THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ART AND SCIENCE OFBUSINESS MANAGEMENT, AND THE PROPER ROLE OF EACH
When business management is considered in the context of art versus science, the focus of the consideration is on organ izational leadership and management. Some theorists conceive of leadership and management as a unity, and consider this unity to be (1) primarily an art form, (2) primarily a scienti fic process, or (3) some combination of the two. Others tend to conceive of leadership and management as separate functions, and tend to view leadership as the art, and management as the science. Peter Drucker (1955) conceived of leadership and management as a unity. Drucker (1955, 107) said that leadership "is of the utmost importance. Indeed there is no substitute for it. But leadership cannot be created or promoted. It cannot be taught or learned." Thus, Drucker came down on the side of art the old saw that "leadership is an art, not a science; a science can be learned but an art cannot," or the even older one that says that "leaders are born, not made."
Bradford Boyd (1988) also conceived of leadership and man agement as a unity. Bradford (1988, 324) said that leadership is, simply, "getting people to work to achieve the goals of the enterprise. It's giving people something to work for." Boyd appeared to come down on the side of leadership as a science; something that can be taught and learned.
Thomas Peters, and Robert Waterman, Jr. (1982), also viewed leadership and management as a unity. They offered a definition of leadership, which they attributed to Henry Kis singer, which should be enough to scare away most who aspire to leadership and management. Leadership, it was said
. . . is many things. It is patient . . . boring coalition building . . . the purposefulseeding of cabals that . . . willresult in the appropriate fer
ment in the bowels of the organization . . . meticu
lously s...