Get free samples written by our Top-Notch subject experts for taking online Assignment Help services.
Not every start-up is labelled “fast-growth,” but the ones that often remain in the high-risk, high-reward mode for an extended period of time, and not every established organisation can be deemed to be highly lucrative, are the exception. There is a lot to gain and much more to lose if the situation is handled incorrectly. Businesses often get off to a rapid start and don’t slow down, putting financial strain on the company and draining its owner’s emotional reserves. In order to preserve an edge, they must have the necessary building blocks in place in order to go forward at full speed with the highest possible possibility of success. As a result, leadership is a vital component of the firm. Founders, CEOs, and other top executives are responsible for establishing the required structure, managing finances, and encouraging innovation (Meyer, Li and Schotter, 2020). Everyone, particularly the marketing department, feels the pressure of running a high-growth start-up or running an existing corporate organisation. The marketing department is responsible for acquiring new consumers swiftly and efficiently while also creating brand authority, voice, and impressions.
As I have learned, it is the responsibility of leaders and managers to organise their teams in such a way that the task is distributed correctly. Start-ups have a reputation for needing workers to wear numerous hats—and yours most likely can and do so already—but if you put too much pressure on one or a few individuals, you run the danger of losing them altogether (Sweeney, Clarke and Higgs, 2019). A fast-growing firm may soon become difficult to manage as the number of employees grows and the organisation is forced to deal with an inflow of new customers and implement new procedures.
As a result, I can imply that effective leadership is critical in establishing and sustaining structure so that the work burden does not fall on a small number of employees. People must devise a strategy for dealing with increased complexity that takes into account and accommodates human limitations. This structure becomes even more critical in the marketing environment (Lin et al., 2020). As a broad team of individuals, including those in paid advertising, organic advertising, content and editorial, social media, internal communications, and public relations, there are already many duties that are shared between one another. Structure ensures that work is distributed to the appropriate individuals.
In order to provide high-quality services, management and leadership are essential. Despite the fact I think that they are similar in some ways, the perspectives, abilities, and behaviours they entail may be very different in various marketing context. In order to be a successful manager and a successful leader, one must possess both talents. Visionary leaders will convey their goals and devise ways for achieving them to others. They have the ability to inspire others and bargain for the resources and assistance they need to succeed while being involved in a marketing campaign. Managers are responsible for ensuring that all of the available resources are used in the most efficient manner possible to ensure the campaign reach its success (Kalaignanam et al., 2021). As a manager in low- and middle-income nations, one needs also be a leader in order to get the best outcomes. There are managers who do not lead, and leaders who do not have management roles, thus it would be a mistake to assume that all managers are also leaders.
There will always be disagreement about what constitutes leadership and what constitutes management. According to some researchers, management and leadership are not interchangeable (Koeslag-Kreunen et al., 2018). In addition, there is debate on the extent to which the two datasets overlap (Yukl, 1989). Others perceive them as diametrically opposed and believe that a good manager cannot be a good leader and vice versa (Ju et al., 2019). There are distinct differences between leadership and management. There are some parallels between leaders and managers, but there are also some notable contrasts (Vieira, Perin and Sampaio, 2018). Leaders, on the other hand, test the present position and promote new functions, so they are searching for long-term objectives while managers keep the concerned campaign running smoothly (Ju et al., 2019). Organizations must have both good management and effective leadership in order to succeed in today’s fast-paced competitive market (Vieira, Perin and Sampaio, 2018).
Both management and leadership have their place in an organisation, but they aren’t the same thing (Dwyer, 2019). Influence, collaboration, and the pursuit of a single objective are all aspects of both leadership and management (Hidayat and Wulandari, 2020). Leadership and management are two distinct areas, though (Rebel, 2020). While management is a one-way authority connection, Katz claims leadership is a multi-way influence interaction (Kouzes and Posner, 2019). Abraham Zaleznik published the first scientific essay on the subject of leadership vs. management in 1977 (Hsiao et al., 2011. Managers and leaders, according to Hsiao et al. (2011), have various contributions to make if the company is to achieve its objectives. There are two types of leaders: those who encourage change and those who promote stability and those who promote stability and those who promote stability and those who seek to comprehend people’s views to acquire their loyalty.
This means that various kinds of individuals are needed for management and leadership (Kashive, Khanna and Bharthi, 2020). According to Watson, managers are responsible for the structure and system, while leaders are responsible for influencing, engaging with people, and working together to reach a shared vision (Graham and Cascio, 2018). Leadership and management, however, are regarded to be two distinct vocations (Lievens and Slaughter, 2016). While management is a one-way authority connection, Katz claims leadership is a two-way influence relation (Kashyap and Verma, 2018).
Meyer, Li and Schotter, (2020), published the first scientific and ground-breaking paper on the distinction between leaders and managers. The researchers said that in order to achieve its objectives, the company need both successful managers and leaders, but he thinks that managers and leaders have distinct contributions (Lin et al., 2020). Managers, on the other hand, strive for consistency, assert their authority, and see projects through to completion while leaders strive for innovation and fresh methods. In order to be effective, management and leadership need a diverse group of individuals. Structure and system are taken care of by managers, while leadership focuses on communication, inspiration, and achieving common objectives (Sweeney, Clarke and Higgs, 2019). As a final point, Watson said that the 7S approach to leadership is more successful than the 5S approach to management, which includes strategy, structure, systems, shared values and skills, and style.
In many cases, managers lead and leaders manage, but they are not the same thing. To some extent, leadership actions and management duties are interdependent. But there are managers who do not lead and leaders who do not manage. According to some experts, a great leader is one who inspires, innovates, is adaptable, is fearless, and has a b sense of self-worth. When it comes to managing people, the manager has the ability to be methodical and deliberative while still being authoritative, consultative, analytical, and steadying. In this regard, implication of different leadership theories also comes into play, an analysis of such theories are as follows:
The great man theory
The great man hypothesis of leadership holds that good leaders are born, not created. A prominent notion in the 19th century, this theory claims that leadership is an innate talent (Mango, 2018). This sort of leader frequently has the inherent traits of intellect, boldness, confidence, intuition and charisma, among others.
The trait theory
According to the notion of leadership traits, successful leaders have certain inherent characteristics. However, a person's ability to lead does not automatically follow if they possess a certain set of characteristics (Mango, 2018). While some leaders are gifted communicators and listeners, this is not true for everyone.
The behavioural theory
For example, a person's environment, not his or her innate qualities, shapes a person into a leader under the behavioural theory of leadership (Hunt and Fedynich, 2019). Conditioning is a crucial idea in behavioural theory. Environmental reactions to a person's conduct are said to be the cause of their conditioning, according to this theory.
The transactional theory
To study leadership as a reward and punishment system, the transactional theory of leadership is used. It believes that successful leadership must be results-oriented and hierarchical in structure (Hunt and Fedynich, 2019). A transactional leader values order and structure above innovation.
The transformational theory
The “the relationship theory,” another name for the transformational leadership theory, looks at how well a leader can lead when he or she has a good connection with the people on their team. Enthusiasm and passion are powerful motivators in the lives of transformational leaders. As role models for their teams, they hold themselves to the same high standards as they do for their subordinates and employees alike.
As per the context of these theories it is apparent that the leader must be dedicated to ensuring that his followers are moving in the correct path and has a clear sense of vision and objectives. In this regard, the leader must have sufficient efficiency and inherent traits such as intellect, boldness, confidence, intuition and charisma, among others accordingly with the context of Great man theory, while the Trait theory implies the availability of effective communication skills, good listing skills and problem-solving skills etc.
Nevertheless, even if management and leadership have comparable responsibilities, it is critical to distinguish between the two. Leaders and managers have a key responsibility to govern and influence their subordinates. When it comes to achieving objectives, managers and leaders are quite different. Leaders inspire and motivate their followers by their vision and their ability to communicate that vision. Leadership and management have certain similarities, but they are not the same thing (Ju et al., 2019).
In both leadership and management, there is an emphasis on influencing others, working together, and achieving shared objectives (Koeslag-Kreunen et al., 2018). Leadership and management, however, are regarded to be two distinct vocations (Vieira, Perin and Sampaio, 2018). When it comes to management and leadership, Katz claims that they are two different kinds of relationships (Ju et al., 2019). After a decade of research, Abraham Zaleznik published his seminal essay on leadership and management in 1977. A successful company requires both competent managers and effective leaders, but Vieira, Perin and Sampaio (2018) contends that managers and leaders make distinct contributions to the organization’s success.
The 7S approach (Strategy, Structure, System, Common Values, Skills and Style) was also cited by Watson as being more beneficial for leaders than managers. Bryman went on to say in 1985 that strategic motivation is an important part of leadership. “Leaders do the right things; managers do the right things,” say Kashive, Khanna and Bharthi (2020) when describing the contrasts between managers and leaders.
Furthermore, Bennis declared in 1989 that “we will need a new generation of leaders to survive in the twenty-first century.” Harvard Business School professor John Kotter said in 1987 that leadership extends beyond everyday chores to deal with change, while management is a regular formal obligation to deal with routine complexity (Martin and Groen-in’t-Woud, 2011). According to Kotter, leadership is the process of developing a vision for the business, aligning individuals with that goal, and motivating people to action via the fulfilment of their fundamental needs (Kouzes and Posner, 2019). “Leadership is not management in the way most people assume,” according to Kotter. A leader’s role isn’t ethereal or occult. Nothing to do with charisma or other outlandish personal characteristics is required. It’s not only for a select few. Neither is leadership superior to management nor is it a substitute for it; rather, management and leadership are two separate but complementary tasks that should be practised in tandem. An ever-changing corporate climate requires both to be successful (Kashive, Khanna and Bharthi, 2020).
As a contrast, management is an effort to govern the formal operations of an organisation (Meyer, Li and Schotter, 2020). To some extent, leadership actions and management duties are interdependent. But there are managers who do not lead and leaders who do not manage. According to some experts, a great leader is one who inspires, innovates, is adaptable, is fearless, and has a b sense of self-worth. However, a manager has the ability to think clearly and logically as well as consult with others while also being authoritative, consultative, analytical, and steadying (Sweeney, Clarke and Higgs, 2019). According to Lin et al. (2020), management entails resolving day-to-day issues while also carrying out the goal of the leader (Kalaignanam et al., 2021). Thus, Leadership is about ensuring that others around you are moving in the correct direction as per Ju et al., (2019).
The ability to consistently influence a group of people is at the heart of leadership, and it includes a wide range of characteristics. With leadership, a team's enthusiasm and productivity are constantly monitored, whereas management is more concerned with the general control and supervision of a team's work operations. In order to manage a group of people, multiple leadership styles, attributes, and beliefs are needed. Based on theories of management and the attributes of competent managers, supervisors, or other positional leaders, leadership principles are used as a guide. In addition, notions of conventional management styles and behaviours are driven by leadership conceptions, which generally include attributes like as personal character, ambition, motivation, charisma, and decision-making ability.
The dynamics of a team may be defined as the influence of individual members' various responsibilities and behaviours on the organization as a whole. As a result, the dynamics of a team are composed of the collective unconsciousness of its members, which dictates the course of the group's behaviour and output. Members of a team with good group dynamics are more likely to trust each other. As a group, they can make choices together and are held responsible for the results. When a group's dynamics are b, it's more likely to experience better results and show signs of mutual understanding and self-correction. Poor group dynamics, on the other hand, might jeopardise good decision making and job outputs.
When it comes to things like creativity, efficiency, and effectiveness, it's important to consider the dynamics of the group. A better bottom line may be achieved by addressing group dynamics in organisations since group work is essential to the success of the company. Originally coined by Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist, the phrase “group dynamics” is sometimes used interchangeably with the word “team dynamics,” albeit there are notable differences. Great leaders set themselves apart from good ones by having a firm grasp on the nuances of team dynamics and being able to implement strategies that foster a supportive work environment. Trust is a critical component of a healthy group dynamic (more on that later). They hold each other responsible and work together toward a common goal, knowing that they can depend just on support of their teammates. Additionally, healthy team dynamics includes self-correcting behaviour, constructive criticism, and mutual respect. For the same reasons that a b sense of community helps keep people together, a deep sense of teamwork keeps groups working together more efficiently.
Positive team dynamics are influenced by a number of factors.
Effective Leadership
A successful team is more likely to be led by an effective leader. Remember that good leadership does not need a domineering or controlling boss - rather, great leadership involves understanding your people, trusting them to execute their task properly, and winning their trust. Micro-management, on the other hand, is unproductive and should be avoided at all costs. In the late 1970s, political scientist James MacGregor Burns popularized the idea of transformative leadership. According to Burns, there are two kinds of leadership: transactional and transformational. Transformational leadership involves a leader influencing other by offering something in return, whereas transformational leadership involves a leader connecting with people in such a way as to raise the level of motivation and morality (Siangchokyoo, Klinger and Campion, 2020). Leaders that have the ability to motivate and inspire others have a responsibility to serve the greater good. For example, creating a community centre or increase in air quality might be seen as a socially beneficial endeavour, but it could also be seen as a more personal one.
Communication that is Open and Frequent
Open and regular communication is recommended in high-performing teams. High-performing teams should not only have well-defined procedures and channels of communication, but they must also have the confidence to bring up problems, difficulties, and constructive criticism within the group. A team's opportunity to accomplish high-level objectives is enhanced when members have a sense of belonging and trust that their concerns will be acknowledged. The concept of “communication accommodation” refers to the process through which individuals modify their communication style in response to the needs of others. Divergence and convergence are two methods in which these stylistic modifications are accomplished (Zhang and Giles, 2018). Divergence is a strategy for drawing attention to the different characteristics of the group to which one belongs. Distinction is typically utilized by those who feel bly about their ethnic or racial identity. People who lack authority utilize convergence more frequently to gain social acceptance and concentrate on mimicking the communication patterns of those they are conversing with.
Relationships between the members of the team
Members of a team with a b sense of camaraderie and cohesiveness are more likely to achieve success together. When bouncing ideas off one other, these qualities may provide a feeling of security. People are more inclined to engage in open conversation when they feel more comfortable expressing their views.
Defined Responsibilities
A team that lacks clear direction is has a lack of defined roles and duties. There must be clarity and accuracy in this area if accountability and transparency are to be properly implemented. When there is no clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each member of the team, the result is a chaotic and dispiriting environment. Leaders who want to establish a healthy work environment can begin by clearly identifying the roles and responsibilities of each team member.
Impact of team leadership on Employer Branding
The sustainability of an employer branding programme relies on the leadership's ability to foster a culture of collaboration throughout the firm, which is essential to building a b employer brand. Organizational culture is shaped by the leadership of a company and has a direct influence on how it feels to work there. Employees who are not happy with their jobs are more likely to spread the word than customers who are pleased. The strategic design of an organization's work culture is reflected in its employer branding. A solid job and a long-term connection with the organisation are more important to today's employees. According to a recent study, workers of industrial companies have a better feeling of loyalty and pride in their company. Employees who have a positive view of their workplace are also more inclined to promote it to others and report that it treats them well. To attract the best people, a firm has to have a b brand identity that reflects its values. Trust and dependability are enhanced as a result. Employer branding and corporate culture are both influenced by effective team leadership.
Attracting and retaining top-tier employees is made simpler with a b employer brand. The effectiveness of an organization's workforce is bly influenced by the power of its brand. Employer branding has also been suggested to be a short-cut for acquiring talent in several circumstances. Rather of conducting in-depth analyses of their own practises, HR departments partner with advertising firms to create a public image that appeals to potential customers even if it is not their own. Rather than focusing on establishing their employer brand, others say companies like Google do so by focusing on how their employees live up to the brand. Managers must realise that the company's basic value is in motivating staff to work hard and be attentive to the needs of the clients they serve. In the end, it is thought that if a firm treats its employees well, they will treat the company well.
A behaviour could be generally defined as the way a person responds to his or her environment, either positively or negatively. The definition of attitude is nonetheless a source of some discussion and debate. When defining drivers of management behaviour, it is helpful to bear two useful conflicts in mind. The first is the existence of ambivalence or differences of attitude towards a given person, object, situation etc. from the same person, sometimes at the same time (Koeslag-Kreunen et al., 2018). This ambivalence indicates that attitude is inherently more complex than a simple sliding scale of positive and negative, and defining these axes in different ways is integral to identifying the essence of attitude. The second conflict to keep in mind is the degree of implicit versus explicit attitude, which is to say subconscious versus conscious. Indeed, people are often completely ignorant of their implicit attitudes, complicating the ability to study and interpret them accurately.
Everyone has attitudes about many things; these are not necessarily a bad thing. One aspect of employees’ attitude is the impact it can have on the people around them. People with a positive attitude can lift the spirits of their co-workers, while a person with a negative attitude can lower their spirits (Vieira, Perin and Sampaio, 2018). Sometimes, though, this principle works in reverse, and attitudes are often more complex than positive or negative. Attitudes may affect both the employee’s work performance and the performances of co-workers.
Some attitudes represent a dangerous element in the workplace that can spread to those closest to the employee and affect everyone’s performance. Is it a manager’s responsibility to help change the person’s attitude? Should the employee alone be responsible? The answer is that attitudes are the confluence of an individual and external stimuli, and therefore everyone is in a position of responsibility.
Still, a manager may be able to influence an employee’s attitude if the root cause relates to work conditions or work environment. For example, employees may develop poor attitudes if they work long hours, if the company is having difficulties, or if they have relationship issues with the manager or another employee (Meyer, Li and Schotter, 2020). Similarly, if employees feel believe there is little chance for advancement or that their efforts go unappreciated by the organization, they may develop a negative attitude. To the extent they are able, managers should strive to remedy these situations to encourage an effective work environment.
Nevertheless, there can be many aspects that can cause limits in which the management operates, such aspects include unethical behaviour from management that are driving by internal and external factors (Vieira, Perin and Sampaio, 2018). These drivers are as follows:
Profit – For financial advantage that goes well beyond their salaries, some managers lead to unethical corporate practises. Alternatively, people participate in this conduct for financial advantage, such as a promotion or a raise.
Prestige – When a manager’s career depends on it, he or she may participate in unethical business practises to advance in the company or claim credit for work they didn’t perform (Kouzes and Posner, 2019).
Power – An unethical business practise may be used by a management to satisfy a desire for dominance. When workers think they are being punished or not rewarded “to make a point” by their management, this is a common occurrence.
Nevertheless, the key takeaway of the study implies that both leaders and managers play intricate roles in defining the organisational performance and employee efficacy. Hence, the differentiating roles of the managers and leaders along with their key principles not only influences employee behaviour and performance but can create limitations and drivers as well. Hence, the functionalities of both these prospects are apt and prominent for the organisation.
Get Better Grades In Every Subject
Submit Your Assignments On Time
Trust Academic Experts Based in UK
Your Privacy is Our Topmost Concern
offer valid for limited time only*
