from enterprise point of view alone, because management is an essential function to improve one’s life and relationships.^[^{citation needed}^] Management is therefore everywhere^[^{citation needed}^] and it has a wider range of application.^[^{clarification needed}^] Based on this, management must have humans, communication, and a positive enterprise endeavor.^[^{citation needed}^] Plans, measurements, motivational psychological tools, goals, and economic measures (profit, etc.) may or may not be necessary components for there to be management. At first, one views management functionally, such as measuring quantity, adjusting plans, meeting goals.^{[citation needed]} This applies even in situations where planning does not take place. From this perspective, Henri Fayol(1841–1925)^[4]^[^page needed^] considers management to consist of six functions:

forecasting
planning
organizing
commanding
coordinating
controlling

(Henri Fayol was one of the most influential contributors to modern concepts of management.^{[citation needed]})

In another way of thinking, Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), allegedly defined management as “the art of getting things done through people”.^[5] She described management as philosophy.^[6]^[^{need quotation to verify}^]

Critics^[which?], however, find this definition useful but far too narrow. The phrase “management is what managers do” occurs widely,^[7] suggesting the difficulty of defining management without circularity, the shifting nature of definitions^[^{citation needed}^] and the connection of managerial practices with the existence of a managerial cadre or of a class.

One habit of thought regards management as equivalent to “business administration” and thus excludes management in places outside commerce, as for example in charities and in the public sector. More broadly, every organization must “manage” its work, people, processes, technology, etc. to maximize effectiveness.^{[citation needed]} Nonetheless, many people refer to university departments that teach management as “business schools“. Some such institutions (such as the Harvard Business School) use that name, while others (such as the Yale School of Management) employ the broader term “management”.

English-speakers may also use the term “management” or “the management” as a collective word describing the managers of an organization, for example of a corporation.^[8]Historically this use of the term often contrasted with the term “labor” – referring to those being managed.^[9]

But in the present era^[^when?^] the concept of management is identified^[^{by whom?}^] in the wide areas^[^which?^] and its frontiers have been pushed to a broader range.^[^{citation needed}^] Apart from profitable organizations even non-profitable organizations (NGOs) apply management concepts. The concept and its uses are not constrained^{[by whom?]}. Management on the whole is the process of planning, organizing, coordinating, leading and controlling.

Nature of work[edit]

In profitable organizations, management’s primary function is the satisfaction of a range of stakeholders. This typically involves making a profit (for the shareholders), creating valued products at a reasonable cost (for customers), and providing great employment opportunities for employees. In nonprofit management, add the importance of keeping the faith of donors. In most models of management and governance, shareholders vote for the board of directors, and the board then hires senior management. Some organizations have experimented with other methods (such as employee-voting models) of selecting or reviewing managers, but this is rare.

In the public sector of countries constituted as representative democracies, voters elect politicians to public office. Such politicians hire many managers and administrators, and in some countries like the United States political appointees lose their jobs on the election of a new president/governor/mayor.

History[edit]

Some see management (by definition) as late-modern (in the sense of late modernity) conceptualization. On those terms it cannot have a pre-modern history, only harbingers (such as stewards). Others, however, detect management-like-thought back to Sumerian traders and to the builders of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. Slave-owners through the centuries faced the problems of exploiting/motivating a dependent but sometimes unenthusiastic or recalcitrant workforce, but many pre-industrial enterprises, given their small scale, did not feel compelled to face the issues of management systematically. However, innovations such as the spread of Hindu numerals (5th to 15th centuries) and the codification of double-entry book-keeping (1494) provided tools for management assessment, planning and control.

Also, Machiavelli wrote about how to make organisations efficient and effective. The principles that Machiavelli set forth in Discourses (1531) can be adapted to apply the management of organisations today:

An organisation is more stable if members have the right to express their differences and solve their conflicts within it.
While one person can begin an organisation, “it is lasting when it is left in the care of many and when many desire to maintain it.”
A weak manager can follow a strong one, but not another weak one, and maintain authority.
A manager seeking to change an established organization “should retain at least a shadow of the ancient customs.”^[10]

With the changing workplaces of industrial revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries, military theory and practice contributed approaches to managing the newly-popular factories.^[11]

Given the scale of most commercial operations and the lack of mechanized record-keeping and recording before the industrial revolution, it made sense for most owners of enterprises in those times to carry out management functions by and for themselves. But with growing size and complexity of organizations, the split between owners (individuals, industrial dynasties or groups of shareholders) and day-to-day managers (independent specialists in planning and control) gradually became more common.

Etymology[edit]

The English verb “manage” comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle, especially tools or a horse), which derives from the two Latin words manus (hand) and agere (to act). The French word for housekeeping, ménagerie, derived from ménager (“to keep house”; compare ménage for “household”), also encompasses taking care of domestic animals. Ménagerie is the French translation of Xenophon‘s famous book Oeconomicus^[12] (Greek: Οἰκονομικός) on household matters and husbandry. The French word mesnagement (or ménagement) influenced the semantic development of the English word management in the 17th and 18th centuries.^[13]

Early writing[edit]

LEADERSHIP “Leader” redirects here. For other uses, see Leader (disambiguation).

David and Solomon, stained glasswindow, Strasbourg Cathedral

Psychology

· Outline

· History

· Subfields

Basic types

· Abnormal

· Behavioral genetics

· Biological

· Cognitive

· Comparative

· Cultural

· Personality

· Positive

· Quantitative

· Social

Applied psychology

· Applied behavior analysis

· Clinical

· Community

· Consumer

· Counseling

· Critical

· Educational

· Environmental

· Ergonomics

· Forensic

· Health

· Humanistic

· Industrial and organizational

· Interpretive

· Legal

· Medical

· Military

· Music

· Occupational health

· Political

· Religion

· School

· Sport

· Traffic

Lists

· Disciplines

· Theories

· Timeline

· Topics

· Psychology portal

· v

· t

· e

Leadership is both a research area and a practical skill encompassing the ability of an individual or organization to “lead” or guide other individuals, teams, or entire organizations. The literature debates various viewpoints: contrasting Eastern and Western approaches to leadership, and also (within the West) US vs. European approaches. US academic environments define leadership as “a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task“.^[1]^[2] Leadership seen from a European and non-academic perspective encompasses a view of a leader who can be moved not only by communitarian goals but also by the search for personal power.

Studies of leadership have produced theories involving traits,^[3] situational interaction, function, behavior,^[4] power, vision and values,^[5]charisma, and intelligence, among others.^[2]

Leadership is a quality of influencing people, so that the objectives are attained willingly and enthusiastically. It is not exactly same as management, as leadership is one of the major element of management. Management is a discipline of managing things in the best possible manner. It is the art or skill of getting the work done through and with others. It can be found in all the fields, like education, hospitality, sports, offices etc.

One of the major difference between leadership and management, is management is for formal and organized group of people only, whereas leadership is for both formal and informal groups. To further comprehend the two concepts, take a read of the given article.

Content: Leadership Vs Management

Comparison Chart

BASIS FOR COMPARISON	LEADERSHIP	MANAGEMENT
Meaning	Leadership is a skill of leading others by examples.	Management is an art of systematically organizing and coordinating things in an efficient way.
Basis	Trust	Control
Emphasis on	Inspiring People	Managing activities
Power	Influence	Rule
Focus on	Encouraging change	Bringing stability
Strategy	Proactive	Reactive
Formulation of	Principles and guidelines	Policies and Procedures
Perspective	Leadership requires good foresightedness.	Management has a short range perspective.

Definition of Leadership

The skill of leading a group of people and inspiring them towards a direction is known as Leadership. It is an interpersonal process which involves influencing a person or a group, so as to ensure achievement of objectives, willingly and enthusiastically.

It is not a lesson to be taught, but a quality which is possessed by only a few number of people. The person who owns this quality is known as a leader. A leader is someone who has a large number of people following him, as their inspiration. Some examples of leaders, which are born in India are Mahatma Gandhi, Amitabh Bachchan, Kiran Bedi, Sachin Tendulkar, Saina Nehwal, etc.

Leadership is an activity of guiding and directing people to work together in achieving the objectives. It requires a good vision of thinking across the boundaries.

In an enterprise, you can see a number of leaders who are responsible for the work of their team members. For the achievement of a single objective, the employees of the organisation are divided into teams and each team is assigned a task which they have to complete within the specified time. Each team comprises of a leader who is appointed on the basis of merit cum seniority.

In the business environment, leadership is not only limited to persons, but an organisation can also attain leadership in the market by defeating its competitors. Leadership can be in terms of product, market share, brand, cost, etc.

Definition of Management

The word management is a combination of four terms, i.e. man+age+men+t (technique). In this way, management refers to a technique used by a man for dealing and managing persons (men) of different age group, to work together for achieving a common objective.

Although management is not confined to men only, it incorporates a complete balance of 5M i.e. Men, Money, Material, Machine, and Methods. The person who is in charge of the activities of management in an organisation is known as Manager.

Now, let’s discuss what management is? And from where it starts? The answer is management starts from your home. All of us have seen our mother taking care of our needs whether they are small or big, maintaining the budget of the household, takes decisions regarding investment or finance, makes plans for our future, keeps a check on our activity, organizes the schedule, guides and motivates us for achieving our career objective etc. that’s all management. These are the functions of Management, i.e. Planning, Controlling, Organizing, Leading & Motivating and Decision Making.

Key Differences Between Leadership and Management

The major difference between leadership and management are as under:

Leadership is a virtue of leading people through encouraging them. Management is a process of managing the activities of the organisation.
Leadership requires trust of followers on his leader. Unlike Management, which needs control of manager over its subordinates.
Leadership is a skill of influencing others while Management is the quality of the ruling.
Leadership demands foresightedness of leader, but Management has a short range vision.
In leadership, principles and guidelines are established, whereas, in the case of management, policies and procedures are implemented.
Leadership is Proactive. Conversely, management is reactive in nature.
Leadership brings change. On the other hand, Management brings stability.

Conclusion

Leadership and Management are inseparable in nature, if there is management, there is leadership. In fact, the qualities of a manager require leadership skills to inspire his subordinate. In an organisation, you can see both management and leadership. There is a manager in a department and a number of leaders who work with their teams in assisting the organisation in the accomplishment of their goals. Many times managers play the role of a leader too, at the demand of the organisation. So they both go side by side as a complement to each other. An organisation needs both for its growth and survival.

Management is all about the arrangement and maintenance of the 5M while leadership is about persuading people in a positive direction for digging out talent in them.

You Might Also Like:

Top of Form

Management Vs. Leadership: Five Ways They Are Different

Liz Ryan ,

CONTRIBUTOR

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Pause

Unmute

Current Time0:50

Duration Time1:03

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

ShareFullscreen

For years we were taught that management has to do with forecasting, budgeting, planning and controlling. Managers were taught to manage, not to lead.

New supervisors and grizzled management veterans were taught how to assign work to subordinates, how to evaluate their teammates’ work, how to counsel people on performance problems and how to hire and fire staff members. Everything we were taught about management assumed that the manager would know what to do and was calling the shots.

These days we understand that the old-fashioned view of a manager’s duties is wholly insufficient for the new-millennium workplace.

Gallery

How To Be A Better Leader: Four Essential Tips

Launch Gallery

5 images

Responsibility for a team of people and its success — not to mention each team members’ well-being and professional development — is a big assignment to take on. Leadership has very little to do with controlling, budgeting and so on. It has little overlap with assigning work and evaluating it.

Our traditional view of management is task-based and mechanical. In that worldview, we don’t think about topics like “How are my teammates holding up? Are they stressed out? Are they feeling good about the future and about the energy on the team?”

For years we pretended that human energy isn’t a factor in a team’s success, even though anybody who has ever been on any kind of team knows that the team energy, also known as trust level, is the whole ballgame!

We can use the carrot and the stick to get people to perform for a while but eventually, if they don’t care about the mission, about their leader and/or about one another, the team will fracture and lose steam. It’s inevitable! Today we know that empathetic, trust-based human leadership is not only the most effective way to lead a team but also the most profitable way to run a company.

Here are five enormous differences between managers and leaders. If you hold a leadership role now or aspire to do so in the future, think about steps you can take in each of these areas.

Mission

The traditional view of management assumes that a manager’s job is to run an apparatus — perhaps a corporate Credit Department or a team of programmers. There are clear inputs and outputs and expected results from the engine each manager is responsible for. The manager’s job is to keep the machine running smoothly.

In that worldview, the people on the manager’s team are essentially machine parts. They are interchangeable. Once they are hired into a role, their job is to perform that role (to run their piece of the machine) according to goals and standards that preceded them and that will outlast their tenure in the job. The presumption is that the machine is more important and more powerful than anyone who helps to run it.

Leadership takes just the opposite view! The energy on your team powers everything you will accomplish.

The machine can change whenever it makes sense to change it, even many times a day. Maybe your machine should change, or maybe it’s time to junk the machine and invent something totally new. People are creative. Machines in general are not.

Leaders allow people to design their own jobs as much as possible and to put their own stamp on their jobs.

A leader is not working to achieve machine-like process perfection to be repeated over and over until the end of time.

A leader and his or her team have a mission. They all know what the mission is and they know their piece in it. Maybe at one point your mission is to replace your outdated Credit Department procedures with new procedures that are faster and simpler. Apart from the fact that they have a job and need the paycheck, your teammates know what the Credit Department modernization means for customers, for themselves and for the company.

A mission has a beginning, a middle and an end, no matter what the mission is. When you complete the mission, you’ll start a new one.

Maybe your mission is to produce an off-Broadway play or to invent a better mousetrap. Leadership is inextricable from a specific mission that people are excited about. Without a mission, there is no place to lead your team toward! Without a mission, where are you headed?

Who can get excited about doing the same things day after day, year after year, to no visible end except to make a few executives rich? There has to be more to the mission than that, and part of a leader’s job is to explore and exalt the connections between his or her team’s mission and each team member’s personal mission.

This is why I write about plugging into your power source at work, whether that means using a different part of your brain or getting to teach what you know or another element that important to you. We all need that power jolt at work. We all deserve it, too!

Win At Work: An eBook From Forbes
Land a great job, handle your boss and get ahead today.

Self-Awareness

The old-fashioned, command-and-control view of management did not require that a manager look in the mirror, but leadership requires that activity of a leader every day.

A leader is someone who get outside his or her busy brain to see him- or herself rather than being controlled by his or her emotions, especially fear.

Fear is the emotion that makes managers freak out and bring the hammer down. It makes some of them yell at subordinates or put the fear of termination into them so that people skulk around in terror that they’ll make a mistake.

PAGE 1 / 2 Continue

Comment on this story

What is the Difference Between Management and Leadership?

How-To

NEXT IN DEVELOPING A LEADERSHIP STYLE »

Lessons in Leadership

A leadership guide featuring step-by-step how-tos, Wall Street Journal stories and video interviews with CEOs.

Tips
- Leadership and management must go hand in hand.
- Workers need their managers not just to assign tasks but to define purpose.
- Managers must organize workers, not just to maximize efficiency, but to nurture skills, develop talent and inspire results.
Related How-Tos
Feedback
- Send Feedback on this How-To Guide»

Adapted from “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management” by Alan Murray, published by Harper Business.

Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

Still, much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate. In his 1989 book “On Becoming a Leader,” Warren Bennis composed a list of the differences:

– The manager administers; the leader innovates.

– The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

– The manager maintains; the leader develops.

– The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.

– The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.

– The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.

– The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.

– The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader’s eye is on the horizon.

– The manager imitates; the leader originates.

– The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.

– The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.

– The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

Perhaps there was a time when the calling of the manager and that of the leader could be separated. A foreman in an industrial-era factory probably didn’t have to give much thought to what he was producing or to the people who were producing it. His or her job was to follow orders, organize the work, assign the right people to the necessary tasks, coordinate the results, and ensure the job got done as ordered. The focus was on efficiency.

But in the new economy, where value comes increasingly from the knowledge of people, and where workers are no longer undifferentiated cogs in an industrial machine, management and leadership are not easily separated. People look to their managers, not just to assign them a task, but to define for them a purpose. And managers must organize workers, not just to maximize efficiency, but to nurture skills, develop talent and inspire results.

The late management guru Peter Drucker was one of the first to recognize this truth, as he was to recognize so many other management truths. He identified the emergence of the “knowledge worker,” and the profound differences that would cause in the way business was organized.

With the rise of the knowledge worker, “one does not ‘manage’ people,” Mr. Drucker wrote. “The task is to lead people. And the goal is to make productive the specific strengths and knowledge of every individual.”