See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372909232

The Leadership/Management Concept Scale: differentiating between actions

constituting leadership and management

Article in Leadership & Organization Development Journal · August 2023

DOI: 10.1108/LODJ-06-2022-0299

CITATIONS READS

0 129

3 authors, including:

Ronnie Thomas Collins

University of Kentucky
162 PUBLICATIONS 2,236 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ronnie Thomas Collins on 06 October 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0143-7739.htm

The Leadership/Management The

leadership/
Concept Scale: differentiating management
concept scale
between actions constituting
leadership and management
Ronnie Thomas Collins II and Claudia Algaze Received 23 June 2022
Revised 27 December 2022
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA, and 27 February 2023
Barry Z. Posner 30 May 2023
Accepted 4 July 2023
Leavey School of Business, Santa Clara University, Santa-Clara, California, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The concepts associated with leadership and management have often been conflated, considered one and
the same phenomenon by some and then considered by others to be quite distinctive. The same ambiguity is even
truer at the level of application and practicality. Only a handful of studies have attempted empirically to differentiate
between the two concepts. The study sought to develop an instrument to discriminate between the two concepts.
Design/methodology/approach – A prospective study was conducted with two groups of scholars in the
areas of leadership and management. They completed the exploratory Leadership/Management Concept Scale
(LMCS), the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) and provided demographic information. The results from the
Initial group were compared with a validation group. Standard statistical techniques were used to analyze the
two groups and investigate associations among the study measures.
Findings – The LMCS effectively differentiated actions associated with leadership from actions associated
with management actions. There were four distinct choices consistently selected as most consistent with
leadership: influencing, coaching, modeling and ensuring resilience. No significant correlations were found
between scores on the LMCS and the LPI, providing evidence that the former was capturing actions other than
those associated with leadership alone.
Research limitations/implications – It is empirically possible to differentiate between the actions typically
associated with the concepts of leadership and management. This distinction can be invaluable in various
educational programs designed to develop either or both leadership and management abilities, as well as assist
in the identification of those with proclivities to one or other of the two concepts. The LMCS shows promise in
reliably differentiating between the two concepts and can be useful for scholars aiming to investigate
leadership or management without confounding the two.
Practical implications – There are numerous positions and organizational roles where leadership and
management are differentiated, with one being much more needed than the other. The LMCS can differentiate
empirically how potential candidates for leadership and/or management positions think about the two, which
would allow a would-be employer to screen candidates for given opportunities and, depending on their
conceptualization of leadership and management, assign them most appropriately.
Originality/value – This study fills a fundamental gap in both the leadership and management field: first in
being able to provide evidence that the two concepts, while similar in some regards, are not the same and can be
differentiated from each other and second, in developing an instrument (LMCS) that both practitioners and
scholars can use to help their audiences better understand the differences between leadership and management
and to develop actions appropriate to situational demands.
Keywords Leadership, Management, Scale, Differentiate
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The concept of leadership dates back millennia, whether one reads the writings of Solomon, Sun
Tzu, or Xenophon (English Standard Bible, 2001; Sun-Tzu, 2003; Xenophon, 2006). Leadership
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Since acceptance of this article, the following author(s) have updated their affiliations: Ronnie Thomas © Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
Collins II is at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. DOI 10.1108/LODJ-06-2022-0299
LODJ has been defined in a host of ways, with some estimating there are more than 4,000 definitions
(Azad et al., 2017). Stogdill (1974) surmised, “There are almost as many different definitions of
leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” While the specific
definition of leadership has not been agreed upon, the idea of influence plays a central role in
most. In this regard, the definition by Northouse (2016, p. 6) is representative: “Leadership is a
process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.”
Compared to the long history associated with the concept of leadership, that of management
is a relative newcomer. Most scholars mark Frederick W. Taylor’s introduction of the concept of
“scientific management” as the beginning of the discipline of management (Payne et al., 2006;
Taylor, 1911). Since that time, the study and practice of management have become increasingly
important in various domains, from business to healthcare to governmental organizations.
Unlike the myriad definitions of leadership, management has generally been defined with fewer
variations. Kotter (1996, p. 28) demarcated the most important aspects of management as
including “planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling and problem solving.”
Management has typically been centered on organizational processes and structures, while
leadership emphasized people and the human side of the enterprise. These two domains have
often been referred to as task or production versus people or relationships (Blake and Mouton,
1964; Hersey and Blanchard, 1969; Yukl et al., 2002). Others have conceptualized these two
domains as working with “things” or working with “people.” Bennis and Nanus (2007, p. 12)
made the argument that “managers do things rights, while leaders do the right thing.”
The discussions and debate about the differences and similarities between leadership and
management are ongoing. The truth is not all those in management demonstrate or exercise
leadership; although too often it is assumed that anyone in a management position is a leader. It
is also true that not all leaders manage. Much of leadership is exercised by individuals who are
not in management positions, often referred to as informal leaders (Kouzes and Posner, 2021).
Though the focus of leadership and management represent two distinctly different concepts,
they were generally viewed as synonymous until Zaleznik (1977) argued otherwise. Managers
and leaders, he suggested, were two very different types of people, with the former favoring order
and stability and the latter comfortable with ambiguity and embracing innovation. Kotter (1990)
argued that leadership and management were two distinct, yet complementary systems of action
in organizations. Coping with change is the responsibility of leadership, whereas management is
about coping with complexity. According to Kotter, leadership involved developing a vision for
the organization, aligning people with that vision through communication and motivating people
to action through empowerment and through basic need fulfillment. The focus of management is
different, involving planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing and controlling and
problem-solving. Hence, the central function of management is to provide order and consistency,
while leadership aims to produce change and movement. Similarly, House and Aditya (1997)
articulated that management consists of implementing the vision and direction provided by
leaders, coordinating and staffing the organization and handling day-to-day problems.
Arguments continue about the virtues and vices of each perspective and the proper
balance between them, perhaps by “engineering the job to fit the person” (Fiedler, 1965) and
greater consideration of person-organization fit (Halbusi et al., 2020). Lunenberg (2011) offers
a broad view of the difference between leadership and management, as shown in Table 1. The
pairs of attributes are presented as the extremes of a continuum. He contends, however that
most practitioners do not function at these extremes.
The scholarly literature demonstrates three competing perspectives on the controversy,
which we review in the next section. There are those advocating that leadership and management
are distinctly different. Others contend that the two concepts are one and the same. Finally, there
are those who view leadership and management as being somewhat different but with a
significant amount of overlap. Within this debate, the current study investigated whether
leadership and management can reliably be differentiated along a spectrum of actions.
Leadership Management
The
leadership/
Thinking process management
Focuses on people _____ Focuses on things
Looks outward __ Looks inward concept scale
Goal setting
Articulates a vision _____ Executes plans
Creates the future _____ Improves the present
Sees the forest __ Sees the trees
Employee relations
Empowers _____ Controls
Colleagues _____ Subordinates
Trusts and develops _____ Directs and coordinates
Operation
Does the right things _____ Does things right
Creates change _ Manages change
Serves subordinates _____ Serves superordinates
Governance
Uses influence ___ Uses authority Table 1.
Uses conflict _____ Avoids conflict Comparisons between
Acts decisively ___ Acts responsibly leadership and
Source(s): Lunenberg, (2011), Authors work management

Differentiating leadership from management and vice versa

Research suggesting leadership and management are different
Since Zaleznik (1977) first raised the point that leadership and management are different,
many authors in both the academic and popular literature have arrived at the same
conclusion (Algahtani, 2014; Armandi et al., 2003; Baruch, 1998; Bennis and Nanus, 2007;
Capowski, 1994; Kniffin et al., 2020; Kotter, 2001; Kotterman, 2006; Kumle and Kelly, 2000;
Lunenberg, 2011; Maccoby, 2000; Pearce et al., 2003; Sarros, 1992; Toor, 2011; Toor and Ofori,
2008; Watson, 1983; Weathersby, 1999; Young and Dulewicz, 2005). A few reached this
conclusion based on empirical studies, while others based their assessment on deduction
(Kniffin et al., 2020; Kotter, 2001). While their conclusions are the same, the two methods for
reaching it warrant consideration.
Most of the authors who assert that leadership and management are distinctly different
arrived at this determination through a process of deductive reasoning. They typically
framed their logic using one or more of the five perspectives delineated by Toor and Ofori
(2008): etymological, definitional, conceptual, behavioral and functional/operational. Most
have employed multiples of these perspectives in their differentiation of leadership and
management, though a few have relied heavily on only one.
Scholars basing their differentiation on only one of Toor and Ofori’s (2008) perspectives
tend to be concise and convey a strong sense of dogmatic argumentation, with little
methodical deduction. Kotterman (2006, p. 13), for example, strongly advocated a definitional
distinction between the two, asserting if the two could not be clearly defined, one could not
“measure, test, make assessments, or consistently hire or promote for them.” Armandi et al.
(2003) employed a behavioral paradigm, Maccoby (2000) adopted a functional/operational
approach, and Weathersby (1999) used a conceptual paradigm to differentiate leadership and
management. In only using a unidimensional perspective to frame the differentiation, these
authors’ arguments are less compelling than those who analyzed the question from multiple
vantage points.
LODJ Most authors who deduced that leadership and management are different arrived at this
conclusion by viewing the two concepts from multiple perspectives. Bennis and Nanus (1985) along
with Kotter (2001) viewed the differentiation of leaders and managers from essentially all the
perspectives delineated by Toor and Ofori (2008). The “7-S” organizational model distinguishes
leadership from management, highlighting conceptual, behavioral, and functional/operational
differences between them (Watson, 1983). Analyzing the two concepts through the lens of
capability levels, McCartney and Campbell (2006) created a nine-domain grid of “individual success
and failure” comprised of the interactions of managerial and leadership skills. Algahtani (2014)
performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications that distinguish leadership from
management, representing all of the perspectives for differentiating between them.
Apart from approaching the question from a deductive reasoning stance, some scholars
determined leadership and management were different based on empirical studies. In a large,
multistage study, Pearce et al. (2003) identified four leadership typologies, one of which was
“directive” and included behaviors typical of management: “issuing instructions and
commands; assigning goals; and contingent reprimands.” They determined that directive
leadership—that is, management behavior—was distinctly different from transactional,
transformational, or empowering leadership.
Baruch (1998) conducted an analysis of empirical studies of leadership with the goal of
differentiating leadership studies from those that studied “appointmentship” or “headship.”
In his analysis, appointmentship or headship was defined as a role of positional authority
wherein the head is “involved with controlling and operating [a] group of people under his or
her authority” (p. 103). He specifically describes “managers, supervisors, heads . . . etc.” as
being in a position of appointmentship (p. 112). This study concluded not only that leadership
and appointmentship (i.e., management) are distinctly different entities, but also argued that
most published studies seeking to investigate leadership did not do so and actually studied
appointmentship/headship—that is, management.
Similarly, in their interviews with leaders and senior executives in Singapore’s
construction industry, Toor and Ofori (2008) found distinct differences in management
and leadership. Specifically, they identified that management “banks on position power and
structural hierarchy, imposes authority, [and] endeavors to maintain order tied to the bottom
line,” whereas leaders were found to “exercise personal power and relational influence to gain
authority, pursue change coupled to sustainability, [and] empower people” (pp. 318–319).
Kniffin et al. (2020) reported on three studies seeking to determine how people conceptualize
leadership and management, whether as being the same or separate entities. They found a
clear distinction in the activities people associated with leadership and management.
The studies reviewed here provide empirical evidence to support the deduction-based
assertions that leadership and management are different concepts.

Research suggesting leadership and management are synonymous

While many scholars have argued that leadership and management are distinctly different,
numerous others have contended that the two are one and the same (Azad et al., 2017; Bass,
1990; Fells, 2000; Ghoshal, 2005; Hay and Hodgkinson, 2006; Kent, 2005; McMahon and Carr,
1999; Nienaber and Roodt, 2008; Novicevic et al., 2006, 2005; Payne et al., 2006; Wagner-
Tsukamoto, 2007; Washbush, 2005). Most of the scholars concluding leadership and
management are synonymous have based their determination on personal experience and
deduction; whereas very few have done so based on empirical studies. It is again useful to
consider the perspectives of both camps.
In deducing that leadership and management are synonymous scholars often employ the
same perspectives delineated by Toor and Ofori (2008). They view leadership and
management as conceptually integrated and inseparable (Ghoshal, 2005; McMahon and
Carr, 1999; Novicevic et al., 2005; Payne et al., 2006; Schruijer and Vansina, 2002). There are The
others who argue that leadership is a smaller and indivisible component of management leadership/
(Fells, 2000; Nienaber, 2010). In commenting on this conundrum, Kent (2005, p. 1013)
acquiesced that, “It is useful—in order to understand each process more completely—to
management
comprehend them separately.” He delineated why management and leadership are concept scale
practically synonymous from conceptual, behavioral and functional/operational
perspectives. Similarly, using all of the perspectives advanced by Toor and Ofori (2008),
Washbush (2005) contended that not only were leadership and management a single entity
but further asserted that there is no such thing as leadership.
There are only a few scholars who have conducted empirical research about whether
leadership and management are synonymous or inseparable concepts. Hay and Hodgkinson
(2006) sought to determine the meanings managers gave leadership in their study involving
MBA alumni, asking them to talk about the challenges they faced in their roles as managers.
They employed “an interpretive approach in order to provide a more in-depth exploration of
leadership” (p. 147). Based on their interpretation, the respondents identified conceptual and
functional/operational reasons why leadership and management were inseparable. As a
result, Hay and Hodgkinson (2006) advocated a “process-relational perspective” of
leadership, which viewed leadership as integral to management, a result similar to the
viewpoints of others (Fells, 2000; Hay and Hodgkinson, 2006; Nienaber, 2010). Following this
work, Nienaber and Roodt (2008) surveyed final-year MBA students and sought to determine
if the students viewed management and leadership as different from classical management
theory. Finding that general management and leadership were viewed as being the same,
they concluded that leadership was part of management and referred to leadership skills as
secondary management tasks. These two studies found leadership as being a component of
the concept of management. However, the validity of both studies is limited because they only
evaluated the perspectives of those with graduate training in business administration.

Research suggesting leadership and management have significant overlap

Since there is clear disagreement among scholars as to whether leadership and management
are the same or different, it makes sense to postulate that the two overlap—that is, in some
ways they are the same, and in some ways, they are different. Numerous scholars have
identified an overlapping relationship between leadership and management (Conger and
Kanungo, 1992; Fairholm, 2002; Nienaber, 2010; Offermann et al., 1994; Simonet and Tett,
2013; Young and Dulewicz, 2008; Yukl, 1999). Unlike the literature suggesting leadership and
management are either different or the same, empirical studies are much more common than
deduction-based papers for those indicating the two overlap.
Few scholars, however, have described their deductively achieved conclusion that
leadership and management have significant overlap. Fairholm (2002) performed an
extensive review of the literature on defining leadership and found there is overlap in the
definitions of leadership and management, as well as areas where they are uniquely defined.
While Nienaber (2010) concluded that leadership is a part of management and the two are
inseparable, his data actually suggest more of an overlapping relationship. While there are
many areas of leadership and management that overlap, there are at least five factors
identified that do not, which supports the claim that they are different to some degree.
Many empirical studies of leadership and management have found areas of overlap.
Among direct reports who evaluated their supervisors, Yukl (1999) found no support for the
idea that most executives use only one type of behavior, whether leadership or management,
and most of them were seen as using a mix of behaviors. He concluded that instead of
insisting upon a strict differentiation, “A more credible view is that people can use a mix of
leading and (positive) managing behaviours” (p. 36).
LODJ Nienaber and Roodt (2008) reported that MBA students viewed general management and
leadership as being the same, yet their data clearly demonstrated that the two shared both
areas of overlap and difference. In another study of MBA students, Conger and Kanungo
(1992) identified two clusters of orientation, one managerial (task-accomplishment oriented)
and the other leadership (influence-oriented). Offermann et al. (1994) investigated the implicit
leadership theories of undergraduate students as they pertained to leaders and supervisors.
They found that perceptions of the behaviors and traits of leaders and supervisors had both
areas of overlap, as well as areas of difference. They also reported that behavioral
expectations were generally lower for supervisors than for leaders. Young and Dulewicz
(2008) sought to understand the interplay between personal factors and behavioral
characteristics (competencies) relevant to effective leadership and management in the Royal
Navy. They found that while leadership and management had numerous areas of overlap,
they also had distinctive areas. For instance, conscientiousness was considered a competency
of management, whereas persuasiveness, optimism and lack of restriction by rules were
competencies of leadership.
Simonet and Tett (2013) assessed the viability of five conceptualizations of leadership by
having experts map managerial and leadership competencies onto defined and undefined
dimensions of the two. They found that there were competencies clearly identified with
leadership and those clearly associated with management. For example, motivating
intrinsically, creative thinking and tolerance for ambiguity were distinctively associated
with leadership, while rule orientation, motivating extrinsically and safety concern were
competencies distinct to management. Beyond these distinct competencies, they identified 22
competencies as “co-descriptors” (describing both leadership and management). Examples of
co-descriptors clearly important in both leadership and management contexts were
information sharing, decision-making and productivity.

Framing a continuum from leadership to management or management to leadership

While many scholars have the perspective that leadership and management overlap
significantly, their common conceptualization is that a given overlapping competency
involves equal parts of leadership and management. This is exemplified in Nienaber and
Roodt’s (Nienaber and Roodt, 2008) study in which they reported multiple overlapping
competencies, all of which they viewed as involving both leadership and management. “Set
direction (mission, goals, strategy)” was an example, they asserted, of a competency common
to both leadership and management, while numerous scholars have argued that the setting of
mission and strategy is leadership, not management, actions (Bennis and Nanus, 2007;
Maccoby, 2000; Simonet and Tett, 2013; Toor and Ofori, 2008; Yukl and Fleet, 1992). Similarly,
Nienaber and Roodt (2008) found that the competency “Create an environment in which
employees can perform” was again viewed as a shared competency of leadership and
management. However, this competency encompasses a number of elements, such as
improving efficiency, methods, procedures and policies, that are typically considered distinct
components of management (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Covey, 1992; Simic, 2020).
Certain competencies, while important to both leadership and management, are more
consistently indicative of one or the other. In such a model, one competency might then be
80% management and 20% leadership, whereas another might be the inverse and still others
could have different distributions. A schema of varying compositions of this nature would
then result in a continuum between leadership and management.
The idea of a continuum between leadership and management, with the two on either pole
of the continuum, has been suggested previously. In their discussion of five perspectives on
the relationship between leadership and management, Simonet and Tett (2013, p. 200)
described “bipolarity” as a model in which “leadership and management are depicted as
essentially two endpoints on a single continuum.” Notably, however, they described only two The
distinctly different concepts, one leadership and one management, with no intervening leadership/
continuum of overlapping competencies between the two. Conversely, Collins et al. (2022)
described and investigated the idea of a spectrum of actions ranging from purely
management
management on one end of the continuum to purely leadership on the other. Respondents in concept scale
that study comingled leadership and management, and how they conceptualized
management was found to be associated with the extent they felt prepared to take on a
leadership role.

Value of differentiating leadership from management

As discussed, much has been written about leadership and management, yet scant empirical
work has been done to determine if the two are different, synonymous, or mostly overlap with
one another in concept and practice. Given the amount of attention given to these two
concepts and that they continue to receive in both the academic and popular press, it seems
surprising that the question has not already been resolved. As noted by Edwards et al. (2015,
p. 334) “Research in this area could be fruitful and should work towards an understanding of
what makes the difference between positions being referred to as ‘manager’ and ‘leader’.”
From an academic and scientific perspective, defining terms is one of the most basic and
crucial components of any investigation. If leadership and management are different and
have not been clearly differentiated and defined, it is likely researchers could have aimed to
study one phenomenon (e.g. management) while, in actuality, having studied another
(e.g. leadership) and vice versa. From a practical perspective, if leadership and management
are different, as noted previously by Kotterman (2006), it would be appropriate to distinguish
between them when determining the skillset for which individuals, for example, might be
hired and subsequently developed. If a particular position depends on management expertise,
and the person hired to it has leadership capabilities without a high level of management
acumen, that individual and the organization in which they work will suffer from a person-job
mismatch. If leadership and management are different, then such a scenario must surely
occur frequently and yield unfavorable results.
Given this complexity and ambiguity, the purpose of the present study was to investigate
if the concepts of leadership and management could be empirically differentiated, and, how so.
The motivation was not to determine which viewpoint (same, different, or overlapping) was
most salient.

Methodology
Participants
The study proceeded in two phases. The first phase surveyed recognized experts/scholars in
the fields of leadership and/or management, and the second phase included doctoral-level
faculty involved with university leadership studies and/or management programs. For the
first phase (Initial cohort), a list of potential participants was compiled either by identification
as a published expert in the field or by identification as a leader of either a university or
business program in leadership development. For the second phase (Validation cohort),
faculty members were identified from universities in the United States with educational
programs in leadership and/or management.
Potential participants received an email with introductory information regarding the
study and its purpose, as well as an inquiry as to whether they would be interested in
participating. For those recipients who replied with interest, a follow-up email was sent
containing a link to an online Leadership/Management Concept Scale (LMCS). Only surveys
with complete information were used for analysis with the following exception: if a single
LODJ action in the LMCS was not ranked, the rank was imputed based on the missing number
within the given respondent’s data.
Of 121 potential participants sent the link to the survey, 71 completed the survey (59%
response rate). There were 38 respondents in the Initial cohort and 33 respondents in the
Validation cohort. As shown in Table 2, there were no statistically significant demographic
differences between the two cohorts on the basis of response rate, age, gender, terminal
degree specialization, current role in leadership, self-concept as a leader and the number of
publications in leadership and management (e.g. manuscripts, books, editorials, etc.).
Only respondents with a graduate degree were included in the study.

Survey questionnaire
The LMCS was built upon the research framework of Collins et al. (2022). They devised a 54-
item survey based on published definitions of management and leadership. The statements
fit on a spectrum from purely leadership actions to purely management actions, and they
assigned a numeric value to each action, allowing for quantification of a respondent’s
conceptualization of the action as either representing more managing or more leading. Their
sample involved 206 physicians across the United States. On the LMCS participants ordered
numerically from 1 (most purely management) to 11 (most purely leadership) the set of eleven
actions previously identified by Collins et al. (2022), as shown in Table 3.
In addition, respondents completed a modified version of the Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes and Posner, 2017). The focus of the LPI is on the behavior of leaders,
not their intentions or their attributes. While certainly not exclusive, Kouzes and Posner

Initial cohort Validation cohort Composite cohort p-

Variable (N 5 38) (N 5 33) (N 5 71) value*

Completion rate 38/60 (63%) 33/61 (54%) 71/121 (59%) 0.45

Age (years) 52 (IQR 44, 61) 57 (IQR 50, 63) 55 (IQR 47, 62) 0.20
Female 15/38 (39%) 10/33 (30%) 25/17 (35%) 0.43
Doctoral degree holders 30/38 (79%) 33/33 (100%) 63/71 (89%) 0.01
Terminal degree specialization
Leadership 8/38 (21%) 6/33 (18%) 14/71 (20%) 0.75
Business 7/38 (18%) 3/33 (9%) 10/71 (14%) 0.28
Psychology 7/38 (18%) 8/33 (24%) 15/71 (21%) 0.54
Othery 15/38 (39%) 16/33 (48%) 31/71 (44%) 0.45
Current role in leadership 35/38 (92%) 27/33 (82%) 62/71 (87%) 0.21
Self-concept as leader 29/38 (76%) 28/31 (90%) 57/71 (80%) 0.13
Respondents with publication(s) on 32/38 (84%) 23/33 (70%) 54/71 (76%) 0.16
the topic of leadership and/or
management
Book(s) 7/38 (18%) 13/33 (39%) 20/71 (28%) 0.05
Total # of books 33 41 74
Peer-reviewed manuscript(s) 18/38 (47%) 17/33 (52%) 35/71 (49%) 0.68
Total # of peer-reviewed manuscripts 382 250 632
Commentaries, reviews, or editorials 15/38 (39%) 12/33 (36%) 27/71 (38%) 0.80
Total # of commentaries, reviews, or 101 181 282
editorials
Table 2. Note(s): * Comparisons between the initial and validation cohort; IQR, interquartile range; with italic
Comparisons of indicating statistically significant
Baseline y This category included those with graduate degrees in education, jurisprudence, engineering, anthropology,
Characteristics in agriculture and medicine
Study Cohorts Source(s): Authors work
Action Study abbreviation
The
leadership/
Serving as a good role model Model management
Maintaining operational standards and addressing human resource issues Operations
Coaching team members to achieve their professional goals Coaching concept scale
Communicating with and participating in organizational administration Communicating
Ensuring personal resilience and success of team members Resilience
Planning and directing activities of team members Planning
Budgeting for operations and maintaining organizational financial streams Budgeting
Balancing duties, administrative tasks and “putting out fires” Fires
Table 3.
Influencing the actions of others to achieve mutually beneficial goals Influencing
Actions respondents
Managing and diversifying revenue streams Managing ranked for the
Planning, organizing, directing and controlling the organization Organizing Leadership/
Note(s): *Based upon Collins et al. (2022) Management
Source(s): Authors work Concept Scale*

(2023) contend that these are the behaviors most frequently associated with what people are
actually doing when they are at their personal best as leaders. The LPI has been in use for
over three decades, both in applied leadership development settings and in hundreds of
research projects involving respondents from across the globe and spanning a myriad range
of industries, disciplines and backgrounds (e.g. Caza and Posner, 2017; Hage and Posner,
2015; Posner, 2015; Zagorsek et al., 2004) making it a well-established means of
conceptualizing leadership, applicable across various contexts and cultures. In this study,
respondents indicated how important each of the 30 behaviors was for successful leadership,
using a ten-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating “almost never” and 10 indicating “almost
always.” The LPI yields five subscales of leadership “practices”: Model the Way, Inspire a
Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act and Encourage the Heart. Internal
reliabilities for the LPI have generally been strong (Posner and Kouzes, 1993; Posner, 2015,
2017). The LPI served as a validation measure of leadership for the proposed LMCS.

Statistical analysis
Survey data were summarized using frequencies and percentages, means and standard
deviations, or medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs), as appropriate. For comparisons
between the Initial and Validation cohorts, a chi-squared test was used for proportions, and
Mann–Whitney U test was used for medians and IQRs. Pearson correlations were used to
assess the relationship of the assigned positional values of the LMCS actions on the spectrum
from management to leadership between the two cohorts. For assessment of the
inter-variable relationships in the LMCS, the data from the Initial and Validation cohorts
were combined, and the Mann–Whitney U test was performed for all relationships among the
eleven actions. For this combined dataset, linear regression was performed to assess the
association of respondents’ terminal degrees with their LMCS responses. Data analysis was
performed using a combination of Microsoft Excel 365 (Redmond, WA) and Stata version 17
(College Station, TX).
To assess associations between respondents’ LMCS and LPI scores, the group with the top
quartile of composite LPI score (≥269) were compared to the group with the bottom quartile
(≤230). Differences between the two were assessed using the standardized mean difference
(SMD) as a descriptive proxy for effect size, calculated as (top quartile – bottom quartile)/
pooled standard deviation (Faraone, 2008). The interpretation of the magnitude of the SMD
was based on the recommendations of Cohen (1988), wherein SMD 5 0.2 indicates small;
SMD 5 0.5, medium; and SMD 5 0.8, large.
LODJ We also evaluated how well the data met the assumptions of ordinary least squares regression.
In particular, we considered linearity, normality, homoscedasticity and collinearity. There was
moderate skewness, but no other violations. Attempted variable transformations did not improve,
and in some cases, worsened skewness. We then repeated the analysis using generalized linear
modeling, which confirmed the results produced by the initial regression model.

Results
The assigned positional values of the LMCS actions on the spectrum from management to
leadership were highly consistent between the Initial and Validation cohorts, with r 5 0.95,
indicating strong reliability for the LMCS. A high degree of consistency between the graphs
of the two cohorts existed, as shown in Figure 1. There is a sharp demarcation between the top
four actions and the bottom seven actions.
Table 4 compares the responses from the Initial and Validation cohorts on both the LMCS and
LPI. For the five scales on the LPI, the Validation cohort scored significantly lower on “Enable”
(p 5 0.03); otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between the two cohorts on
the LPI. The Validation cohort on the LMCS ranked “Influencing the actions of others to achieve
mutually beneficial goals” significantly higher than the Initial cohort (p 5 0.04); otherwise, there
were no differences between the two groups. Respondents’ age, gender and self-concept (i.e., leader
versus manager) were not significantly associated with their rankings of the LMCS actions.
Analysis of the inter-variable relationships in the LMCS are presented in Table 5. The
relationships are highly conserved among the individual behaviors comprising the LMCS.
For a given action, such as “Budgeting for operations and maintaining organizational
financial standing,” there was no significant difference between its score and the score of the
next immediate action (“Balancing duties, administrative tasks, and ‘putting out fires”).
However, there was a significant difference between the given action and the action two
positions removed (e.g. “Maintaining operational standards and addressing human resource

Figure 1.
Distribution of the
Leadership/
Management Concept
Scale actions by study
cohort
 Initial cohort Validation cohort p-
The
Variable (N 5 38) (N 5 33) value leadership/
management
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
Modeling the way 51 (47, 54) 51 (46, 55) 0.76 concept scale
Inspiring a shared vision 44 (41, 54) 47 (43, 53) 0.69
Challenge the process 50 (46, 54) 47 (44, 50) 0.07
Enable others to act 55 (51, 57) 53 (50, 55) 0.03
Encouraging the heart 51 (46, 55) 49 (44, 52) 0.17
Leadership/Management Concept Scale category
Budgeting 2 (1, 4) 3 (2, 4) 0.45
Fires 3 (2, 5) 3 (1, 5) 0.86
Operations 3 (2, 5) 4 (2, 5) 0.99
Planning 4 (3, 6) 4 (3, 6) 0.65
Managing 5.5 (3, 7) 4 (3, 5) 0.12
Organizing 5 (3, 7) 4 (3, 8) 0.88
Communicating 5 (4, 7) 6 (4, 7) 0.67
Modeling 8 (7, 10) 8 (7, 9) 0.47
Coaching 10 (8, 10) 9 (8, 10) 0.14
Ensuring resilience 9 (8, 10) 9 (8, 10) 0.36
Influencing 9 (8, 11) 11 (10, 11) 0.04 Table 4.
Weighted Leadership/Management Concept 7 (5, 8) 6 (4, 8) 0.73 Comparison of
Leadership Practices
score
Inventory and
Unweighted Leadership/Management Concept 10 (8, 12) 10 (7, 11) 0.34 Leadership/
score Management Concept
Note(s): Italic indicates statistically significant Scale between study
Source(s): Authors work cohorts

issues”), as well as all of the actions thereafter. As an action was further removed, the
statistical differences increased. This pattern was consistent across the LMCS with
the exception that there is a large difference between the score of “Communicating with and
participating in organizational administration” and the action immediately adjacent toward
the leadership end of the spectrum, “Serving as a good role model” (p < 0.001). Additionally,
for the actions of “Planning and directing the actions of team members” and “Serving as a
good role model,” the scores were not significantly different for the actions that were two
positions removed toward the leadership end of the spectrum.
Figure 2 displays the distribution of the LMCS actions in the combined cohort (both the
Initial and Validation samples). There was a distinct demarcation between the seven
lower-scored actions and the four higher-scored actions, where the median score jumps from
five for “Communicating with and participating in organizational administration” to eight for
“Serving as a good role model.” The slope of the increase across the higher-scored actions was
nearly twice as steep (two points over four actions 5 0.5) as that of the seven lower-scored
actions (two points over seven actions 5 0.29). Additionally, the bottom quartiles and lower
limits were similar for the seven lower-scored actions. There was a sharp demarcation
between the four top actions and the seven lower actions. There was also a clustering of the
bottom three actions. While there was significant overlap in the seven lower actions with wide
confidence intervals, the greatest ranges were seen in responses in positions four through
seven. The slope of the seven lower actions was flatter than that of the four top actions.
Figure 3 shows a heat map of the individual LMCS actions and the scores for the total
sample (Wilkinson and Friendly, 2009). Higher scores are dominated by black and shades of
gray, whereas the lower scores are dominated by blues. All shades are noted for Organizing,
indicating a high degree of variability in how respondents viewed it, whether as a leadership
or management action.
 LODJ

Table 5.

Leadership/
Management
Inter-variable

Concept Scale
relationships in the
Budgeting Fires Operations Planning Managing Organizing Communicating Modeling Coaching Resilience

Budgeting 1
Fires 0.1971 1
Operations 0.0444 0.4354 1
Planning 0.0001 0.0105 0.0969 1
Managing <0.00001 0.0011 0.0183 0.5029 1
Organizing <0.00001 0.0002 0.00252 0.0703 0.215 1
Communicating <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.0034 0.0193 0.5892 1
Modeling <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 1
Coaching <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.2263 1
Resilience <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.0735 0.6527 1
Influencing <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.0002
Source(s): Authors work
 The
leadership/
management
concept scale

Figure 2.
Distribution of the
Leadership/
Management Concept
Scale actions for all
respondents

Figure 3.
Heat map of
Leadership/
Management Concept
Scale actions by
assigned value

Pearson correlation analysis demonstrated no significant associations between respondents’

scores on the LPI and the LMCS. However, when the scores were analyzed by quartile, the
median LPI scores were substantially greater in the top quartile of respondents compared to
the bottom quartile (278 ± 6 versus 219 ± 13, SMD 5 5.84). Table 6 presents LPI and LMCS
data on the comparisons of the top and bottom quartiles, demonstrating the top quartile
having a higher LMCS than the bottom quartile, though the magnitude of the effect was small
(SMD 5 0.32 for weighted and 0.36 for unweighted).
Linear regression analysis revealed only two significant associations between the area of
concentration of respondents’ terminal degrees and their differentiation between leadership
and management actions on the LMCS (results not shown). Those with advanced degrees in
business fields scored “Planning, organizing, directing, and controlling the organization”
as being more consistent with management than those in the Other degree group (p 5 0.03).
This pattern was also somewhat true for the comparison of the Business group with the
Leadership group (p 5 0.06); with the distribution of the confidence interval indicating a
difference between the two groups. Conversely, those in the Business group ranked
LODJ “Managing and diversifying revenue streams” as more consistent with leadership than did
either those in the Leadership (p 5 0.05) or Psychology (p 5 0.02) groups.

Discussion
There has been considerable debate in the literature as to whether the concepts of leadership
and management are the same, different, or have overlapping qualities. A number of scholars
have contended the two are the same thing (e.g. Azad et al., 2017; Bass, 1990; Fells, 2000;
Ghoshal, 2005; Hay and Hodgkinson, 2006; Kent, 2005; McMahon and Carr, 1999; Nienaber and
Roodt, 2008; Novicevic et al., 2006, 2005; Payne et al., 2006; Wagner-Tsukamoto, 2007;
Washbush, 2005). Others, however, have suggested the two are distinctly different
(e.g. Algahtani, 2014; Armandi et al., 2003; Baruch, 1998; Bennis and Nanus, 2007; Capowski,
1994; Kniffin et al., 2020; Kotter, 2001; Kotterman, 2006; Kumle and Kelly, 2000; Lunenberg,
2011; Maccoby, 2000; Pearce et al., 2003; Sarros, 1992; Toor, 2011; Toor and Ofori, 2008; Watson,
1983; Weathersby, 1999). Within both camps, few scholars have conducted empirical research
to determine how similar or different leadership and management are (Baruch, 1998; Kniffin
et al., 2020; Pearce et al., 2003; Toor, 2011). The same is true for those who contend that
leadership and management have some overlapping areas, as well as distinctive features (e.g.
Conger and Kanungo, 1992; Fairholm, 2002; Nienaber, 2010; Offermann et al., 1994; Simonet and
Tett, 2013; Young and Dulewicz, 2008; Yukl, 1999).
The findings of the current study are in keeping with this latter perspective, that the two
concepts both overlap conceptually and share some separate identities. The study’s survey of
experts/scholars in leadership and management consistently identified the same four actions
as being at the leadership end of the LMCS. Similarly, they consistently identified the same
three actions as being at the management end of the scale. Respondents’ scores varied widely
on the four actions in the mid-range of the LMCS, indicating that those actions had significant
overlap between leadership and management. Most notably, “Planning, organizing,
directing, and controlling the organization” received scores at both ends of the continuum
(from 1 to 11). This overall distribution supported the notion that some actions are
distinctively associated with leadership, that others are distinctively associated with
management, and still other actions share characteristics associated with both concepts. This
result is compatible with the findings of Nienaber and Roodt (2008). The LMCS data support
the assertion that leadership and management can be differentiated empirically and that
there are specific areas of overlap that can also be identified.
The LMCS provided considerable clarity in differentiating between leadership and
management. The scores assigned to the various actions were essentially identical between
the Initial and Validation cohorts. Additionally, the numeric assignments of each action were
precise, as evidenced by the highly conserved pattern of the relationships among the variables.
Specifically, for every action, the actions immediately adjacent to it were not scored significantly
differently, with the exceptions of “Communicating with and participating in organizational
administration” and “Influencing the actions of others to achieve mutually beneficial goals.”
The scores of those actions two positions away were significantly different, indicating the
numerical position of each action in the LMCS as being mathematically appropriate.

Table 6.
Comparisons of the
leadership/ Test Top quartile score Bottom quartile score SMD
management concept
scores between the top Leadership Practices Inventory 278 ± 6 219 ± 13 5.84
and bottom quartiles of Weighted Leadership/Management Concept score 6.4 ± 1.6 5.8 ± 2.2 0.31
the Leadership Unweighted Leadership/Management Concept score 9.4 ± 2.2 8.5 ± 3 0.36
Practices Inventory Source(s): Authors work
These results suggest the LMCS can be used to differentiate how scholars and researchers in The
leadership and management conceptualize the two terms. A numerical scale such as the leadership/
LMCS can be employed to determine how research participants frame the concepts of
leadership and/or management, as well as to determine what it is they are actually talking
management
about when they use one term or the other. Such an instrument should be invaluable in concept scale
improving the specificity and scientific rigor of studies on both topics. Additionally, the
LMCS has practical implications for organizations seeking to hire personnel who need to
focus on either needed leadership or management activities. By having applicants complete
the LMCS, the organization could obtain insights as to which candidate may be best aligned
with the needs of the position.
In the current study, respondents were much clearer on what constituted leadership than
they were on what constituted management. The distinct demarcation of the top four actions
on the LMCS sets them apart as representing a circumscribed concept, which is leadership.
Influencing, coaching and ensuring the resilience of others, in addition to serving as a good
role model, are the sine qua non of what most would conclude represents effective leadership.
The current study stands as a counterbalance to those arguing that leadership does not exist
(Washbush, 2005), or that leadership cannot be defined (Hackman and Walton, 1986; MacKie,
2014; Zaccaro et al., 2002) in a highly reproducible manner.
We have shown that not only does leadership exist, but also that there is some consensus
on what actions define it. While Azad et al. (2017) have suggested there are more than 4,000
definitions of leadership, the responses of the experts/scholars in this study indicate the crux
of leadership is influencing others by means of coaching their capabilities, ensuring their
resilience and performance and serving as an effective role model.
Further, in keeping with the admonition of Toor, 2011 that continued efforts are needed to
identify the differences between leadership and management, this study suggests a reliable
means of doing so. This has been accomplished not only by the clear continuum delineated in
the LMCS but also by the distinct differentiation of what constitutes leadership.
In contradistinction to the clear constituents of leadership, those factors that constitute
management were less well differentiated by respondents. There was high reliability for the
positions of the various actions, but there was not as strong a differentiation across the seven
actions set apart from the leadership actions, as evidenced by a shallow slope and wide
extremes in the responses. Viewed from a wider perspective, this result may indicate that
while respondents have clarity on what leadership is and what it is not, they are either not as
clear as to what fully constitutes management, or they view management as encompassing a
greater number of facets. Further study is required to address these considerations.
No significant relationships were found between respondents’ scores on the LMCS and
those on the LPI. This result was unexpected, and there are several possible explanations.
Perhaps the LMCS may not be accurately measuring the concept of leadership, or at least
some component of those specific leadership behaviors measured by the LPI. This is
probably not the case given that the LMCS was fundamentally looking at the definition of
leadership, was designed based on the published leadership literature, was completed by 71
experts/scholars in the field, exhibited a high degree of reliability across cohorts and had
highly conserved mathematical relationships of the components. A more likely possibility is
that the respondents—well-informed about leadership and active in leadership positions—
had relatively homogenous and high scores on the LPI and so there was not enough
variability to detect a meaningful relationship between the two instruments. Such high scores
suggest that the sample in this current study was unrepresentative, biased toward either
highly accomplished leaders or respondents who were biased to answer as if they were highly
accomplished leaders. The finding that the LMCS scores were lower in the bottom quartile
distribution on the LPI suggests that with a more normal distribution of LPI scores and a
larger set of LMCS data some significant associations might be revealed. Consequently,
LODJ further studies with the LMCS are warranted in more varied populations to determine if bias
in the sample contributed to the lack of association between the LMCS and LPI scores. The
lack of association between the LMCS and LPI scores might also be explained by the possible
disconnect between how a person conceptualizes something (e.g. leadership on the LMCS)
and how they actually practice it (as measured on the LPI).
This study sought to systematically differentiate between the concepts of leadership and
management. There were four major findings. First, leadership and management could be
differentiated empirically. Second, the LMCS reliably differentiated between the two concepts.
Third, leadership appeared to be more clearly defined conceptually than management. Fourth,
there was no significant relationship between respondents’ scores on the LMCS and the LPI.

Implications
There has been a longstanding debate as to whether leadership and management are the
same or different concepts and, if so, what constitutes them. This issue with being able clearly
to define the two has had negative impacts on science and practice within the field. Our work
has important implications in this regard in both the scientific and practical domains.
In this journal, others have delineated leadership and management as separate entities,
and our work carries their work further. To decrease the “confusion between leadership and
management,” Borgelt and Falk (2007) developed a four-part continuum model extending
from Leadership in a Leadership Configuration on one end, where the intervention purpose is
change, to Management in a Management Configuration on the other, where the intervention
purpose is the status quo. Similarly, McCartney and Campbell (2006) differentiated leadership
and management with a nine-domain grid of “individual success and failure.” Their grid was
comprised of the interactions of managerial and leadership skills, with degrees of each of the
two ranging across low, middle and high. Our work extends the work of those previous
authors by empirically demonstrating that leadership and management are different
concepts, although they have some domains of overlap. Having been developed empirically,
the LMCS provides a reproducible basis for consistently defining leadership and
management, which has direct implications on future scientific studies of the two.
Specifically, by employing standardized, data-driven definitions to the objects of scientific
inquiry, the scientific rigor, validity and reproducibility thereof can be improved.
There are practical implications for differentiating leadership and management. In their
study of associations of leadership style and Lean management, Da Costa Nogueira et al.
(2018) found only an empowering leadership style positively influences Lean implementation.
Not only does this indicate that leadership, as an overall concept, is different from
management—recognizing that Lean management could be construed as the apotheosis of
management, but it also demonstrates that there are particular leadership attributes that are
conducive to improved productivity. Similarly, Şahin et al. (2017) found that leaders’
“managerial assumptions” affect their leadership behaviors. Specifically, leaders who believe
followers like to work, are self-directed and take responsibility are more likely to inspire,
develop, support, empower and impart a sense of mission to followers than are those leaders
who think subordinates must be controlled, directed and threatened with punishment.
It is clear from these prior studies that how a leader and/or manager conceptualizes
components of leadership has direct impacts on how they perform in their roles. This has
direct implications for our research work. There are numerous positions and organizational
roles where leadership and management are differentiated, with one being much more needed
than the other. The LMCS can differentiate empirically how potential candidates for
leadership and/or management positions think about the two, which would allow a would-be
employer to screen candidates for given opportunities and, depending on their
conceptualization of leadership and management, assign them most appropriately.
Limitations The
While this study offers some important findings, there are limitations that must be considered. leadership/
For one, the sample sizes of the two cohorts are relatively small, limiting the possibility of making
inferences. However, though the sample sizes were small, there were clear, statistically
management
significant findings in the study, indicating the magnitude of the effect is large and does not concept scale
necessitate larger sample sizes. Second, participants were all demonstrable experts/scholars in
leadership and/or management, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Given
experts/scholars are the ones who teach leadership and management, as well as are responsible
for establishing the definitions of the concepts, this potential limitation is somewhat problematic.
Respondents were asked to order a series of actions determined a priori, based on prior research
to represent a spectrum from leadership to management and hence were provided a limited set of
action options. In addition, there are many likely differences between the sample population used
by Collins et al. (2022) to develop the LMCS (i.e., physicians) and the characteristics of the experts/
scholars in the current study. The latter may hold different concepts as important to leadership
and management that were not captured in the original LMCS actions.
As previously discussed, the high scores on the LPI indicate there is a likely sampling bias
that needs addressing in future studies. While participants were not presented with the name of
the scale in the survey, referring to it as the LMCS may prejudice some respondents, especially as
related to “leadership romanticism” (Collinson et al., 2018; Ford and Harding, 2007). Would
results have been materially different if the scale were labeled Management/Leadership Concept
Scale? However, this titling concern is somewhat mitigated because the actions included in the
LMCS per se have no value placed on them; all represent highly important actions for people and
organizations. Participants were not asked to consider their relative importance to one another
but simply to array them in what made sense for them as representing actions from “pure”
management to “pure” leadership (at least as anchor points on the continuum).

References
Algahtani, D.A. (2014), “Are leadership and management different? A review”, Journal of Management
Policies and Practices, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 71-82, doi: 10.15640/jmpp.v2n3a4.
Armandi, B., Oppedisano, J. and Sherman, H. (2003), “Leadership theory and practice: a ‘case’ in point”,
Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 1076-1088, doi: 10.1108/00251740310509607.
Azad, N.H.G.A. Jr., Brooks, A., Garza, O., O’Neil, C., Stutz, M.M. and Sobotka, J.L. (2017), “Leadership
and management are one and the same”, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 1-5.
Baruch, Y. (1998), “Leadership - is that what we study?”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 100-124, doi: 10.1177/107179199800500110.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial
Applications, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: the Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row, New
York, NY.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (2007), Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge, 2nd ed., HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX.
Borgelt, K. and Falk, I. (2007), “The leadership/management conundrum: innovation or risk
management?”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 122-136,
doi: 10.1108/01437730710726822.
Capowski, G. (1994), “Anatomy of a leader: where are the leaders of tomorrow?”, Management Review,
Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 10-17.
Caza, A. and Posner, B.Z. (2017), “The influence of nationality on follower’s satisfaction with their
leaders”, Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 53-62.
LODJ Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Collins, R.T., Purington, N. and Roth, S.J. (2022), “Physician understanding of and beliefs about
leadership”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 120-136.
Collinson, D., Jones, O.S. and Grint, K. (2018), “‘No more heroes’: critical perspectives on leadership
romanticism”, Organization Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1625-1647.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1992), “Perceived behavioural attributes of charismatic leadership”,
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 86-102, doi: 10.1037/h0078703.
Covey, S.R. (1992), Principle-Centered Leadership, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Edwards, G., Schedlitzki, D., Turnbull, S. and Gill, R. (2015), “Exploring power assumptions in the
leadership and management debate”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 328-343, doi: 10.1108/lodj-02-2013-0015.
English Standard Bible (2001), Crossway bibles.
Fairholm, M.R. (2002), Defining Leadership: A Review of Past, Present, and Future Ideas, CEMM
Research, pp. 1-37, Center for Excellence in Municipal Management, Washington, DC, available
at: https://www.strategies-for-managing-change.com/support-files/definingleadershipreview.pdf
Faraone, S.V. (2008), “Interpreting estimates of treatment effects: implications for managed care”, P &
T: A Peer-Reviewed Journal for Formulary Management, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 700-711.
Fells, M.J. (2000), “Fayol stands the test of time”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 6 No. 8,
pp. 345-360.
Fiedler, F.E. (1965), “Engineer the job to fit the manager”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 43 No. 5,
pp. 115-122.
Ford, J. and Harding, N. (2007), “Move over management: we are leaders now”, Management Learning,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 475-493.
Ghoshal, S. (2005), “Bad management theories are destroying good management practices”, Academy of
Management Learning and Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 75-91, doi: 10.5465/amle.2005.16132558.
Hackman, J.R. and Walton, R.E. (1986), “Leading groups in organizations”, in Goodman, P.S. (Ed.),
Designing Effective Work Groups, Jossey-Bass, pp. 72-119.
Hage, J. and Posner, B.Z. (2015), “Religion, religiosity, and leadership practices: an examination in the
Lebanese context”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 396-412.
Halbusi, H.A., Williams, K.A., Ramayah, T., Aldieri, L. and Vinci, C.P. (2020), “Linking ethical
leadership and ethical climate to employees’ ethical behavior: the moderating role of person–
organization fit”, Personnel Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 159-185, doi: 10.1108/pr-09-2019-0522.
Hay, A. and Hodgkinson, M. (2006), “Rethinking leadership: a way forward for teaching leadership?”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 144-158, doi: 10.1108/
01437730610646642.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1969), “Life cycle theory of leadership”, Training and Development
Journal, May, pp. 26-34.
House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. (1997), “The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis?”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 23, pp. 445-456.
Kent, T.W. (2005), “Leading and managing: it takes two to tango”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 Nos
7/8, pp. 1010-1017, doi: 10.1108/00251740510610008.
Kniffin, K.M., Detert, J.R. and Leroy, H.L. (2020), “On leading and managing: synonyms or separate
(and unequal)?”, Academy of Management Discoveries, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 544-571, doi: 10.5465/
amd.2018.0227.
Kotter, J.P. (1990), A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, Free Press, New
York, NY.
Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA. The
Kotter, J.P. (2001), “What leaders really do”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 11, pp. 85-97. leadership/
Kotterman, J. (2006), “Leadership versus management: what’s the difference?”, Journal of Quality and management
Participation, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 13-17. concept scale
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2017), The Leadership Practices Inventory, 5th ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2021), Everyday People, Extraordinary Leadership: How to Make a
Difference Regardless of Your Title, Role, or Authority, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2023), The Leadership Challenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things
Happen in Organizations, 7th ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Kumle, J. and Kelly, N.J. (2000), “Leadership vs management”, Supervision, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 8-10.
Lunenberg, F.C. (2011), “Leadership versus management”, International Journal of Management,
Business, and Administration, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Maccoby, M. (2000), “Understanding the differences between management and leadership”, Research
Technology Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 57-59.
MacKie, D. (2014), “The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full range
leadership development: a controlled study”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 118-137, doi: 10.1037/cpb0000005.
McCartney, W.W. and Campbell, C.R. (2006), “Leadership, management, and derailment”, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 190-202, doi: 10.1108/
01437730610657712.
McMahon, D. and Carr, J.C. (1999), “The contributions of Chester Barnard to strategic management
theory”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 228-240, doi: 10.1108/
13552529910282222.
Nienaber, H. (2010), “Conceptualisation of management and leadership”, Management Decision, Vol. 48
No. 5, pp. 661-675, doi: 10.1108/00251741011043867.
Nienaber, H. and Roodt, G. (2008), “Management and leadership: buccaneering or science?”, European
Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 36-50, doi: 10.1108/09555340810843681.
Nogueira, D. M.da C., Sousa, P.S.A. and Moreira, M.R.A. (2018), “The relationship between leadership
style and the success of Lean management implementation”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 807-824, doi: 10.1108/lodj-05-2018-0192.
Northouse, P.G. (2016), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th ed., SAGE Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Novicevic, M.M., Davis, W., Dorn, F., Buckley, M.R. and Brown, J.A. (2005), “Barnard on conflicts
of responsibility”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 1396-1409, doi: 10.1108/
00251740510634930.
Novicevic, M., Sloan, H., Duke, A., Holmes, E. and Breland, J. (2006), “Customer relationship
management: barnard’s foundations”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 306-318, doi: 10.1108/17511340610670205.
Offermann, L.R., Kennedy, J.K. and Wirtz, P.W. (1994), “Implicit leadership theories: content, structure,
and generalizability”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43-58, doi: 10.1016/1048-
9843(94)90005-1.
Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S. and Watrous, K.M. (2006), “Portrayals of F.W. Taylor across textbooks”,
Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 385-407.
Pearce, C.L., Jr, H.P.S., Cox, J.F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K.A. and Trevino, L. (2003), “Transactors,
transformers and beyond: a multi-method development of a theoretical typology of leadership”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 273-307.
Posner, B.Z. (2015), “An investigation into the leadership practices of volunteer leaders”, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 885-898.
LODJ Posner, B.Z. (2017), “Investigating the reliability and validity of the leadership practices inventory”,
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 4, p. 17, doi: 10.3390/admsci6040017.
Posner, B.Z. and Kouzes, J.M. (1993), “Psychometric properties of the leadership practices inventory–
updated”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 191-199.
Sarros, J.C. (1992), “What leaders say they do: an Australian example”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 21-27, doi: 10.1108/01437739210016204.
Şahin, F., G€ uz, S. and Şeşen, H. (2017), “Leaders’ managerial assumptions and transformational
urb€
leadership: the moderating role of gender”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 105-125, doi: 10.1108/lodj-11-2015-0239.
Schruijer, S.G.L. and Vansina, L.S. (2002), “Leader, leadership and leading: from individual
characteristics to relating in context”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 7,
pp. 869-874, doi: 10.1002/job.171.
Simic, I. (2020), “Are managers and leaders one and the same?”, Ekonomika, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 1-13, doi:
10.5937/ekonomika2003001s.
Simonet, D.V. and Tett, R.P. (2013), “Five perspectives on the leadership–management relationship”,
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 199-213, doi: 10.1177/
1548051812467205.
Stogdill, R.M. (1974), Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, Free Press, New
York, NY.
Sun-Tzu (2003), in Minford, J. (Ed.), The Art of War, Penguin Books, New York, NY.
Taylor, F.W. (1911), Principles of Scientific Management, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY.
Toor, S.-R. (2011), “Differentiating leadership from management: an empirical investigation of leaders and
managers”, Leadership and Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 310-320, doi: 10.1061/
(asce)lm.1943-5630.0000138.
Toor, S.-R. and Ofori, G. (2008), “Leadership versus management: how they are different, and why”,
Leadership and Management in Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 61-71, doi: 10.1061/(asce)1532-
6748(2008)8:2(61).
Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2007), “An institutional economic reconstruction of scientific management: on
the lost theoretical logic of taylorism”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 105-117, doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.23463879.
Washbush, J.B. (2005), “There is no such thing as leadership, revisited”, Management Decision, Vol. 43
Nos 7/8, pp. 1078-1085, doi: 10.1108/00251740510610080.
Watson, C.M. (1983), “Leadership, management, and the seven keys”, Business Horizons, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 8-13, doi: 10.1016/0007-6813(83)90075-7.
Weathersby, G.B. (1999), “Leadership vs. management”, Management Review, Vol. 88 No. 3, p. 5.
Wilkinson, L. and Friendly, M. (2009), “The history of the cluster heat map”, The American
Statistician, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 179-184, doi: 10.1198/tas.2009.0033.
Xenophon (2006), in Hedrick, L. (Ed.), Cyrus the Great: the Arts of Leadership and War, St. Martin’s
Griffin, New York, NY.
Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2005), “A model of command, leadership and management competency in
the British Royal Navy”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 228-241, doi: 10.1108/01437730510591770.
Young, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2008), “Similarities and differences between leadership and management:
high-performance competencies in the British royal navy”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 17-32, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00534.x.
Yukl, G. (1999), “An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 33-48, doi: 10.1080/
135943299398429.
Yukl, G. and Fleet, D.D.V. (1992), “Theory and research on leadership in organizations”, in Dunnette, The
M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Consulting
Psychologists Press, pp. 147-197. leadership/
Yukl, G., Gordon, A. and Tabor, T. (2002), “A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
management
integrating a half century of behavior research”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational concept scale
Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 15-32.
Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L. and Marks, M.A. (2002), “Team leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 451-483, doi: 10.1016/s1048-9843(01)00093-5.
Zagorsek, H., Jaklic, M. and Stough, S.J. (2004), “Comparing leadership practices between the United
States, Nigeria, and Slovenia: does culture matter?”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 16-34.
Zaleznik, A. (1977), “Managers and leaders: are they different?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55
No. 3, pp. 67-78.

Further reading
Posner, B.Z. (2016), “Bringing the rigor of research to the art of leadership”, available at: https://www.
leadershipchallenge.com/LeadershipChallenge/media/SiteFiles/research/TLC-Research-to-the-
Art-of-Leadership.pdf

Corresponding author
Ronnie Thomas Collins II can be contacted at: tomcollins@uky.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats