Management & Leadership


One of the sides of the division of labor in any firm is the presence of managers and employees. In any relatively complex enterprise, one can find an entire hierarchy of leaders of various managerial ranks. In a simple firm – at the level of a small group – there is at least one manager. The notion of "management" is widely used in the literature. To lead is to collect, unite people and direct their movement to a specific goal. The fruitful work of people dealing together is impossible without the proper formation of their actions.

Professors of different universities are very fond of such topics. They are very tricky and require careful research, because they have a lot of pitfalls. You can make sure that the website works not only with such themes, but also with many others, so do not hesitate to order essays there.

Leadership is often regarded as a concept similar to the previous one, but in reality, these two are not the same phenomena inherent in organized (to some extent) communities.

Their main distinction is as follows. The cooperation of heads and the staff they lead is carried out in the system of administrative and legal relations of one official firm or another. As for the intercommunion of leaders and their followers, it can occur both in the system of administrative and legal, and moral and psychological ties between people. If the first is an indispensable feature of any official organization, the latter arises spontaneously as a result of people's interaction in both official and unofficial ones. Thus, in the same act of interplay between two workers of an institution, it is sometimes possible to observe both relations, and sometimes only one of them.

Back to History

The phenomenon of leadership has attracted the eye of researchers since time immemorial. The earliest attempts to build a theory of it include the search for specific personality traits inherent in leaders. It is believed that a person manifests as a pacemaker because of his or her exceptional physical or psychological characteristics, giving him or her a certain superiority over others.

Supporters of this approach are based on the premise that some people are born with traits needed while others, even in the role of official heads, will never be successful. The origins of such theories can be found even in the writings of the philosophers of Ancient Greece and Rome who viewed the historical course of events as the result of the actions of outstanding people called to lead the masses due to their natural qualities.

In the XX century, psychologists who were in the positions of behaviorism began to think that the features of the leader cannot be considered completely congenital, and, therefore, some of them can be acquired through studying and experience. Empirical research was conducted to identify the universal traits. The analysis was subjected to both psychological features (intellect, will, self-confidence, sociability, the need for dominance, adaptability, sensitivity, etc.), and constitutional (height, weight, physique).

By the beginning of 1950, more than 100 such studies had been carried out. Surveys of these works have shown a wide variety of "features of the leader", discovered by different authors. Only 5% of the traits were common to all.

Unsuccessful attempts to identify personality traits that would be constantly associated with successful leadership led to the formation of other theories. A concept was put forward that emphasized the achievement of the pacemaker's performance of various functions that must be carried out in order for the group to achieve its purposes. An essential element of this approach was the shift of attention from the pacemaker's traits to his or her behavior. In accordance with this view, the tasks depend on the characteristics of the situation.


The head must have power to lead the firm to the intended goal.

Power is a real potential to control workers, and to have action upon them. The first is defined as a purposeful impact while the latter is a behavior of one of the members of the firm that makes a change in the conduct of the other.

So, the power is needed to achieve the firm's goals, to build the staff's conduct in the right direction. The lack of power can lead to the most unexpected turns, in which it will most likely be about the survival of the firm, and not the right direction of its development.

We have already drawn a distinction between the two title concepts of our article. Let us define technologies and rules of each of them.

Since leadership highlights informal motives in the conquest and exercise of power, its rules will look like this:

  • The personal qualities come to the forefront: professional knowledge, business ability, behavior, moral character, etc.;
  • Orders are not so categorical;
  • Closer contacts (not only official) with the staff are established;
  • In many cases, recommendations are given instead of orders;
  • The participation of the staff in the performance of various functions is widely practiced;
  • The weight of moral incentives increases;
  • The subordinates receive complete information;
  • Many decisions are taken collectively;
  • Discussion with workers of all possible problems of the firm is practiced;
  • The position of socio-psychological methods is strengthened;
  • The position of the labor collective and its governing bodies increases;
  • The part of the "human factor" is growing;
  • The position of the chief is strengthened during the times of emergency circumstances, etc.

The rules for the head are somewhat different. Here are some of them, capable to raise the authority of the head in certain situations:

  • Refusal from personification of management: orders are given not on behalf of the head, but on behalf of the firm;
  • Expansion and strengthening of official powers;
  • Manifestation of rigidity as a last resort;
  • Softness in relations with subordinates;
  • Forgiveness of mistakes;
  • Openness;
  • Democracy as an invitation to participate in governance;
  • Isolation as a demonstration of superiority and power;
  • Giving workers additional information as a gesture of trust;
  • Readiness to abandon ill-considered and unpopular measures;
  • Continuity and consistency of managerial influences.

Some of their methods are contradictory. This is because we discuss a dialectical process and contradictions are inherent in it. The art of the head is that the chosen technique (or several techniques) should be in keeping with the condition and purposes of the firm.

Rated 4.4 | 330 votes.

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be published.

Place Your Order Now