Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince argues that it is better to be feared than loved.
Sanskrit
literature identifies ten types of leaders. Defining characteristics of
the ten types of leaders are explained with examples from history and
mythology.
Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one's "blue blood" or genes. Monarchy
takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions
against the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction. On the other hand, more democratically inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals profiting from careers open to talent.
In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman pater familias. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may object to such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance, which is sometimes associated with matriarchies.
Comparable to the Roman tradition, the views of Confucianism
on "right living" relate very much to the ideal of the (male)
scholar-leader and his benevolent rule, buttressed by a tradition of
filial piety.
Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline ... Reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness. Exercise of humaneness alone results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in folly. Dependence on the strength of courage results in violence. Excessive discipline and sternness in command result in cruelty. When one has all five virtues together, each appropriate to its function, then one can be a leader. — Sun Tzu
Machiavelli's The Prince, written in the early 16th century, provided a manual for rulers ("princes" or "tyrants" in Machiavelli's terminology) to gain and keep power.
In the 19th century the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into question. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back as the 19th century.) One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming
contrasts between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely provided resources—human and material—and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan. Compare servant leadership.
For a more general take on leadership in politics, compare the concept of the statesperson.
Theories
Early western history
The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has continued for centuries. Philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives
have explored the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as
a leader?" Underlying this search was the early recognition of the
importance of leadership
and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics
that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on
individual attributes is known as the "trait theory of leadership".
A number of works in the 19th century – when the traditional
authority of monarchs, lords and bishops had begun to wane – explored
the trait theory at length: note especially the writings of Thomas Carlyle and of Francis Galton, whose works have prompted decades of research. In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. Galton's Hereditary Genius
(1869) examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men.
After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when his
focus moved from first-degree to second-degree relatives, Galton
concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were
born, not developed. Both of these notable works lent great initial
support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of a
leader.
Cecil Rhodes
(1853–1902) believed that public-spirited leadership could be nurtured
by identifying young people with "moral force of character and instincts
to lead", and educating them in contexts (such as the collegiate
environment of the University of Oxford)
which further developed such characteristics. International networks of
such leaders could help to promote international understanding and help
"render war impossible". This vision of leadership underlay the
creation of the Rhodes Scholarships, which have helped to shape notions of leadership since their creation in 1903.
Rise of alternative theories
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940; Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959)
prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the
driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature,
Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a
number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that people who are
leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other
situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an
enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative
leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in
certain situations, but not others. The focus then shifted away from
traits of leaders to an investigation of the leader behaviors that were
effective. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and
research for the next few decades.
Reemergence of trait theory
New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish trait theory
as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example,
improvements in researchers' use of the round robin research design
methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do
emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses,
in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings
from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to
create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather
than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new
methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:
- Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.
- Significant relationships exist between leadership emergence and such individual traits as:
- Intelligence
- Adjustment
- Extraversion
- Conscientiousness
- Openness to experience
- General self-efficacy
While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained
popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding
increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks.
Specifically, Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still:
- Focus on a small set of individual attributes such as "The Big Five" personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills.
- Fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes.
- Do not distinguish between the leadership attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences.
- Do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership.
Attribute pattern approach
Considering
the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers
have begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual
differences—the leader attribute pattern approach.
In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attribute pattern
approach is based on theorists' arguments that the influence of
individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering
the person as an integrated totality rather than a summation of
individual variables.
In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that
integrated constellations or combinations of individual differences may
explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and leader
effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes, or by additive
combinations of multiple attributes..
Behavioral and style theories
In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists
began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the
behavior of successful leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy, and
identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland,
for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a
well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high
self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.
A graphical representation of the managerial grid model
Kurt Lewin,
Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on
the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers
evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under
different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his
influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire.
In 1945, Ohio State University conducted a study which
investigated observable behaviors portrayed by effective leaders, They
would then identify if these particular behaviors reflective in
leadership effectiveness. They were able to narrow their findings to two
identifiable distinctions
The first dimension was identified as "Initiating Structure", which
described how a leader clearly and accurately communicates with their
followers, defines goals, and determine how tasks are performed. These
are considered "task oriented" behaviors The second dimension is
"Consideration", which indicates the leader's ability to build an
interpersonal relationship with their followers, to establish a form of
mutual trust. These are considered "social oriented" behaviors.
The Michigan State Studies, which were conducted in the 1950s,
made further investigations and findings that positively correlated
behaviors and leadership effectiveness. Although they similar findings
as the Ohio State studies, they did contribute an additional behavior
identified in leaders. This was participative behavior; allowing the
followers to participate in group decision making and encouraged
subordinate input. Another term used to describe this is "Servant
Leadership", which entails the leader to reject a more controlling type
of leadership and allow more personal interaction between themselves and
their subordinates.
The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton
in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the
leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.
Positive reinforcement
B. F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement.
Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in
response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in
the future. The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting. Assume praise
is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. This employee does
not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee
decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the
employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee
comes to work on time more often because the employee likes to be
praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer
for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the
behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on
time.
The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing
technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from
subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan
Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase
productivity. Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that reinforcement theory
has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many
reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive,
providing higher performance for lower costs.
Situational and contingency theories
Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around.
This theory assumes that different situations call for different
characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal
psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what
an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part
dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions."
Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational
approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et al., academics began
to normalize the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining
three leadership styles and identifying which situations each style
works better in. The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is
approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds" of
followers in day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is
more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally,
the laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of
freedom it provides, but as the leaders do not "take charge", they can
be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational
problems.
Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the
situation, which is sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four
contingency leadership theories appear more prominently in recent years:
Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision model, the path-goal
theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorability (later called situational control).
The theory defined two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish
the task by developing good relationships with the group
(relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern
carrying out the task itself (task-oriented).
According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and
relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership
orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member
relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the
situation is considered a "favorable situation". Fiedler found that
task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or
unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform
best in situations with intermediate favorability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988), developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which was used in a normative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation. This approach was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.
The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom.
According to House, the essence of the theory is "the meta proposition
that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement
subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates
for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and
individual and work unit performance". The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model,
the path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are
fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the
situation demands. The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.
The Situational Leadership® Model
proposed by Hersey suggests four leadership-styles and four levels of
follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the
leadership-style must match the appropriate level of
follower-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a
function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the
characteristics of followers as well.
Functional theory
General Petraeus talks with U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan
Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath,
1962; Adair, 1988; Kouzes & Posner, 1995) is a particularly useful
theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute
to organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the
leader's main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is
taken care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well
when they have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion
(Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman &
Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory has most often been
applied to team leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has
also been effectively applied to broader organizational leadership as
well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature on functional leadership
(see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman and Walton
(1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert,
Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs
when promoting organization's effectiveness. These functions include
environmental monitoring, organizing subordinate activities, teaching
and coaching subordinates, motivating others, and intervening actively
in the group's work.
A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate
these functions. In initial work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman
(1953) observed that subordinates perceived their supervisors' behavior
in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating structure.
Consideration includes behavior involved in fostering effective
relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing concern
for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others.
Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused
specifically on task accomplishment. This could include role
clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates
accountable to those standards.
Integrated psychological theory
The Integrated Psychological theory of leadership is an attempt to
integrate the strengths of the older theories (i.e. traits,
behavioral/styles, situational and functional) while addressing their
limitations, largely by introducing a new element – the need for leaders
to develop their leadership presence, attitude toward others and
behavioral flexibility by practicing psychological mastery. It also
offers a foundation for leaders wanting to apply the philosophies of servant leadership and authentic leadership.
Integrated Psychological theory began to attract attention after the publication of James Scouller's Three Levels of Leadership model (2011).
Scouller argued that the older theories offer only limited assistance in developing a person's ability to lead effectively.
He pointed out, for example, that:
- Traits theories, which tend to reinforce the idea that leaders are born not made, might help us select leaders, but they are less useful for developing leaders.
- An ideal style (e.g. Blake & Mouton's team style) would not suit all circumstances.
- Most of the situational/contingency and functional theories assume that leaders can change their behavior to meet differing circumstances or widen their behavioral range at will, when in practice many find it hard to do so because of unconscious beliefs, fears or ingrained habits. Thus, he argued, leaders need to work on their inner psychology.
- None of the old theories successfully address the challenge of developing "leadership presence"; that certain "something" in leaders that commands attention, inspires people, wins their trust and makes followers want to work with them.
Scouller proposed the Three Levels of Leadership model, which was
later categorized as an "Integrated Psychological" theory on the
Businessballs education website.
In essence, his model aims to summarize what leaders have to do, not
only to bring leadership to their group or organization, but also to
develop themselves technically and psychologically as leaders.
The three levels in his model are Public, Private and Personal leadership:
- The first two – public and private leadership – are "outer" or behavioral levels. These are the behaviors that address what Scouller called "the four dimensions of leadership". These dimensions are: (1) a shared, motivating group purpose; (2) action, progress and results; (3) collective unity or team spirit; (4) individual selection and motivation. Public leadership focuses on the 34 behaviors involved in influencing two or more people simultaneously. Private leadership covers the 14 behaviors needed to influence individuals one to one.
- The third – personal leadership – is an "inner" level and concerns a person's growth toward greater leadership presence, knowhow and skill. Working on one's personal leadership has three aspects: (1) Technical knowhow and skill (2) Developing the right attitude toward other people – which is the basis of servant leadership (3) Psychological self-mastery – the foundation for authentic leadership.
Scouller argued that self-mastery is the key to growing one's
leadership presence, building trusting relationships with followers and
dissolving one's limiting beliefs and habits, thereby enabling
behavioral flexibility as circumstances change, while staying connected
to one's core values (that is, while remaining authentic). To support
leaders' development, he introduced a new model of the human psyche and
outlined the principles and techniques of self-mastery, which include
the practice of mindfulness meditation.
Transactional and transformational theories
Bernard Bass
and colleagues developed the idea of two different types of leadership,
transactional that involves exchange of labor for rewards and
transformational which is based on concern for employees, intellectual
stimulation, and providing a group vision.
The transactional leader (Burns, 1978)
is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the
team's performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the
group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a
predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the
leader to evaluate, correct, and train subordinates when productivity
is not up to the desired level, and reward effectiveness when expected
outcome is reached.
Leader–member exchange theory
This LMX theory addresses a specific aspect of the leadership process is the leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, which evolved from an earlier theory called the vertical dyad linkage (VDL) model.
Both of these models focus on the interaction between leaders and
individual followers. Similar to the transactional approach, this
interaction is viewed as a fair exchange whereby the leader provides
certain benefits such as task guidance, advice, support, and/or
significant rewards and the followers reciprocate by giving the leader
respect, cooperation, commitment to the task and good performance.
However, LMX recognizes that leaders and individual followers will vary
in the type of exchange that develops between them. LMX theorizes that the type of exchanges between the leader and specific followers can lead to the creation of in-groups and out-groups. In-group members are said to have high-quality exchanges with the leader, while out-group members have low-quality exchanges with the leader.
In-group members
In-group
members are perceived by the leader as being more experienced,
competent, and willing to assume responsibility than other followers.
The leader begins to rely on these individuals to help with especially
challenging tasks. If the follower responds well, the leader rewards
him/her with extra coaching, favorable job assignments, and
developmental experiences. If the follower shows high commitment and
effort followed by additional rewards, both parties develop mutual
trust, influence, and support of one another. Research shows the
in-group members usually receive higher performance evaluations from the
leader, higher satisfaction, and faster promotions than out-group
members.
In-group members are also likely to build stronger bonds with their
leaders by sharing the same social backgrounds and interests.
Out-group members
Out-group
members often receive less time and more distant exchanges than their
in-group counterparts. With out-group members, leaders expect no more
than adequate job performance, good attendance, reasonable respect, and adherence to the job description in exchange for a fair wage
and standard benefits. The leader spends less time with out-group
members, they have fewer developmental experiences, and the leader tends
to emphasize his/her formal authority to obtain compliance to leader
requests. Research shows that out-group members are less satisfied with
their job and organization, receive lower performance evaluations from
the leader, see their leader as less fair, and are more likely to file
grievances or leave the organization.
Emotions
Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social influence process. In an organization, the leader's mood has some effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels:
- The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the mechanism of emotional contagion. Mood contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers.
- The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood.
- Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For example, expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals cognitively and behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.
In research about client service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by the leader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were other findings.
Beyond the leader's mood, her/his behavior is a source for employee positive and negative emotions
at work. The leader creates situations and events that lead to
emotional response. Certain leader behaviors displayed during
interactions with their employees are the sources of these affective
events. Leaders shape workplace affective events. Examples – feedback
giving, allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since employee behavior
and productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it is
imperative to consider employee emotional responses to organizational
leaders.
Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and
emotions in the self and others, contributes to effective leadership
within organizations.
Neo-emergent theory
The neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford Strategic
Leadership Programme) sees leadership as created through the emergence
of information by the leader or other stakeholders, not through the true
actions of the leader himself. In other words, the reproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by the majority. It is well known that the naval hero Lord Nelson
often wrote his own versions of battles he was involved in, so that
when he arrived home in England he would receive a true hero's welcome.
In modern society, the press, blogs and other sources report their own
views of leaders, which may be based on reality, but may also be based
on a political command, a payment, or an inherent interest of the
author, media, or leader. Therefore, one can argue that the perception
of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect their true
leadership qualities at all.
Leadership emergence
Many personality characteristics were found to be reliably associated with leadership emergence.
The list include, but is not limited to following (list organized in
alphabetical order): assertiveness, authenticity, Big Five personality
factors, birth order, character strengths, dominance, emotional
intelligence, gender identity, intelligence, narcissism, self-efficacy
for leadership, self-monitoring and social motivation.
Leadership emergence is the idea that people born with specific
characteristics become leaders, and those without these characteristics
do not become leaders. People like Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and
Nelson Mandela all share traits that an average person does not. This
includes people who choose to participate in leadership roles, as
opposed to those who do not. Research indicates that up to 30% of
leader emergence has a genetic basis.
There is no current research indicating that there is a “leadership
gene”, instead we inherit certain traits that might influence our
decision to seek leadership. Both anecdotal, and empirical evidence
support a stable relationship between specific traits and leadership
behavior.
Using a large international sample researchers found that there are
three factors that motivate leaders; affective identity (enjoyment of
leading), non-calculative (leading earns reinforcement), and
social-normative (sense of obligation).
Assertiveness
The
relationship between assertiveness and leadership emergence is
curvilinear; individuals who are either low in assertiveness or very
high in assertiveness are less likely to be identified as leaders.
Authenticity
Individuals
who are more aware of their personality qualities, including their
values and beliefs, and are less biased when processing self-relevant
information, are more likely to be accepted as leaders.
Big Five personality factors
Those
who emerge as leaders tend to be more (order in strength of
relationship with leadership emergence): extroverted, conscientious,
emotionally stable, and open to experience, although these tendencies
are stronger in laboratory studies of leaderless groups.
Agreeableness, the last factor of the Big Five personality traits, does
not seem to play any meaningful role in leadership emergence
Birth order
Those
born first in their families and only children are hypothesized to be
more driven to seek leadership and control in social settings.
Middle-born children tend to accept follower roles in groups, and
later-borns are thought to be rebellious and creative
Character strengths
Those
seeking leadership positions in a military organization had elevated
scores on a number of indicators of strength of character, including
honesty, hope, bravery, industry, and teamwork.
Dominance
Individuals
with dominant personalities – they describe themselves as high in the
desire to control their environment and influence other people, and are
likely to express their opinions in a forceful way – are more likely to
act as leaders in small-group situations.
Emotional intelligence
Individuals
with high emotional intelligence have increased ability to understand
and relate to people. They have skills in communicating and decoding
emotions and they deal with others wisely and effectively.
Such people communicate their ideas in more robust ways, are better
able to read the politics of a situation, are less likely to lose
control of their emotions, are less likely to be inappropriately angry
or critical, and in consequence are more likely to emerge as leaders.
Gender identity
Masculine individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders than are feminine individuals.
Intelligence
Individuals
with higher intelligence exhibit superior judgement, higher verbal
skills (both written and oral), quicker learning and acquisition of
knowledge, and are more likely to emerge as leaders. Correlation between IQ and leadership emergence was found to be between .25 and .30.
However, groups generally prefer leaders that do not exceed
intelligence prowess of average member by a wide margin, as they fear
that high intelligence may be translated to differences in
communication, trust, interests and values.
Narcissism
Individuals
who take on leadership roles in turbulent situations, such as groups
facing a threat or ones in which status is determined by intense
competition among rivals within the group, tend to be narcissistic:
arrogant, self-absorbed, hostile, and very self-confident.
Self-efficacy for leadership
Confidence
in one's ability to lead is associated with increases in willingness to
accept a leadership role and success in that role.
Self-monitoring
High
self-monitors are more likely to emerge as the leader of a group than
are low self-monitors, since they are more concerned with
status-enhancement and are more likely to adapt their actions to fit the
demands of the situation
Social motivation
Individuals
who are both success-oriented and affiliation-oriented, as assessed by
projective measures, are more active in group problem-solving settings
and are more likely to be elected to positions of leadership in such
groups
Leadership styles
A leadership style is a leader's style of providing direction,
implementing plans, and motivating people. It is the result of the
philosophy, personality, and experience of the leader. Rhetoric
specialists have also developed models for understanding leadership (Robert Hariman, Political Style, Philippe-Joseph Salazar, L'Hyperpolitique. Technologies politiques De La Domination).
Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an
emergency when there is little time to converge on an agreement and
where a designated authority has significantly more experience or
expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic leadership style may
be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team with a
homogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or Laissez-faire
style may be more effective. The style adopted should be the one that
most effectively achieves the objectives of the group while balancing
the interests of its individual members.
A field in which leadership style has gained strong attention is that of
military science, recently expressing a holistic and integrated view of
leadership, including how a leader's physical presence determines how
others perceive that leader. The factors of physical presence are
military bearing, physical fitness, confidence, and resilience. The
leader's intellectual capacity helps to conceptualize solutions and
acquire knowledge to do the job. A leader's conceptual abilities apply
agility, judgment, innovation, interpersonal tact, and domain knowledge. Domain knowledge for leaders encompasses tactical and technical knowledge as well as cultural and geopolitical awareness.
Autocratic or authoritarian
Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader, as with dictators.
Autocratic leaders do not entertain any suggestions or
initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic management has been
successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. It permits
quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole group
and keeps each decision to him/herself until he/she feels it needs to be
shared with the rest of the group.
Participative or democratic
The
democratic leadership style consists of the leader sharing the
decision-making abilities with group members by promoting the interests
of the group members and by practicing social equality. This has also
been called shared leadership.
Laissez-faire or Free-rein
In
Laissez-faire or free-rein leadership, decision-making is passed on to
the sub-ordinates. The sub-ordinates are given complete right and power
to make decisions to establish goals and work out the problems or
hurdles.
Task-oriented and relationship-oriented
Task-oriented leadership is a style in which the leader is focused on
the tasks that need to be performed in order to meet a certain
production goal. Task-oriented leaders are generally more concerned with
producing a step-by-step solution for given problem or goal, strictly
making sure these deadlines are met, results and reaching target
outcomes.
Relationship-oriented leadership is a contrasting style in which
the leader is more focused on the relationships amongst the group and is
generally more concerned with the overall well-being and satisfaction
of group members.
Relationship-oriented leaders emphasize communication within the group,
show trust and confidence in group members, and show appreciation for
work done.
Task-oriented leaders are typically less concerned with the idea
of catering to group members, and more concerned with acquiring a
certain solution to meet a production goal. For this reason, they
typically are able to make sure that deadlines are met, yet their group
members' well-being may suffer. Relationship-oriented leaders are
focused on developing the team and the relationships in it. The
positives to having this kind of environment are that team members are
more motivated and have support. However, the emphasis on relations as
opposed to getting a job done might make productivity suffer.
Paternalism
Paternalism leadership styles often reflect a father-figure mindset.
The structure of team is organized hierarchically where the leader is
viewed above the followers. The leader also provides both professional
and personal direction in the lives of the members. There is often a limitation on the choices that the members can choose from due to the heavy direction given by the leader.
The term paternalism is from the Latin pater meaning "father".
The leader is most often a male. This leadership style is often found in
Russia, Africa, and Pacific Asian Societies.
Leadership differences affected by gender
Another factor that covaries with leadership style is whether the
person is male or female. When men and women come together in groups,
they tend to adopt different leadership styles. Men generally assume an agentic leadership
style. They are task-oriented, active, decision focused, independent
and goal oriented. Women, on the other hand, are generally more communal
when they assume a leadership position; they strive to be helpful
towards others, warm in relation to others, understanding, and mindful
of others' feelings. In general, when women are asked to describe
themselves to others in newly formed groups, they emphasize their open,
fair, responsible, and pleasant communal qualities. They give advice,
offer assurances, and manage conflicts in an attempt to maintain
positive relationships among group members. Women connect more
positively to group members by smiling, maintaining eye contact and
respond tactfully to others' comments. Men, conversely, describe
themselves as influential, powerful and proficient at the task that
needs to be done. They tend to place more focus on initiating structure
within the group, setting standards and objectives, identifying roles,
defining responsibilities and standard operating procedures, proposing
solutions to problems, monitoring compliance with procedures, and
finally, emphasizing the need for productivity and efficiency in the
work that needs to be done. As leaders, men are primarily task-oriented,
but women tend to be both task- and relationship-oriented. However, it
is important to note that these sex differences are only tendencies, and
do not manifest themselves within men and women across all groups and
situations.
Barriers for non-western female leaders
Many
reasons can contribute to the barriers that specifically affect women's
entrance into leadership. These barriers also change according to
different cultures. Despite the increasing number of female leaders in
the world, only a small fraction come from non-westernized cultures. It
is important to note that although the barriers listed below may be more
severe in non-western culture, it does not imply that westernized
cultures do not have these barriers as well. This aims to compare the
differences between the two.
Research and Literature
Although there have been many studies done on leadership for women in
the past decade, very little research has been done for women in
paternalistic cultures. The literature and research done for women to
emerge into a society that prefers males is lacking. This ultimately
hinders women from knowing how to reach their individual leadership
goals, and fails to educate the male counterparts in this disparity.
Maternity Leave
Studies have shown the importance of longer paid maternity leave and
the positive effects it has on a female employee's mental health and
return to work. In Sweden, it was shown that the increased flexibility
in timing for mothers to return to work, decreased the odds of poor
mental health reports. In these non-western cultures that mostly follow
paternalism, the lack of knowledge on the benefits of maternity leave
impact the support given to the women during this important time in
their life.
Society and Laws
Certain countries that follow paternalism, such as India, still allow
for women to be treated unjustly. Child marriage and minor punishments
for perpetrators in crime against women, shape the society's view on how
females should be treated. This can prevent women from feeling
comfortable to speak out in both a personal and professional setting.
Glass Ceilings and Glass Cliffs
Women who work in a very paternalistic culture or industry (e.g. oil or
engineering industry), often deal with a limitations in their career
that prevent them from moving up any further. This association is often
due to the mentality that only males carry leadership characteristics.
The glass cliff term refers to undesired projects that are often given
to women because they have an increase in risk of failure. These
undesired projects are given to female employees where they are more
likely to fail and leave the organization.
Performance
In
the past, some researchers have argued that the actual influence of
leaders on organizational outcomes is overrated and romanticized as a
result of biased attributions about leaders (Meindl & Ehrlich,
1987). Despite these assertions, however, it is largely recognized and
accepted by practitioners and researchers that leadership is important,
and research supports the notion that leaders do contribute to key
organizational outcomes (Day & Lord, 1988; Kaiser, Hogan, &
Craig, 2008). To facilitate successful performance it is important to
understand and accurately measure leadership performance.
Job performance generally refers to behavior that is expected to
contribute to organizational success (Campbell, 1990). Campbell
identified a number of specific types of performance dimensions;
leadership was one of the dimensions that he identified. There is no
consistent, overall definition of leadership performance (Yukl, 2006).
Many distinct conceptualizations are often lumped together under the
umbrella of leadership performance, including outcomes such as leader effectiveness,
leader advancement, and leader emergence (Kaiser et al., 2008). For
instance, leadership performance may be used to refer to the career
success of the individual leader, performance of the group or
organization, or even leader emergence. Each of these measures can be
considered conceptually distinct. While these aspects may be related,
they are different outcomes and their inclusion should depend on the
applied or research focus.
"Another way to conceptualize leader performance is to focus on
the outcomes of the leader’s followers, group, team, unit, or
organization. In evaluating this type of leader performance, two general
strategies are typically used. The first relies on subjective
perceptions of the leader’s performance from subordinates, superiors, or
occasionally peers or other parties. The other type of effectiveness
measures are more objective indicators of follower or unit performance,
such as measures of productivity, goal attainment, sales figures, or
unit financial performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 47)."
A toxic leader
is someone who has responsibility over a group of people or an
organization, and who abuses the leader–follower relationship by leaving
the group or organization in a worse-off condition than when he/she
joined it.
Traits
Julius Caesar, one of the world's greatest military leaders
Most theories in the 20th century argued that great leaders were
born, not made. Current studies have indicated that leadership is much
more complex and cannot be boiled down to a few key traits of an
individual. Years of observation and study have indicated that one such
trait or a set of traits does not make an extraordinary leader. What
scholars have been able to arrive at is that leadership traits of an
individual do not change from situation to situation; such traits
include intelligence, assertiveness, or physical attractiveness.
However, each key trait may be applied to situations differently,
depending on the circumstances. The following summarizes the main
leadership traits found in research by Jon P. Howell, business professor
at New Mexico State University and author of the book Snapshots of Great Leadership.
Determination and drive include traits such as initiative,
energy, assertiveness, perseverance and sometimes dominance. People with
these traits often tend to wholeheartedly pursue their goals, work long
hours, are ambitious, and often are very competitive with others.
Cognitive capacity includes intelligence, analytical and verbal ability,
behavioral flexibility, and good judgment. Individuals with these
traits are able to formulate solutions to difficult problems, work well
under stress or deadlines, adapt to changing situations, and create
well-thought-out plans for the future. Howell provides examples of Steve
Jobs and Abraham Lincoln as encompassing the traits of determination
and drive as well as possessing cognitive capacity, demonstrated by
their ability to adapt to their continuously changing environments.
Self-confidence encompasses the traits of high self-esteem,
assertiveness, emotional stability, and self-assurance. Individuals who
are self-confident do not doubt themselves or their abilities and
decisions; they also have the ability to project this self-confidence
onto others, building their trust and commitment. Integrity is
demonstrated in individuals who are truthful, trustworthy, principled,
consistent, dependable, loyal, and not deceptive. Leaders with integrity
often share these values with their followers, as this trait is mainly
an ethics issue. It is often said that these leaders keep their word and
are honest and open with their cohorts. Sociability describes
individuals who are friendly, extroverted, tactful, flexible, and
interpersonally competent. Such a trait enables leaders to be accepted
well by the public, use diplomatic measures to solve issues, as well as
hold the ability to adapt their social persona to the situation at hand.
According to Howell, Mother Teresa is an exceptional example who
embodies integrity, assertiveness, and social abilities in her diplomatic dealings with the leaders of the world.
Few great leaders encompass all of the traits listed above, but
many have the ability to apply a number of them to succeed as
front-runners of their organization or situation.
Ontological-phenomenological model
One of the more recent definitions of leadership comes from Werner Erhard, Michael C. Jensen,
Steve Zaffron, and Kari Granger who describe leadership as "an exercise
in language that results in the realization of a future that wasn't
going to happen anyway, which future fulfills (or contributes to
fulfilling) the concerns of the relevant parties...". This definition
ensures that leadership is talking about the future and includes the
fundamental concerns of the relevant parties. This differs from
relating to the relevant parties as "followers" and calling up an image
of a single leader with others following. Rather, a future that
fulfills on the fundamental concerns of the relevant parties indicates
the future that wasn't going to happen is not the "idea of the leader",
but rather is what emerges from digging deep to find the underlying
concerns of those who are impacted by the leadership.
Contexts
Organizations
An organization that is established as an instrument or means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization.
Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in
subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments, sections,
positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure.
Thus, the formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in
regard to relationships with clients or with its members. According to
Weber's definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or
seniority. Employees receive a salary and enjoy a degree of tenure that
safeguards them from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful
clients. The higher one's position in the hierarchy, the greater one's
presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course
of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is this
bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of
heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and
endows them with the authority attached to their position.
In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges within the context of the informal organization that underlies the formal structure. The informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the individual membership.
Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of the
formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension
of the social structures that generally characterize human life — the
spontaneous emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.
In prehistoric times, humanity was preoccupied with personal
security, maintenance, protection, and survival. Now humanity spends a
major portion of waking hours working for organizations. The need to
identify with a community that provides security, protection,
maintenance, and a feeling of belonging has continued unchanged from
prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its
emergent, or unofficial, leaders.
Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal
organization. Their personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or
a combination of these and other factors attract followers who accept
their leadership within one or several overlay structures. Instead of
the authority of position held by an appointed head or chief, the
emergent leader wields influence or power. Influence is the ability of a
person to gain co-operation from others by means of persuasion or
control over rewards. Power is a stronger form of influence because it
reflects a person's ability to enforce action through the control of a
means of punishment.
A leader is a person who influences a group of people towards a
specific result. It is not dependent on title or formal authority.
(Elevos, paraphrased from Leaders, Bennis, and Leadership Presence,
Halpern & Lubar.) Ogbonnia (2007) defines an effective leader "as an
individual with the capacity to consistently succeed in a given
condition and be viewed as meeting the expectations of an organization
or society." Leaders are recognized by their capacity for caring for
others, clear communication, and a commitment to persist.
An individual who is appointed to a managerial position has the right
to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of their
position. However, she or he must possess adequate personal attributes
to match this authority, because authority is only potentially available
to him/her. In the absence of sufficient personal competence, a manager
may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge her/his role
in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead. However, only
authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It follows
that whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this
only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with commensurate
authority. Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level.
Management
Over the years the philosophical terminology of "management"
and "leadership" have, in the organizational context, been used both as
synonyms and with clearly differentiated meanings. Debate is fairly
common about whether the use of these terms should be restricted, and
generally reflects an awareness of the distinction made by Burns (1978)
between "transactional" leadership (characterized by emphasis on
procedures, contingent reward, management by exception) and
"transformational" leadership (characterized by charisma, personal
relationships, creativity).
Group
In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this so-called shared leadership,
more than one person provides direction to the group as a whole. It is
furthermore characterized by shared responsibility, cooperation and
mutual influence among the team members.
Some organizations have taken this approach in hopes of increasing
creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. Others may see the
traditional leadership of a boss
as costing too much in team performance. In some situations, the team
members best able to handle any given phase of the project become the
temporary leaders. Additionally, as each team member has the opportunity
to experience the elevated level of empowerment, it energizes staff and
feeds the cycle of success.
Leaders who demonstrate persistence, tenacity, determination, and
synergistic communication skills will bring out the same qualities in
their groups. Good leaders use their own inner mentors to energize their team and organizations and lead a team to achieve success.
According to the National School Boards Association (USA):
These Group Leaderships or Leadership Teams have specific characteristics:
Characteristics of a Team
- There must be an awareness of unity on the part of all its members.
- There must be interpersonal relationship. Members must have a chance to contribute, and learn from and work with others.
- The members must have the ability to act together toward a common goal.
Ten characteristics of well-functioning teams:
- Purpose: Members proudly share a sense of why the team exists and are invested in accomplishing its mission and goals.
- Priorities: Members know what needs to be done next, by whom, and by when to achieve team goals.
- Roles: Members know their roles in getting tasks done and when to allow a more skillful member to do a certain task.
- Decisions: Authority and decision-making lines are clearly understood.
- Conflict: Conflict is dealt with openly and is considered important to decision-making and personal growth.
- Personal traits: members feel their unique personalities are appreciated and well utilized.
- Norms: Group norms for working together are set and seen as standards for every one in the groups.
- Effectiveness: Members find team meetings efficient and productive and look forward to this time together.
- Success: Members know clearly when the team has met with success and share in this equally and proudly.
- Training: Opportunities for feedback and updating skills are provided and taken advantage of by team members.
Self-leadership
Self-leadership is a process that occurs within an individual, rather than an external act. It is an expression of who we are as people.
Biology and Evolution of Leadership
Mark van Vugt and Anjana Ahuja in Naturally Selected: The Evolutionary Science of Leadership
(2011) present evidence of leadership in non-human animals, from ants
and bees to baboons and chimpanzees. They suggest that leadership has a
long evolutionary history and that the same mechanisms underpinning
leadership in humans appear in other social species, too. They also suggest that the evolutionary origins of leadership are different from that of dominance. In a study Mark van Vugt
and his team looked at the relation between basal testosterone and
leadership versus dominance. They found that testosterone correlates
with dominance but not with leadership. This was replicated in a sample
of managers in which there was no relation between hierarchical position
and testosterone level.
Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (1996), present evidence that only humans and chimpanzees, among all the animals living on Earth, share a similar tendency for a cluster of behaviors: violence, territoriality, and competition for uniting behind the one chief male of the land.
This position is contentious. Many animals apart from apes are
territorial, compete, exhibit violence, and have a social structure
controlled by a dominant male (lions, wolves, etc.), suggesting Wrangham
and Peterson's evidence is not empirical. However, we must examine
other species as well, including elephants (which are matriarchal and
follow an alpha female), meerkats (which are likewise matriarchal),
sheep (which follow castrated bellwethers) and many others.
By comparison, bonobos, the second-closest species-relatives of humans, do not
unite behind the chief male of the land. The bonobos show deference to
an alpha or top-ranking female that, with the support of her coalition
of other females, can prove as strong as the strongest male. Thus, if
leadership amounts to getting the greatest number of followers, then
among the bonobos, a female almost always exerts the strongest and most
effective leadership. Incidentally, not all scientists agree on the
allegedly peaceful nature of the bonobo or with its reputation as a "hippie chimp".
Myths
Leadership,
although largely talked about, has been described as one of the least
understood concepts across all cultures and civilizations. Over the
years, many researchers have stressed the prevalence of this
misunderstanding, stating that the existence of several flawed
assumptions, or myths, concerning leadership often interferes with
individuals' conception of what leadership is all about (Gardner, 1965;
Bennis, 1975).
Leadership is innate
According to some, leadership is determined by distinctive dispositional characteristics present at birth (e.g., extraversion; intelligence; ingenuity).
However, according to Forsyth (2009) there is evidence to show that
leadership also develops through hard work and careful observation. Thus, effective leadership can result from nature (i.e., innate talents) as well as nurture (i.e., acquired skills).
Leadership is possessing power over others
Although leadership is certainly a form of power, it is not demarcated by power over people – rather, it is a power with people that exists as a reciprocal relationship between a leader and his/her followers (Forsyth, 2009). Despite popular belief, the use of manipulation, coercion,
and domination to influence others is not a requirement for leadership.
In actuality, individuals who seek group consent and strive to act in
the best interests of others can also become effective leaders (e.g.,
class president; court judge).
Leaders are positively influential
The validity
of the assertion that groups flourish when guided by effective leaders
can be illustrated using several examples. For instance, according to
Baumeister et al. (1988), the bystander effect
(failure to respond or offer assistance) that tends to develop within
groups faced with an emergency is significantly reduced in groups guided
by a leader. Moreover, it has been documented that group performance, creativity, and efficiency all tend to climb in businesses with designated managers or CEOs. However, the difference leaders make is not
always positive in nature. Leaders sometimes focus on fulfilling their
own agendas at the expense of others, including his/her own followers
(e.g., Pol Pot; Josef Stalin).
Leaders who focus on personal gain by employing stringent and
manipulative leadership styles often make a difference, but usually do
so through negative means.
Leaders entirely control group outcomes
In Western cultures it is generally assumed that group leaders make all
the difference when it comes to group influence and overall
goal-attainment. Although common, this romanticized view of leadership
(i.e., the tendency to overestimate the degree of control leaders have
over their groups and their groups' outcomes) ignores the existence of
many other factors that influence group dynamics. For example, group cohesion, communication patterns among members, individual personality traits, group context, the nature or orientation of the work, as well as behavioral norms
and established standards influence group functionality in varying
capacities. For this reason, it is unwarranted to assume that all
leaders are in complete control of their groups' achievements.
All groups have a designated leader
Despite preconceived notions, not all groups need have a designated leader. Groups that are primarily composed of women, are limited in size, are free from stressful decision-making, or only exist for a short period of time (e.g., student work groups; pub quiz/trivia teams) often undergo a diffusion of responsibility,
where leadership tasks and roles are shared amongst members (Schmid
Mast, 2002; Berdahl & Anderson, 2007; Guastello, 2007).
Group members resist leaders
Although
research has indicated that group members' dependence on group leaders
can lead to reduced self-reliance and overall group strength, most people actually prefer to be led than to be without a leader (Berkowitz, 1953).
This "need for a leader" becomes especially strong in troubled groups
that are experiencing some sort of conflict. Group members tend to be
more contented and productive when they have a leader to guide them.
Although individuals filling leadership roles can be a direct source of
resentment for followers, most people appreciate the contributions that
leaders make to their groups and consequently welcome the guidance of a
leader (Stewart & Manz, 1995).
Action-oriented environments
In
most cases, these teams are tasked to operate in remote and changeable
environments with limited support or backup (action environments).
Leadership of people in these environments requires a different set of
skills to that of front line management. These leaders must effectively
operate remotely and negotiate the needs of the individual, team, and
task within a changeable environment. This has been termed action
oriented leadership. Some examples of demonstrations of action oriented
leadership include extinguishing a rural fire, locating a missing
person, leading a team on an outdoor expedition, or rescuing a person
from a potentially hazardous environment.
Other examples include modern technology deployments of
small/medium-sized IT teams into client plant sites. Leadership of these
teams requires hands on experience and a lead-by-example attitude to
empower team members to make well thought out and concise decisions
independent of executive management and/or home base decision makers.
Zachary Hansen was an early adopter of Scrum/Kanban branch development
methodologies during the mid 90's to alleviate the dependency that field
teams had on trunk based development. This method of just-in-time
action oriented development and deployment allowed remote plant sites to
deploy up-to-date software patches frequently and without dependency on
core team deployment schedules satisfying the clients need to rapidly
patch production environment bugs as needed.
Critical thought
Carlyle's 1840 "Great Man theory", which emphasized the role of leading individuals, met opposition in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Karl Popper noted in 1945 that leaders can mislead and make mistakes - he warns against deferring to "great men".
Noam Chomsky and others
have subjected the concept of leadership to critical thinking
and have provided an analysis that asserts that people abrogate their
responsibility to think and will actions for themselves. While the
conventional view of leadership may satisfy people who "want to be told
what to do", these critics say that one should question why they are
being subjected to a will or intellect other than their own if the
leader is not a subject-matter expert (SME).
Concepts such as autogestion, employeeship, and common civic virtue, etc., challenge the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the leadership principle by stressing individual responsibility
and/or group authority in the workplace and elsewhere and by focusing
on the skills and attitudes that a person needs in general rather than
separating out "leadership" as the basis of a special class of
individuals.
Similarly, various historical calamities (such as World War II) can be attributed
to a misplaced reliance on the principle of leadership as exhibited in dictatorship.
The idea of leaderism paints leadership and its excesses in a negative light.
