Leadership and management are  often placed on opposite ends of a spectrum. In an effort to sell the newest release on how to build a better leader, many self-appointed experts begin their sales pitch with an onslaught of derogatory words for management. They contend that only by abandoning the study of management and following the path of leadership, can executives get the best from their people.

Indeed, management and leadership do have different functional definitions, but they share similar origins. Leadership rallies people to pursue new goals, management ensures they work toward those aims.

For as long as writers have pondered leadership, they have pondered management. The motivations behind what inspires people to look up and see new visions are often the same motivations behind what inspires them to put their head back down and work toward attaining that vision.

Most historians agree that the literature on management begins with Fredrick Winslow Taylor. Taylor argued for a data-driven, empirical approach to management in order to maximize productivity. Principles of Scientific Management represents his seminal work, a manifesto against catch-as-catch-can approaches to organizing people. Taylor argued that man can reach his potential only through scientific study of his capabilities.

In the quest to promote themselves by demonizing the past, modern authors joined together to rally against “Taylorism” and the old guard of management. Yet, what Taylor advocated was the end of wasted energy, poorly designed job descriptions, and unrealistic performance expectations. These are ideals that are still preached by the new prophets of leadership.