Leadership

The word leadership can refer to:

1. Those entities that perform one or more acts of leading.

2. The ability to affect human behavior so as to accomplish a mission.
3. Influencing a group of people to move towards its goal setting or goal achievement.
(Stogdill 1950: 3)

A leader is simply someone who has followers.

Categories and types of leadership

Leadership has a formal aspect (as in most political or business leadership) or an informal one
(as in most friendships). Speaking of "leadership" (the abstract term) rather than of "leading"
(the action) usually it implies that the entities doing the leading have some "leadership skills" or
competencies.

Types of leadership styles

The bureaucratic leader (Weber, 1905)[1] is very structured and follows the procedures as
they have been established. This type of leadership has no space to explore new ways to solve
problems and is usually slow paced to ensure adherence to the ladders stated by the company.
Leaders ensure that all the steps have been followed prior to sending it to the next level of
authority. Universities, hospitals, banks and government usually require this type of leader in
their organizations to ensure quality, increase security and decrease corruption. Leaders that
try to speed up the process will experience frustration and anxiety.

The charismatic leader (Weber, 1905)[1] leads by infusing energy and eagerness into their
team members. This type of leader has to be committed to the organization for the long run. If
the success of the division or project is attributed to the leader and not the team, charismatic
leaders may become a risk for the company by deciding to resign for advanced opportunities. It
takes the company time and hard work to gain the employees' confidence back with other type
of leadership after they have committed themselves to the magnetism of a charismatic leader.
The autocratic leader (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939)[2] is given the power to make decisions
alone, having total authority. This leadership style is good for employees that need close
supervision to perform certain tasks. Creative employees and team players resent this type of
leadership, since they are unable to enhance processes or decision making, resulting in job
dissatisfaction.

The democratic leader (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939)[2] listens to the team's ideas and
studies them, but will make the final decision. Team players contribute to the final decision thus
increasing employee satisfaction and ownership, feeling their input was considered when the
final decision was taken. When changes arises, this type of leadership helps the team assimilate
the changes better and more rapidly than other styles, knowing they were consulted and
contributed to the decision making process, minimizing resistance and intolerance. A
shortcoming of this leadership style is that it has difficulty when decisions are needed in a short
period of time or at the moment.

The laissez-faire ("let do") leader (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939)[2] gives no continuous
feedback or supervision because the employees are highly experienced and need little
supervision to obtain the expected outcome. On the other hand, this type of style is also
associated with leaders that don‟t lead at all, failing in supervising team members, resulting in
lack of control and higher costs, bad service or failure to meet deadlines.

The people-oriented leader (Fiedler, 1967)[3] is the one who, in order to comply with
effectiveness and efficiency, supports, trains and develops his personnel, increasing job
satisfaction and genuine interest to do a good job.

The task-oriented leader (Fiedler, 1967)[3] focuses on the job, and concentrates on the
specific tasks assigned to each employee to reach goal accomplishment. This leadership style
suffers the same motivation issues as autocratic leadership, showing no involvement in the
teams needs. It requires close supervision and control to achieve expected results. Another
name for this is deal maker (Rowley & Roevens, 1999)[4] and is linked to a first phase in
managing Change, enhance, according to the Organize with Chaos approach.
The servant leader (Greenleaf, 1977)[5] facilitates goal accomplishment by giving its team
members what they need in order to be productive. This leader is an instrument employees use
to reach the goal rather than a commanding voice that moves to change. This leadership style,
in a manner similar to democratic leadership, tends to achieve the results in a slower time
frame than other styles, although employee engagement is higher.

The transaction leader (Burns, 1978)[6] 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.

The transformation leader (Burns, 1978)[6] motivates its team to be effective and efficient.
Communication is the base for goal achievement focusing the group on the final desired
outcome or goal attainment. This leader is highly visible and uses chain of command to get the
job done. Transformational leaders focus on the big picture, needing to be surrounded by
people who take care of the details. The leader is always looking for ideas that move the
organization to reach the company‟s vision.

The environment leader (Carmazzi, 2005)[7] is the one who nurtures group or organizational
environment to affect the emotional and psychological perception of an individual‟s place in that
group or organization. An understanding and application of group psychology and dynamics is
essential for this style to be effective. The leader uses organizational culture to inspire
individuals and develop leaders at all levels. This leadership style relies on creating an education
matrix where groups interactively learn the fundamental psychology of group dynamics and
culture from each other. The leader uses this psychology, and complementary language, to
influence direction through the members of the inspired group to do what is required for the
benefit of all.

Leadership associated with positions of authority

According to Thomas Carlyle, leadership emerges when an entity as "leader" contrives to
receive deference from other entities who become "followers". The process of getting
deference can become competitive in that the emerging "leader" draws "followers" from the
[8]
factions of the prior or alternative "leaders".

Representative democracy

In representative democracies the people retain sovereignty (popular sovereignty) but delegate
day-to-day administration and leadership to elected officials. In the United States, for example,
the Constitution provides an example of recycling authority. In the Constitutional Convention
of 1787, the American Founders rejected the idea of a monarch, but they still proposed
leadership by people in positions of authority, with the authority split into three powers: in this
case the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Under the American theory, the authority
of the leadership derives from the power of the voters as conveyed through the Electoral
College. Many individuals share authority, including the many legislators in the Senate and the
House of Representatives. [1]

Leadership cycles

If a group or an organization wants or expects identifiable leadership, it will require processes

for appointing/acquiring and replacing leaders.

Traditional closed groups rely on bloodlines or seniority to select leaders and/or leadership
candidates: monarchies, tribal chiefdoms, oligarchies and aristocratic societies rely on (and
often define their institutions by) such methods.

Competence or perceived competence provides a possible basis for selecting leadership elites
from a broader pool of potential talent. Political lobbying may prove necessary in electoral
systems, but immediately demonstrated skill and character may secure leadership in smaller
groups such as gangs.
Many organizations and groups aim to identify, grow, foster and promote what they see as
leadership potential or ability - especially among younger members of society. See for example
the Scouting movement. For a specific environment, see leadership development.

The issues of succession planning or of legitimation become important at times when leadership
(particularly individual leadership) might or must change due to term-expiry, accident or
senescence.

Titles emphasizing authority

At certain stages in their development, the hierarchies of social ranks implied different degrees
or ranks of leadership in society. Thus a knight led fewer men in general than did a duke; a
baronet might in theory control less land than an earl. See peerage for a systematization of this
hierarchy, and order of precedence for links to various systems.

In the course of the 18th and 20th centuries, several political operators took non-traditional
paths to become dominant in their societies. They or their systems often expressed a belief in
strong individual leadership, but existing titles and labels ("King", "Emperor", "President" and so
on) often seemed inappropriate, insufficient or downright inaccurate in some circumstances.
The formal or informal titles or descriptions they or their flunkies‟ employee express and foster
a general veneration for leadership of the inspired and autocratic variety. The definite article
when used as part of the title (in languages which use definite articles) emphasizes the existence
of a sole "true" leader.

Symbolism of leadership

Various symbolic attributes — often varying according to the cultural milieu — mark out
authority-figures and help make them seem special and revered or feared.

Leadership among primates

Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence
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
 [2]
uniting behind the one chief male of the land. This position is contentious. Many animals
beyond 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
undoubtedly matriarchal and follow an alpha female), meerkats (who are likewise matriarchal),
and many others.

It would be beneficial, to examine that most accounts of leadership over the past few millennia
(since the creation of Christian religions) are through the perspective of a patriarchal society,
founded on Christian literature. If one looks before these times, it is noticed that Pagan and
Earth-based tribes in fact had female leaders. It is important also to note that the peculiarities of
one tribe cannot necessarily be ascribed to another, as even our modern-day customs differ.
The current day patrilineal custom is only a recent invention in human history and our original
method of familial practices were matrilineal (Dr. Christopher Shelley and Bianca Russ, UBC).
The fundamental assumption that has been built into 90% of the world's countries is that
patriarchy is the 'natural' biological predisposition of Homosapiens. Unfortunately, this belief
has led to the widespread oppression of women in all of those countries, but in varying
degrees. (Whole Earth Review, Winter, 1995 by Thomas Laird, Michael Victor). The Iroquoian
First Nations tribes are an example of a matrilineal tribe, along with Mayan tribes, and also the
society of Meghalaya, India. (Laird and Victor, 1995).

By comparison, bonobos, the second-closest species-relatives of man, 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 in
the land. 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.
However, not all scientists agree on the allegedly "peaceful" nature of the bonobo or its
reputation as a "hippie chimp".[3]

As of 2002, Sweden had the highest percentage of women in the legislature: but only 43%. And
the United States, Andorra, Israel, Sierra Leone, and Ireland tied for 57th place with less than
15% of the legislature women.[4] Admittedly, those percentages significantly outclass the
occurrence of female chimpanzees becoming alpha of the community by getting the most
followers, but similar trends exist in manifesting a general gender-bias across cultures against
females gaining leadership as a position of authority over followers.

An alternative explanation suggests that those individuals best suited to lead the group will
somehow rise to the occasion and that followers (for some reason) will accept them as leaders
or as proto-leaders. In this scenario, the traits of the leaders (such as gender, aggressiveness,
etc.) will depend on the requirements of a given situation, and ongoing leadership may become
extrapolated from a series of such situations.

In cultural anthropology, much speculation on the origins of human leadership relates to the
perceived increasing need for dispute resolution in increasingly densely-populated and
increasingly complex societies.

The image of swarms of lemmings which follow the first lemming off a cliff appears frequently in
characterizing followers. The animal kingdom also provides the actual model of the bellwether
function in a mob of sheep. And human society also offers many examples of emulation. The
fashion industry, for example, depends on it. Fashion marketers design clothing for celebrities,
and then offer less expensive variations/imitations for those who emulate the celebrities.

Unintentional leadership can also occur from more pro-active forms followership. For example,
in organizations which punish both leadership inaction and mistakes, and in which a predicament
has no good solution, a common tendency involves declaring oneself a follower of someone
else — metaphorically passing the buck.

Another example of followership without intentional leadership comes with the market
leadership of a pioneering company, or the price leadership of a monopolist. Other companies
will emulate a successful strategy, product, or price, but originators may certainly not desire
this — in fact they often do all they can legally do to prevent such direct competition.

The term "leadership" sometimes applies (confusingly) to a winning position in a race. One can
speak of a front-runner in a sprint or of the "leader" in an election or poll as in a position of
leadership. But such "leadership" does not involve any influence processes, and the "leader" will
have followers who may not willingly choose to function as followers. Once again: one can
make an important distinction between "in the lead" and the process of leadership. Once again,
leadership implies a relationship of power - the power to guide others.

Scope of leadership

One can govern oneself, or one can govern the whole earth. In between, we may find leaders
who operate primarily within:

 youth
 families
 bands
 tribes
 organizations
 states and nations
 empires

Intertwined with such categories, and overlapping them, we find for example religious leaders
potentially with their own internal hierarchies, work-place leaders=corporate officer|
executives, senior management-senior/upper managers; middle management| middle managers,
staff-managers, line-managers, team leader, supervisors and leaders of voluntary associations.

Some anthropological ideas envisage a widespread but by no means universal pattern of

progression in the organization of society in ever-larger groups, with the needs and practices of
leadership changing accordingly. Thus simple dispute resolution may become legalistic
dispensation of justice before developing into proactive legislature/legislative activity. Some
leadership careers parallel this sort of progression: today's school-board chairperson may
become tomorrow's city councilor, then take in say a mayor doom before graduating to nation-
wide politics. Compare the "cursus honorum" in ancient Rome.

Leadership in organizations

Leadership in formal 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. Each employee
receives a salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards him from the arbitrary influence
of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the hierarchy, the greater his
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. [9]

Leadership in informal organizations

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, man was preoccupied with his personal security, maintenance, protection,
and survival. Now man spends a major portion of his waking hours working for organizations.
His need to identify with a community that provides security, protection, maintenance, and a
feeling of belonging continues unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by the
informal organization and its emergent, or unofficial, leaders. [10]

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. [10]

Leader in organizations

A leader is anyone who influences a group toward obtaining a particular result. It is not
dependant on title or formal authority. (Elevos, paraphrased from Leaders, Bennis, and
Leadership Presence, Halpern & Lubar). An individual who is appointed to a managerial position
has the right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of his position.
However, he must possess adequate personal attributes to match his authority, because
authority is only potentially available to him. In the absence of sufficient personal competence, a
manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge 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.[10] Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every
organization needs leaders at every level.[11]

Orthogonality and leadership

Those who praise leadership may encounter problems in implementing consistent leadership
structures. For example, a pyramidal structure in which authority consistently emanates from
the summit can stifle initiative and leave no path for grooming future leaders in the ranks of
subordinate levels. Similarly, a belief in universal direct democracy may become unwieldy, and a
system consisting of nothing but representative leaders may well become stymied in
committees.

Thus many leadership systems promote different rules for different levels of leadership.
Hereditary autocrats meet in the United Nations on equal representative terms with elected
governments in a collegial leadership. Or individual local democracies may assign some of their
powers to temporary dictators in emergencies, as in ancient Rome. Hierarchies intermingle
with equality of opportunity at different levels.

Support-structures for leadership

Charisma and personality alone can work miracles, yet most leaders operate within a structure
of supporters and executive agents who carry out and monitor the expressed or filtered-down
will of the leader. This undercutting of the importance of leadership may serve as a reminder of
the existence of the follower: compare followership. A more or less formal bureaucracy (in the
Weberian sense) can throw up a colorless nonentity as an entirely effective leader: this
phenomenon may occur (for example) in a politburo environment. Bureaucratic organizations
can also raise incompetent people to levels of leadership (see Peter Principle).

In modern dynamic environments formal bureaucratic organizations have started to become

less common because of their inability to deal with fast-changing circumstances. Most modern
business organizations (and some government departments) encourage what they see as
"leadership skills" and reward identified potential leaders with promotions.

The foundational support structure for leadership will be the organizations Corporate culture,
this is where the structure of the environment either supports or degrades a leaders potential.
A leader‟s ability to influence Organizational culture will be directly related to the results they
achieve.

In a potential down-side to this sort of development, a big-picture grand-vision leader may

foster another sort of hierarchy: a fetish of leadership amongst subordinate sub-leaders
encouraged to seize resources for their own sub-empires and to apply to the supreme leader
only for ultimate arbitration.

Some leaders build coalitions and alliances: political parties abound with this type of leader. Still
others depend on rapport with the masses: they labor on the shop-floor or stand in the front-
line of battle, leading by example.

Determining what makes "effective leadership"

Leadership maintains its effectiveness sometimes by natural succession according to established
rules, and sometimes by the imposition of brute force.

The simplest way to measure the effectiveness of leadership involves evaluating the size of the
following that the leader can muster. By this standard, Adolf Hitler became a very effective
leader for a period — even if through delusional promises and coercive techniques. However,
this approach may measure power rather than leadership. To measure leadership more
specifically, one may assess the extent of influence on the followers, that is, the amount of
leading. Within an organizational context this means financially valuing productivity. Effective
leaders generate higher productivity, lower costs, and more opportunities than ineffective
leaders. Effective leaders create results, attain goal, and realize vision and other objectives more
quickly and at a higher level of quality than ineffective leaders.

James MacGregor Burns introduced a normative element: an effective Burnsian leader will unite
followers in a shared vision that will improve an organization and society at large. Burns calls
leadership that delivers "true" value, integrity, and trust transformational leadership. He
distinguishes such leadership from "mere" transactional leadership that builds power by doing
[5]
whatever will get more followers. But problems arise in quantifying the transformational
quality of leadership - evaluation of that quality seems more difficult to quantify than merely
counting the followers that the straw man of transactional leadership James MacGregor Burns
has set as a primary standard for effectiveness. Thus transformational leadership requires an
evaluation of quality, independent of the market demand that exhibits in the number of
followers.

Assessments, as of 2006, of transformational and transactional leadership commonly make use

of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), developed by Bass and Avolio in 1990 and
revised in 1995. It measures five dimensions of transformational leadership:

1. idealized influence - attributions

2. idealized influence - behaviors
3. inspirational motivation
4. individualized consideration
 5. intellectual stimulation

The three dimensions of transactional leadership measured by the MLQ [citation needed] cover:

1. contingent reward
2. management by exception (active)
3. management by exception (passive)

The functional leadership model conceives leadership as a set of behaviors that helps a group
perform a task, reach their goal, or perform their function. In this model, effective leaders
encourage functional behaviors and discourage dysfunctional ones.

In the path-goal model of leadership, developed jointly by Martin Evans and Robert House and
based on the "Expectancy Theory of Motivation", a leader has the function of clearing the path
toward the goal(s) of the group, by meeting the needs of subordinates.

Some commentators use the metaphor of an orchestral conductor to describe the quality of
the leadership process. An effective leader resembles an orchestra conductor in some ways.
He/she has to somehow get a group of potentially diverse and talented people - many of whom
have strong personalities - to work together toward a common output. Will the conductor
harness and blend all the gifts his or her players possess? Will the players accept the degree of
creative expression they have? Will the audience enjoy the sound they make? The conductor
may have a clear determining influence on all of these questions.

Suggested qualities of leadership

Studies of leadership have suggested qualities that people often associate with leadership. They
include:

 Technical/specific skill at some task at hand

 Charismatic inspiration - attractiveness to others and the ability to leverage this esteem
to motivate others
 Preoccupation with a role - a dedication that consumes much of leaders' life - service to
a cause
  A clear sense of purpose (or mission) - clear goals - focus - commitment
 Results-orientation - directing every action towards a mission - prioritizing activities to
spend time where results most accrue
 Cooperation - work well with others
 Optimism - very few pessimists become leaders
 Rejection of determinism - belief in one's ability to "make a difference"
 Ability to encourage and nurture those that report to them - delegate in such a way as
people will grow
 Role models - leaders may adopt a persona that encapsulates their mission and lead by
example
 Self-knowledge (in non-bureaucratic structures)
 Self-awareness - the ability to "lead" (as it were) one's own self prior to leading other
selves similarly
 Awareness of environment - the ability to understand the environment they lead in and
how they affect and are affected by it
 With regards to people and to projects, the ability to choose winners - recognizing that,
unlike with skills, one cannot (in general) teach attitude. Note that "picking winners"
("choosing winners") carries implications of gamblers' luck as well as of the capacity to take
risks, but "true" leaders, like gamblers but unlike "false" leaders, base their decisions on realistic
insight (and usually on many other factors partially derived from "real" wisdom).
 Empathy - Understanding what others say, rather than listening to how they say things -
this could partly sum this quality up as "walking in someone else's shoes" (to use a
common cliché).
 Integrity - the integration of outward actions and inner values.
 Sense of Humor - people work better when they're happy.

In 2008 Burman and Evans [12] published a 'charter' for leaders:

1. Leading by example in accordance with the company‟s core values.

2. Building the trust and confidence of the people with which they work.
3. Continually seeking improvement in their methods and effectiveness.
4. Keeping people informed.
 5. Being accountable for their actions and holding others accountable for theirs.
6. Involving people, seeking their views, listening actively to what they have to say and
representing these views honestly.
7. Being clear on what is expected, and providing feedback on progress.
8. Showing tolerance of people‟s differences and dealing with their issues fairly.
9. Acknowledging and recognizing people for their contributions and performance.
10. Weighing alternatives, considering both short and long-term effects and then being
resolute in the decisions they make.

The approach of listing leadership qualities, often termed "trait theory of leadership", assumes
certain traits or characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. Although trait theory
has an intuitive appeal, difficulties may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents frequently
challenge this approach. The "strongest" versions of trait theory see these “leadership
characteristics” as innate, and accordingly label some people as "born leaders" due to their
psychological makeup. On this reading of the theory, leadership development involves
identifying and measuring leadership qualities, screening potential leaders from non-leaders,
then training those with potential.

David McClelland saw leadership skills, not so much as a set of traits, but as a pattern of
motives. He claimed that successful leaders will tend to have a high need for power, a low need
for affiliation, and a high level of what he called activity inhibition (one might call it self-control).

Situational leadership theory offers an alternative approach. It proceeds from the assumption
that different situations call for different characteristics. According to this group of theories, no
single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. The situational leadership model of
Hersey and Blanchard, for example, suggest four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-
development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the
appropriate level of followership-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. Other situational leadership models introduce a variety of situational variables. These
determinants include:
  the nature of the task (structured or routine)
 organizational policies, climate, and culture
 the preferences of the leader's superiors
 the expectations of peers
 the reciprocal responses of followers

The contingency model of Vroom and Yetton uses other situational variables, including:

 the nature of the problem

 the requirements for accuracy
 the acceptance of an initiative
 time-constraints
 cost constraints

However one determines leadership behavior, one can categorize it into various leadership
styles. Many ways of doing this exist. For example, the Managerial Grid Model, a behavioral
leadership-model, suggests five different leadership styles, based on leaders' strength of concern
for people and their concern for goal achievement.

Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and R. K. White identified three leadership styles: authoritarian,
democratic, and laissez-faire, based on the amount of influence and power exercised by the
leader.

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
favorableness (later called "situational control").

Leadership "styles" (per House and Podsakoff)

In 1994 House and Podsakoff attempted to summarize the behaviors and approaches of
"outstanding leaders" that they obtained from some more modern theories and research
findings. These leadership behaviors and approaches do not constitute specific styles, but
cumulatively they probably characterize the most effective style of leaders/managers of the
time. The listed leadership "styles" cover:

1. Vision. Outstanding leaders articulate an ideological vision congruent with the deeply-
held values of followers, a vision that describes a better future to which the followers
have an alleged moral right.
2. Passion and self-sacrifice. Leaders display a passion for, and have a strong conviction of,
what they regard as the moral correctness of their vision. They engage in outstanding or
extraordinary behavior and make extraordinary self-sacrifices in the interest of their
vision and mission.
3. Confidence, determination, and persistence. Outstanding leaders display a high degree
of faith in themselves and in the attainment of the vision they articulate. Theoretically,
such leaders need to have a very high degree of self-confidence and moral conviction
because their mission usually challenges the status quo and, therefore, may offend those
who have a stake in preserving the established order.
4. Image-building. House and Podsakoff regard outstanding leaders as self-conscious about
their own image. They recognize the desirability of followers perceiving them as
competent, credible, and trustworthy.
5. Role-modeling. Leader-image-building sets the stage for effective role-modeling because
followers identify with the values of role models whom they perceived in positive terms.
6. External representation. Outstanding leaders act as spokespersons for their respective
organizations and symbolically represent those organizations to external constituencies.
7. Expectations of and confidence in followers. Outstanding leaders communicate
expectations of high performance from their followers and strong confidence in their
followers‟ ability to meet such expectations.
8. Selective motive-arousal. Outstanding leaders selectively arouse those motives of
followers that the outstanding leaders see as of special relevance to the successful
accomplishment of the vision and mission.
9. Frame alignment. To persuade followers to accept and implement change, outstanding
leaders engage in "frame alignment". This refers to the linkage of individual and leader
interpretive orientations such that some set of followers‟ interests, values, and beliefs, as
 well as the leader‟s activities, goals, and ideology, becomes congruent and
complementary.
10. Inspirational communication. Outstanding leaders often, but not always, communicate
their message in an inspirational manner using vivid stories, slogans, symbols, and
ceremonies.

Even though these ten leadership behaviors and approaches do not really equate to specific
styles, evidence has started to accumulate that a leader‟s style can make a difference. Style
becomes the key to the formulation and implementation of strategy and plays an important role
in work-group members‟ activity and in team citizenship. Little doubt exists that the way (style)
in which leaders influence work-group members can make a difference in their own and their
people‟s performance.

(Adopted from: Robert House and Philip M. Podsakoff, "Leadership Effectiveness: Past
Perspectives and Future Directions for Research" in Greenberg, Jerald ed.),pp. 45-82
Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, Hillsdale, NJ, England: Erlbaum Associates, Inc,
1994. x, 312 pp. .)

Leadership and vision

Many definitions of leadership involve an element of Goal management|vision — except in cases

of involuntary leadership and often in cases of traditional leadership. A vision provides direction
to the influence process. A leader or group of leaders can have one or more visions of the
future to aid them to move a group successfully towards this goal. A vision, for effectiveness,
should allegedly:

 appear as a simple, yet vibrant, image in the mind of the leader

 describe a future state, credible and preferable to the present state
 act as a bridge between the current state and a future optimum state
 appear desirable enough to energize followers
 succeed in speaking to followers at an emotional or spiritual level (logical appeals by
themselves seldom muster a following)
For leadership to occur, according to this theory, some people "leaders" must communicate the
vision to others "followers" in such a way that the followers adopt the vision as their own.
Leaders must not just see the vision themselves; they must have the ability to get others to see
it also. Numerous techniques aid in this process, including: narratives, metaphors, symbolic
actions, leading by example, incentives, and penalty|penalties.

Stacey (1992) has suggested that the emphasis on vision puts an unrealistic burden on the
leader. Such emphasis appears to perpetuate the myth that an organization must depend on a
single, uncommonly talented individual to decide what to do. Stacey claims that this fosters a
culture of dependency and conformity in which followers take no pro-active incentives and do
not think independently.

Kanungo's charismatic leadership model describes the role of the vision in three stages that are
continuously ongoing, overlapping one another. Assessing the status quo, formulation and
articulation of the vision, and implementation of the vision.

Leadership's relation with management

Some commentators link leadership closely with the idea of management. Some regard the two
as synonymous, and others consider management a subset of leadership. If one accepts this
premise, one can view leadership as:

 centralized or decentralized
 broad or focused
 decision-oriented or morale-centered
 intrinsic or derived from some authority

Any of the bipolar labels traditionally ascribed to management style could also apply to
leadership style. Hersey and Blanchard use this approach: they claim that management merely
consists of leadership applied to business situations; or in other words: management forms a
sub-set of the broader process of leadership. They put it this way: "Leadership occurs any time
one attempts to influence the behavior of an individual or group, regardless of the reason.
Management is a kind of leadership in which the achievement of organizational goals is
paramount."

However, a clear distinction between management and leadership may nevertheless prove
useful. This would allow for a reciprocal relationship between leadership and management,
implying that an effective manager should possess leadership skills, and an effective leader
should demonstrate management skills. One clear distinction could provide the following
definition:

 Management involves power by position.

 Leadership involves power by influence.

Abraham Zaleznik (1977), for example, delineated differences between leadership and
management. He saw leaders as inspiring visionaries, concerned about substance; while
managers he views as planners who have concerns with process. Warren Bennis (1989) further
explicated a dichotomy between managers and leaders. He drew twelve distinctions between
the two groups:

 Managers administer, leaders innovate

 Managers ask how and when, leaders ask what and why
 Managers focus on systems, leaders focus on people
 Managers do things right, leaders do the right things
 Managers maintain, leaders develop
 Managers rely on control, leaders inspire trust
 Managers have a short-term perspective, leaders have a longer-term perspective
 Managers accept the status-quo, leaders challenge the status-quo
 Managers have an eye on the bottom line, leaders have an eye on the horizon
 Managers imitate, leaders originate
 Managers emulate the classic good soldier, leaders are their own person
 Managers copy, leaders show originality

Paul Birch (1999) also sees a distinction between leadership and management. He observed
that, as a broad generalization, managers concerned themselves with tasks while leaders
concerned themselves with people. Birch does not suggest that leaders do not focus on "the
task." Indeed, the things that characterize a great leader include the fact that they achieve.
Effective leaders create and sustain competitive advantage through the attainment of cost
leadership, revenue leadership, time leadership, and market value leadership. Managers typically
follow and realize a leader's vision. The difference lies in the leader realizing that the
achievement of the task comes about through the goodwill and support of others (influence),
while the manager may not.

This goodwill and support originates in the leader seeing people as people, not as another
resource for deployment in support of "the task". The manager often has the role of organizing
resources to get something done. People form one of these resources, and many of the worst
managers treat people as just another interchangeable item. A leader has the role of causing
others to follow a path he/she has laid out or a vision he/she has articulated in order to achieve
a task. Often, people see the task as subordinate to the vision. For instance, an organization
might have the overall task of generating profit, but a good leader may see profit as a by-
product that flows from whatever aspect of their vision differentiates their company from the
competition.

Leadership does not only manifest itself as purely a business phenomenon. Many people can
think of an inspiring leader they have encountered who has nothing whatever to do with
business: a politician, an officer in the armed forces, a Scout or Guide leader, a teacher, etc.
Similarly, management does not occur only as a purely business phenomenon. Again, we can
think of examples of people that we have met who fill the management niche in non-business
organizations; Non-business organizations should find it easier to articulate a non-money-driven
inspiring vision that will support true leadership. However, often this does not occur.

Differences in the mix of leadership and management can define various management styles.
Some management styles tend to de-emphasize leadership. Included in this group one could
include participatory management, democratic management, and collaborative management
styles. Other management styles, such as authoritarian management, micro-management, and
top-down management, depend more on a leader to provide direction. Note, however, that
just because an organization has no single leader giving it direction, does not mean it necessarily
has weak leadership. In many cases group leadership (multiple leaders) can prove effective.
Having a single leader (as in dictatorship) allows for quick and decisive decision-making when
needed as well as when not needed. Group decision-making sometimes earns the derisive label
"committees" because of the longer times required to make decisions, but group leadership can
bring more expertise, experience, and perspectives through a democratic process.

Patricia Pitcher (1994) has challenged the bifurcation into leaders and managers. She used a
factor analysis (in marketing)factor analysis technique on data collected over 8 years, and
concluded that three types of leaders exist, each with very different psychological profiles:
'Artists' imaginative, inspiring, visionary, entrepreneurial, intuitive, daring, and emotional
Craftsmen: well-balanced, steady, reasonable, sensible, predictable, and trustworthy
Technocrats: cerebral, detail-oriented, fastidious, uncompromising, and hard-headed She
speculates that no one profile offers a preferred leadership style. She claims that if we want to
build, we should find an "artist leader" if we want to solidify our position, we should find a
"craftsman leader" and if we have an ugly job that needs to get done like downsizing. We should
find a "technocratic leader". Pitcher also observed that a balanced leader exhibiting all three
sets of traits occurs extremely rarely: she found none in her study.

Bruce Lynn postulates a differentiation between 'Leadership' and „Management‟ based on

perspectives to risk. Specifically,” A Leader optimizes upside opportunity; a Manager minimizes
downside risk." He argues that successful executives need to apply both disciplines in a balance
appropriate to the enterprise and its context. Leadership without Management yields steps
forward, but as many if not more steps backwards. Management without Leadership avoids any
step backwards, but doesn‟t move forward.

Leadership by a group

In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this
situation, more than one person provides direction to the group as a whole. 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 maintenance of the boss becomes too expensive - either
by draining the resources of the group as a whole, or by impeding the creativity within the
team, even unintentionally.

A common example of group leadership involves cross-functional teams. A team of people with
diverse skills and from all parts of an organization assembles to lead a project. A team structure
can involve sharing power equally on all issues, but more commonly uses rotating leadership. The
team member(s) best able to handle any given phase of the project become(s) the temporary
leader(s). According to Ogbonnia (2007), "effective leadership is the ability to successfully
integrate and maximize available resources within the internal and external environment for the
attainment of organizational or societal goals". Ogbonnia defines an effective leader "as an
individual with the capacity to consistently succeed in a given condition and be recognized as
meeting the expectations of an organization or society."

Orpheus orchestra

For example, the Orpheus orchestra has performed for over thirty years without a conductor -
- that is, without a sole leader. As a team of over 25 members, it has drawn discriminating
audiences, and has produced over 60 recordings for Deutsche Grammophon in successful
competition with other world-class orchestras.[6]

Rather than an autocratic or charismatic conductor deciding the overall conception of a work
and then dictating how each individual is to perform the individual tasks, the Orpheus team
generally selects a different "core group" for each piece of music. The core group provides
leadership in working out the details of the piece, and presents their ideas to the whole team.
Members of the whole team then participate in refining the final conception, rehearsal, and
product, including checking from various places in the auditorium how the sound balances and
verifying the quality of the final recording.

At times the entire Orpheus team may follow a single leader, but whom the team follows
rotates from task to task, depending on the capabilities of its members.

The orchestra has developed seminars and training sessions for adapting the Orpheus Process
to business.[7]
Historical views on leadership

Sanskrit literature identifies ten types of leaders. Defining characteristics of the ten types of
leaders are explained with examples from history and mythology.[13]

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: see the divine right of kings.
Contrariwise, 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 families. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may damn such models as
patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic
guidance and 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.

In On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, Thomas Carlyle demonstrated the concept
of leadership associated with a position of authority. In praising Oliver Cromwell's use of power
to bring King Charles I to trial and eventual beheading, he wrote the following: "Let us remark,
meanwhile, how indispensable everywhere a King is, in all movements of men. It is strikingly
shown, in this very War, what becomes of men when they cannot find a Chief Man, and their
enemies can." [8]

Within the context of Islam, views on the nature, scope and inheritance of leadership have
played a major role in shaping sects and their history. See caliphate.

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 elite 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 statesman.

The great traits that a leader must have have been debated over time, and most people agree
that these are the five key traits. You must have a vision. We've all heard the saying "You must
stand for something, or you'll fall for everything." But what does that really mean? Standing firm
when it comes to your company's policies and procedures is all well and good, but it doesn't
speak to having a vision. As a leader, you have to learn to communicate your vision or the
vision of your company to the people you want to follow you. You must have passion, you have
to show your team that you want to accomplish the goal as badly as they do, and your passion
will drive them. You must learn to be a great decision maker. Sometimes, leaders must face
times of pressure where they are forced to make quick decisions; a great leader must have this
skill. You must be a team builder. To become a great leader, you must first make your team
great, you must have the power to give your team responsibilities, and trust them too, and you
must slowly make them greater and greater. You must have character. Without character, all
the other "keys" are for naught. That's because your innate character strengths and limitations
play a critical role in your leadership style. The real question is, are you aware of just what role
they play? All great leaders have taken steps to learn about their individual personality and what
part it plays in their leadership style.

Criticism of the concept of leadership

Noam Chomsky has criticized the concept of leadership as involving people subordinating their
needs to that of someone else. While the conventional view of leadership is rather satisfying to
people who "want to be told what to do", one should question why they are being subjected to
acts that may not be rational or even desirable. Rationality is the key element missing when
"leaders" say "believe me" and "have faith". It is fairly easy to have people simplistically follow
you as their "leader", if no attention is paid to rationality.

Moving to the public domain-presidents, senators, people in congress- such positions are
dubbed as leaders. In this domain, representatives ARE desirable NOT "leaders". The
representatives simply take the view of the group being represented and help to move forward
with these objectives. If they don't follow what the representatives have asked, they should
easily be removed and replaced. Ask yourself when the last time such a system of
representation existed! When "leaders" in the form of politicians come to town there is a
parade of celebration and cheering without any room for such rationality but plenty of room
for empty rhetoric and in some cases a rock star status. People need to ask themselves why
they would want leaders, given the brutal history of such unaccountable people, and not
representatives.

Alternatives to leadership

Within groups, alternatives to leadership include using decision-making structures such as co-
operative ventures, collegiality, consensus, anarchism and applied democracy. One can
downplay the ubiquitous idea of leadership by using structures such as information clearing
houses or stressing functions such as administration. Note the different implications and
connotations of the two phrases "coalition of the willing" and "US-led coalition". The Orpheus
Chamber Orchestra, which practices a form of distributed leadership, provides a textbook
example of alternative leadership.

References

a b
1. ^ Weber, Max (1905). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: and Other
Writings. New York: Penguin Group.
a b c
2. ^ Lewin, K.; Lippitt, R. & White, R., "Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates", Journal of Social Psychology: 271-301
a b
3. ^ Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill: Harper and
Row Publishers Inc.
 4. ^ Rowley, Robin; Joseph Roevens (1999). Organize with Chaos. Management Books 2000
Ltd. ISBN 9781852525613.
5. ^ Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power
and Greatness. New Jersey: Paulist Press.
6. ^ a b Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers Inc..
7. ^ Carmazzi, Arthur (2005). The Directive Communication Leadership Field Manual.
Singapore: Veritas Publishing.
8. ^ a b ibiblio.org
9. ^ Cecil A Gibb (1970). Leadership (Handbook of Social Psychology). Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 884-89. ISBN 0140805176 9780140805178. OCLC 174777513.
a b c
10. ^ Henry P. Knowles; Borje O. Saxberg (1971). Personality and Leadership Behavior.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 884-89. ISBN 0140805176 9780140805178. OCLC
118832.
11. ^ The Top 10 Leadership Qualities - HR World
12. ^ Burman, R. & Evans, A.J. (2008) Target Zero: A Culture of safety, Defence Aviation
Safety Centre Journal 2008, 22-27. http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/849892B2-D6D2-
4DFD-B5BD-9A4F288A9B18/0/DASCJournal2008.pdf
13. ^ KSEEB. Sanskrit Text Book -9th Grades. Government of Karnataka, India.

General references

 Argyris, C. (1976) Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, Wiley, New York, 1976 (even
though published in 1976, this still remains a "standard" reference text)
 Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research:
Permission Set. Redwood City, CA: Mind garden.
 Bennis, W. (1989) On Becoming a Leader, Addison Wesley, New York, 1989
 Crawford, C. J. (2005). Corporate rise the X principles of extreme personal leadership.
Santa Clara, CA: XCEO. ISBN 0-976-90190-0 9780976901907
 Greiner, K. (2002). The inaugural speech. ERIC Accession Number ED468083 [8].
 Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. ISBN 0-674-51858-6
 House, R. J. (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies,
SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2004 [9].
 Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
 Laubach, R. (2005) Leadership is Influence
 Machiavelli, Niccolo (1530) The Prince
 Maxwell, J. C. & Dornan, J. (2003) Becoming a Person of Influence
 McGovern, George S., Donald C. Simmons, Jr. and Daniel Gaken (2008) Leadership and
Service: An Introduction, Kendall/Hunt Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7575-5109-3.
 Nanus, Burt (1995) The visionary leadership
 Ogbonnia, SKC. (2007). Political Parties and Effective Leadership: A contingency
Approach
 Pitcher, P. (1994 French) Artists, Craftsmen, and Technocrats: The dreams realities and
illusions of leadership, Stoddart Publishing, Toronto, 2nd English edition, 1997. ISBN 0-
7737-5854-2
 Renesch, John (1994) Leadership in a New Era: Visionary Approaches to the Biggest Crisis of
Our Time, San Francisco, New Leaders Press (paperback 2002, New York, Paraview
Publishing
 Renesch, John (2001) "Conscious Leadership: Taking Responsibility for Our Better
Future," LOHAS Weekly Newsletter, March 1, 2001 [10]
 Roberts, W. (1987) Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun
 Stacey, R. (1992) Managing Chaos, Kogan-Page, London, 1992
 Stogdill, R.M. (1950) 'Leadership, membership and organization', Psychological Bulletin,
47: 1-14
 Terry, G. (1960) The Principles of Management, Richard Irwin Inc, Homewood Ill, pg 5.
 Torbert, W. (2004) Action Inquiry: the Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership, San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
 Warneka, P and Warneka, T. (2007). The Way of Leading People: Unlocking Your Integral
Leadership Skills with the Tao Te Ching. Asogomi Publications Intl. Cleveland, Ohio.
website
  Warneka, T. (2006). Leading People the Black Belt Way: Conquering the Five Core Problems
Facing Leaders Today. Asogomi Publications Intl. Cleveland, Ohio. website
 Warneka, T. (2008). Black Belt Leader, Peaceful Leader: An Introduction to Catholic Servant
Leadership. website
 Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspective. American Psychology, 62 (1), 7-16.
 Zaleznik, A. (1977) "Managers and Leaders: Is there a difference?", Harvard Business
Review, May-June, 1977

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership"