Leadership Meaning The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries.

History's greatest philosophical writings from Plato'sRepublic 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". The trait theory was explored at length in a number of works in the 19th century. Most notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have prompted decades of research[4]. In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton's Hereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving 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 the leader. For decades, this trait-based perspective dominated empirical and theoretical work in leadership.[5] Using early research techniques, researchers conducted over a hundred studies proposing a number of characteristics that distinguished leaders from nonleaders: intelligence, dominance, adaptability, persistence, integrity, socioeconomic status, and self-confidence, for example.[6]

Definition Of Leadership What is leadership? A simple definition of leadership is that leadership is the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal. This definition of leadership, I think, captures the leadership essentials of inspiration and preparation. Effective leadership is based upon ideas, but won't happen unless those ideas can be communicated to others in a way that engages them.

Put even more simply, the leader is the inspiration and director of the action. He is the person in the group that possesses the combination of personality and leadership skills that makes others want to follow his direction. In business, leadership is welded to performance. Those who are viewed as effective leaders are those who increase their company's bottom lines. To further confuse the definition of leadership, we tend to use the terms "leadership" and "management" interchangeably, referring to a company's management structure as its leadership, or to individuals who are actually managers as the "leaders" of various management teams.

I am not saying that this is a bad thing, just pointing out that leadership involves more. To be effective, a leader certainly has to manage the resources at her disposal. But leadership also involves communicating, inspiring and supervising - just to name three more of the primary leadership skills a leader has to have to be successful.

Is a leader born or made? While there are people who seem to be naturally endowed with more leadership abilities than others, I believe that people can learn to become leaders by improving particular leadership skills.

Assess workplace climate and employee engagement by an online diagnostic survey. Employees respond anonymously. The interpretive report is graphically illustrated and written in plain language to provide critical enterprise information. [15 minutes] Executives review and present the core ideology, vision, and goals using the Company Compass worksheet. Some companies will want to revise or expand their positions. Onsite facilitation is available. [30 minutes to 3 hours] Assess employees natural styles and acquired strengths online or by printed surveys. [30 minutes to 3 hours] Leadership from each employee comes from understanding and appreciating the unique leadership style of each person. DISC profiles reveal leadership styles: Taking the lead with concern for quality and ethical ideals (High C for competence). Generating social cement and grease that helps a team function better (High S for supportive leadership). Generating excitement, energy, and enthusiasm to move people to greater effort (High I for influencing). Providing direction and coordination (High D for directing). Employee s strength-based conversation with manager. Most people are not articulate when it comes to describing their strengths. The workbook provides language for employees to discuss strengths without resorting to bragging. [20 minutes] Write job expectation descriptions. The workbook contains worksheets to describe responsibilities, activities, and related job factors. [1 hour] Employee-manager performance expectations conversation. Most job descriptions are outdated. This step brings employee and manager expectations into alignment. [30-40 minutes]

About Leadership

"Learning About Leadership" is adapted from Patrol and Troop Leadership, the handbook on leadership development written for Patrol Leaders and published by the Boy Scouts of America in 1972.

Why Leadership? In most football teams the quarterback is the team leader. Why is that? Is there something magic about the position? Does he automatically become the leader -- the guy who makes the team go - when he is named quarterback by the coach? No, there's more to it than that. Lots more. Usually he is named quarterback because he's already a leader. He's already the kind of guy the other players like to follow. And if the coach is wrong about him, he probably won't stay quarterback very long. If he can't lead the team, he won't have much value even if he can hit a receiver at 40 yards. Because every successful team must have a leader. That goes for your Scouting team, too -- your patrol and your troop. In fact, if the patrol and troop are to succeed, you need several leaders. Guys like yourself who want to try "quarterbacking" in Scouting. One of the aims of your local council Junior Leader Training Conference is to show you how to become a better leader. Let's begin by being honest about it. This handbook is not going to make you a good leader. You are not going to find 5 or 10 simple rules to follow to become a good leader. If leadership were as easy as that, almost everyone would be a good leader. And you know that most people are not.

There are no rules for leadership. But there are certain skills that every good leader seems to have. You learned about them at your local council Junior Leader Training Conference and have practiced some of them in your troop at home. Some of these skills you may already have even without knowing it. That's the funny thing about leadership -- a good leader doesn't necessarily know how he does it. He just does what comes naturally and the others follow him. Although he may not know it, he has mastered the skills of leadership. This doesn't mean we guarantee that you'll be elected student council president next year. Or that you will be the Super Bowl quarterback 15 years from now or President of the United States in 35 years. But we do guarantee that you can make yourself a much better leader in just a few weeks or months. What Is Leadership? Leadership is a process of getting things done through people. The quarterback moves the team toward a touchdown. The senior patrol leader guides the troop to a high rating at the camporee. The mayor gets the people to support new policies to make the city better. These leaders are getting things done by working through people -- football players, Scouts, and ordinary citizens. They have used the process of leadership to reach certain goals. Leadership is not a science. So being a leader is an adventure because you can never be sure whether you will reach your goal -- at least this time. The touchdown drive may end in a fumble. The troop may have a bad weekend during the camporee. Or the city's citizens may not be convinced that the mayor's policies are right. So these leaders have to try again, using other methods. But they still use the same process the process of good leadership. Leadership means responsibility. It's adventure and often fun, but it always means responsibility. The leader is the guy the others look to to get the job done. So don't think your job as a troop leader or a staff member will be just an honor. It's more than that. It means that the other Scouts

expect you to take the responsibility of getting the job done. If you lead, they will do the job. If you don't, they may expect you to do the job all by yourself. That's why it's important that you begin right now to learn what leadership is all about. Wear your badge of office proudly. It does not automatically make you a good leader. But it identifies you as a Scout who others want to follow -- if you'll let them by showing leadership. You are not a finished leader. No one ever is, not even a president or prime minister. But you are an explorer of the human mind because now you are going to try to learn how to get things done through people. This is one of the keys to leadership. You are searching for the secrets of leadership. Many of them lie locked inside you. As you discover them and practice them, you will join a special group of people-skilled leaders. Good exploring -- both in this handbook and with the groups you will have a chance to lead. The Tasks of Leadership In this section, we will consider several common statements about the people who serve in leadership positions throughout our world. After you have read the statement, decide for yourself whether you feel it is true or false and why you think it is. Here is the first one. True or false? The only people who lead have some kind of leadership job, such as chairman, coach, or king. Do you think that's true? Don't you believe it. It's true that chairmen, coaches, and kings lead, but people who hold no leadership position also lead. And you can find some people who have a leader's title and ought to lead. But they don't. In other words, you are not a leader because you wear the leader's hat. Or because you wear the patrol leader's insignia on your uniform. You are a leader only when you are getting things done through other people.

Leadership, then, is something people do. Some people inherit leadership positions, such as kings, or nobles, or heads of family businesses. Some are elected: chairman, governor, patrol leader. Some are appointed, such as a coach, a city manager, or a den chief. Or they may just happen to be there when a situation arises that demands leadership. A disaster occurs, or a teacher doesn't show up when class begins, or a patrol leader becomes sick on a campout. Try this statement. Is it true or false? Leadership is a gift. If you are born with it, you can lead. If you are not, you can't. Some people will tell you that. Some really believe it. But it's not so. Leadership does take skill. Not everyone can learn all the skills of leadership as well as anyone else. But most people can learn some of them -- and thus develop their own potential. You don't have to be born with leadership. Chances are, you weren't. But you were born with a brain. If you can learn to swim or play checkers or do math, you can learn leadership skills. How about this statement. True or false? "Leader" is another word for "boss." Well, what do you mean by "boss"? A guy who pushes and orders other people around? No, a leader is not one of those. (But some people try to lead this way.) Or do you mean a boss is somebody who has a job to do and works with other people to get it done? This is true. A leader is a boss in that sense. True or false? Being a leader in a Scout troop is like being a leader anywhere else. This one is true. When you lead in a Scout troop, you will do many of the same things as any leader anywhere.

The important thing now is Scouting gives you a chance to lead. You can learn how to lead in Scouting. You can practice leadership in Scouting. Then you can lead other groups, too. The skills you will need are very much the same. What Does a Leader Deal with? Every leader deals with just two things. Here they are: the job and the group. The job is what's to be done. The "job" doesn't necessarily mean work. It could be playing a game. It could be building a skyscraper. It could be getting across an idea. A leader is needed to get the job done. If there were no job, there would be no need for a leader. The group, such as a patrol, is the people who do the job. And in many cases, the group continues after the job is done. This is where leading gets tough, as you'll see later. Think about this situation. Mark has a lot of firewood to split. There he is, all alone with his ax. He's got a job to do. Is he a leader? We have to say in this situation that Mark won't be leading. Why? No group. There's nobody on the job but Mark. Here's another example. Danny and three of his friends are on their bikes. They have no place to go. They're just riding slowly, seeing how close they can get to each other. Is Danny -- or any one of the others -- a leader? From what we know, we have to say no. Why? No job. There's a group of friends, but nothing special to be done. You don't need a leader for that. (You don't need a group, either.)

Principles of Leadership

This section describes why leaders exist and what knowledge, skills, and abilities are important to manage learning. We know, to begin, that leaders exist because man is a social creature. The leader in our society is responsible for the essential tasks in the collections of groups that make up civilization.

In most traditional or conventional training events, because of a lack of systematic programming, most of the emphasis is focused on attempts to change people's perception. Little time is usually allocated for practice and even less to measure changes in performance during the training situation. The White Stag method puts a strong emphasis on individual and group participation and practice long to ensure sufficient habitformation during the training situation. We also systematically evaluate the participants, staff, and the overall program. We take a direct approach to leadership development. The Job of a Leader A leader works with two things: a job and a group. You can always tell when a leader succeeds, because: 1. The job gets done. 2. The group holds together. Let's see why it takes both. Frank was elected patrol leader. That same week, the patrol had a job cleaning up an old cemetery.

It was Frank's first leadership position, and he wanted it to go right. In his daydream he could see the Scoutmaster praising him for the great cleanup job. So when Saturday morning came, Frank and the patrol went over to the cemetery, and Frank started to get the job done. He hollered. He yelled. He threatened. He called them names. He worked like a tiger himself. It was a rough day, but the cemetery got cleaned up. Frank went home sort of proud, sort of mad, and very tired. "How'd things go, Frank?" the Scoutmaster asked a few days later. "Good." "No problems?" "No." Frank wondered what he meant by that. "Oh! Well, a couple of the boys in your patrol asked me if they could change to another patrol. I thought maybe something had gone wrong...." And that was how Frank learned that getting the job done isn't all there is to leadership. He had really given the group a hard time, and now they wanted to break up. Almost anybody with a whip and a mean temper can get a job done. But in doing it, they usually destroy the group. And that's not leadership. The group must go on. Another new patrol leader called a meeting at his house. Everybody seemed to be hungry when they came. So they got some snacks from the kitchen. Then they tossed a football around. It began to get dark, and one by one they went home. Everybody had fun. But the patrol meeting -the job -- never started. One of the following statements is the message of this section. Which one? a. Nice guys finish last.

b. Mean guys finish last. c. Leaders get the job done and keep the group going. d. Leaders have a special title or badge that makes others like to follow. We'll take the third one. Will you? Principles of Leadership What Affects Leadership? Leadership is not magic that comes out of a leader's head. It's skill. The leader learns how to get the job done and still keep the group together. Does this mean that the leader does the same things in every situation? No. Here's why. Leadership differs with the leader, the group, and the situation. Leaders -- like other people are all different. No leader can take over another leader's job and do it the same way. Groups are different, too. A great football coach might have difficulty leading an orchestra. A good sergeant might be a poor Scoutmaster. So when a leader changes groups, he changes the way he leads. Situations differ, too. The same leader with the same group must change with conditions. A fellow leading a group discussion needs to change his style of leadership when a fire breaks out. As a Scout leader, you probably can't lead the group in the rain the same as you do in the sunshine. An effective leader, then, must be alert at all times to the reaction of the members of the group; the conditions in which he may find himself; and be aware of his own abilities and reactions. Leadership Develops

Picture a long scale like a yardstick. On the low end, there are no leadership skills. On the other end, there is a complete set of leadership skills. Everyone is somewhere between those ends! Where do you find yourself at this time? Unknowingly, you may be further up the scale than you realize. As a staff member you'll now have the opportunity to find out. How Will You Know You are Improving? You learn leadership best by working with groups. That is something like learning swimming best by getting into the water. Yet you can't keep track of your progress without a guide. You must know and understand what you are trying to learn. This means you have to know what the skills of leadership are.
LEADERSHIP.FUNCTIONS

PLANNING Seeking all available information. Defining group tasks,purpose or goal. Making a workable plan(in the right decision makingframework)

INITIATING Briefing team on the aims and the plans. Explaing why aim or plan is necessary. Allocating task to team members. Setting team standards.

CONTROLLING Maintaing group standards. Influence tempo. Ensuring all actions are taken towards objectives . Keeping discussion relevant. Prodding group to action /decision. SUPPORTING Expressing acceptance of persons and their contribution. Encouraging team /individuals. Discipling team /individuals. Creating team spirit. Relieving tension with humour. Reconciling disagreements or getting others to explore them. INFORMING Clarifying task and play. Giving new information to the group,keeping them in the picture. Receiving information from the group. Summerizing suggestions and ideas coherently.

EVALUATING Checking feasibility of an idea. Testing the consequences of proposed solution. Evaluating team performances. Helping team or individual to evaluate their own performance against standards.

Person

Is leadership a position of office or authority? Or, is leadership an ability in the sense that he is a leader because he leads? We all may know or hear of people who are in positions of leadership but who are not providing leadership. A position of office is no guarantee of leadership but it helps in the sense that a leadership position usually commands a listening ear from its people and that is a good starting point for anyone who desires to be a leader.

A leader by its meaning is one who goes first and leads by example, so that others are motivated to follow him. This is a basic requirement. To be a leader, a person must have a deep-rooted commitment to the goal that he will strive to achieve it even if nobody follows him!

Joshua was such a man. He was publicly appointed to succeed Moses (Num 27:12-23). The goal was to lead the Hebrews cross over the Jordan and take the land (Josh 1:1-2) ... and that was he

what he did. In his old age, there remained much land to be possessed. In Josh 24:15, Joshua summoned all Israel to gather at Shechem and challenged them to serve the Lord, putting before them
15

his

commitment

...

"... choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: ... but as for me and my house, we will the LORD."

serve

This reminds me of the song, "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus" I have decided, to follow Jesus, I have decided, to follow Jesus, I have decided, to follow Jesus, No turning back, no turning back.

Though none go with me, still I will follow, Though none go with me, still I will follow, Though none go with me, still I will follow, No turning back, no turning back!

Will you decide now, to follow Jesus? Will you decide now, to follow Jesus? Will you decide now, to follow Jesus? No turning back, no turning back!

Purpose

A requirement for leadership is personal vision - the ability to visualize your goal as an accomplished fact; a thing already achieved. "The very essence of leadership is that you have to have vision. You can't blow an uncertain trumpet." Theodore M. Hesburgh How do you become a leader with a purpose? You need guidance (Prov 3:5-6) and you will get it through meditation on the Word of God.

Thinking Skills

The next requirement is the realization that the goal cannot be achieved alone, without the help of others. Is there a natural grouping of people from whom you can elicit help? Or do you have to recruit your followers? In the latter, you face a greater challenge. But whatever the situation, the leader must integrate his (or the organization's) goal with his followers personal goals and then communicates this goal in such a way that they embrace it too and the goal becomes a common goal.

The leader has to be practical and a realist, yet must talk the language of the visionary and the idealist. Eric Hoffer

In communicating your goal, bear in mind that it should meet the following criteria:

Achievable ... realistic yet faith stretching Inspiring ... challenging your people to give of their best Measurable ... quantifiable Shared ... declaring your conviction in and commitment to the goal

People

He who thinketh he leadeth and hath no one following him is only taking a walk. Anonymous To be a leader, one must have followers. To have followers, one must have their trust. How do you win their trust? Why would others trust you? Most important, are you worthy of their trust?

Why are some individuals more effective than others at influencing people? Effectiveness in leadership has been attributed to (1) persuasion skills, (2) leadership styles and (3) personal attributes of the leader. We will explore these further in another article or two. Now, we will consider one critical element of leadership (influence) - love for people.

When Moses encountered two Hebrews fighting with each other, he tried to act as a peacemaker but they turned on him and questioned his authority over them, "Who made you ruler and judge over us?" (Exo 2:13-14). Yet some 40 years later, the Hebrews came to Moses with all their disputes and problems that he was kept busy from morning till evening (Exo 18:13-16). What had changed? Among many things, Moses led the Hebrews across the Red Sea and when the people could not drink the bitter water, Moses cried out to the Lord for a solution (Exo 15:2225). What had not changed was Moses' identification with the Hebrews and his love for them.

In God's call to Moses ...

The LORD said, "I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have

given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings ...
10

"Therefore, come now, and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people, the

sons of Israel, out of Egypt." Exo 3:7,10 The Lord voiced His concerns ... the hard labours of the Hebrews and their mistreatment by the Egyptians ... the very same reasons that prompted Moses 40 years earlier to come to the rescue of a Hebrew and kill an Egyptian (Exo 2:11-12).

Moses came up with several excuses why he should not be the one to go and God graciously refuted all of them. We are not told why Moses finally agreed but I believe that Moses' identification with and love for the Hebrews played a critical factor in his decision.

Moses' identification with and love for the people was again seen when God declared that He was going to destroy the Israelites but would make a great nation of Moses and his descendants the Israelites were worshipping a golden calf which they had fashioned out of their gold earrings. Moses immediately interceded for the people (Exo 32:7-14).

Moses then descended the mountain with the two tablets. His love was not "soft" ...

1. He broke the two tablets in anger when he saw the golden calf and the dancing of the people. 2. He burned the calf, grinded it into powder, scattered the powder over water and made the people drink it. 3. He called Aaron to give an account of what happened. 4. He passed judgment upon the unrepentant and the Levites killed 3000 with their swords.
30

... Moses said to the people, "You yourselves have committed a great sin; and now I am going

up to the LORD, perhaps I can make atonement for your sin." He again interceded for the people requesting that his name be blotted out from God's Book (i.e., he be destroyed) if God could not forgive them (Exo 32:31-32).

After he died, the Israelites mourned Moses' death for 30 days. It is recorded in Deut 34 that
10

Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

11

for all the signs and wonders which the LORD sent him to perform in the land of Egypt

against Pharaoh, all his servants, and all his land,

12

and for all the mighty power and for all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of

all Israel. When people are convinced of your love for them and that you always have their interests upon your heart, they trust you and they will follow you up the highest mountain and into the deepest sea.

Leadership Leadership is a way of focusing and motivating a group to enable them to achieve their aims. It also involves being accountable and responsible for the group as a whole. A leader should: y y provide continuity and momentum be flexible in allowing changes of direction

Ideally, a leader should be a few steps ahead of their team, but not too far for the team to be able to understand and follow them.

Qualities Found In A Good Leader: 1. A good leader has an exemplary character. It is of utmost importance that a leader is trustworthy to lead others. A leader needs to be trusted and be known to live their life with honestly and integrity. A good leader walks the talk and in doing so earns the right to have responsibility for others. True authority is born from respect for the good character and trustworthiness of the person who leads.

2. A good leader is enthusiastic about their work or cause and also about their role as leader. People will respond more openly to a person of passion and dedication. Leaders need to

be able to be a source of inspiration, and be a motivator towards the required action or cause. Although the responsibilities and roles of a leader may be different, the leader needs to be seen to be part of the team working towards the goal. This kind of leader will not be afraid to roll up their sleeves and get dirty.

3. A good leader is confident. In order to lead and set direction a leader needs to appear confident as a person and in the leadership role. Such a person inspires confidence in others and draws out the trust and best efforts of the team to complete the task well. A leader who conveys confidence towards the proposed objective inspires the best effort from team members.

4. A leader also needs to function in an orderly and purposeful manner in situations of uncertainty. People look to the leader during times of uncertainty and unfamiliarity and find reassurance and security when the leader portrays confidence and a positive demeanor.

5. Good leaders are tolerant of ambiguity and remain calm, composed and steadfast to the main purpose. Storms, emotions, and crises come and go and a good leader takes these as part of the journey and keeps a cool head.

6. A good leader as well as keeping the main goal in focus is able to think analytically. Not only does a good leader view a situation as a whole, but is able to break it down into sub parts for closer inspection. Not only is the goal in view but a good leader can break it down into manageable steps and make progress towards it. Leadership Types Autocratic Leadership Autocratic leadership is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where a leader exerts high levels of power over his or her employees or team members. People within the team are given

few opportunities for making suggestions, even if these would be in the team's or organizations interest. Most people tend to resent being treated like this. Because of this, autocratic leadership usually leads to high levels of absenteeism and staff turnover. Also, the team's output does not benefit from the creativity and experience of all team members, so many of the benefits of teamwork are lost. For some routine and unskilled jobs, however, this style can remain effective where the advantages of control outweigh the disadvantages. Bureaucratic Leadership Bureaucratic leaders work by the book, ensuring that their staff follow procedures exactly. This is a very appropriate style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances or at heights) or where large sums of money are involved (such as cash-handling). In other situations, the inflexibility and high levels of control exerted can demoralize staff, and can diminish the organizations ability to react to changing external circumstances. Charismatic Leadership A charismatic leadership style can appear similar to a transformational leadership style, in that the leader injects huge doses of enthusiasm into his or her team, and is very energetic in driving others forward. However, a charismatic leader can tend to believe more in him or herself than in their team. This can create a risk that a project, or even an entire organization, might collapse if the leader were to leave: In the eyes of their followers, success is tied up with the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and needs long-term commitment from the leader.

Democratic Leadership or Participative Leadership

Although a democratic leader will make the final decision, he or she invites other members of the team to contribute to the decision-making process. This not only increases job satisfaction by involving employees or team members in whats going on, but it also helps to develop peoples skills. Employees and team members feel in control of their own destiny, and so are motivated to work hard by more than just a financial reward. As participation takes time, this style can lead to things happening more slowly than an autocratic approach, but often the end result is better. It can be most suitable where team working is essential, and quality is more important than speed to market or productivity.

Advantages of leadership: - A leaders job implies a lot of responsibilities and this is well paid. - Contact with the other important persons. This is a big benefit, because this way, the bosses will be able to meet personally the leaders, to discuss with them in order to obtain better services, ideas. Sometimes this can lead even to promotions. - Opportunity of promotion. Just as mentioned before, each leader has the opportunity of advancing in the career by obtaining promotions after promotions. - In case that something bad happens, the resume still looks great, and she/he can easily find another great job. - Responsibility. Being responsible for many things makes a person to be organized not only in the job, but in the real life as well. - Being a leader implies to have a team and there are many occasions, when the whole team goes to travel in order to recreate or for team building purposes. And travelling is a great advantage. - These days, each company requires us to have experience in the resume and this is a big problem, especially when someone wants to start to work. This is the reason why having something attractive in the resume, like an experience as a leader, is a great advantage in comparison with those, who have less or nothing. Disadvantages - While responsibility is also an advantage, as mentioned before, this is also a big disadvantage. It can be hard to be responsible for every answer, every signature, every affirmation.

- This is a stressful job, because there are many people who are requiring you to do all kind of things and there are others, who asks you all sort of questions. - Calm temperament. Having such a temperament is essential in order to be a good leader, because the people who are working for he/she need a model to inspire themselves. These aspects are the essential things we should know about being a leadership. As it can be noticed, there are strong and important aspects that one has to take into consideration, but after all, this depends on each persons expectations, capabilities and perspective.

Leadership Leadership has been described as the process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".[1] Other in-depth definitions of leadership have also emerged. Theories Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may or may not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits,[2] situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values,[3] charisma, and intelligence, among others. ]Rise of alternative theories In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940;[7] Stogdill, 1948;[8] Mann, 1959[9]) 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 persons 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. 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 the 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.[10] 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.[10] Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as:
     

intelligence[11] adjustment[11] extraversion[11] conscientiousness[12][13][14] openness to experience[13][15] general self-efficacy[16][17]

While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks.[5] Specifically, Zaccaro (2007)[5] noted that trait theories still: 1. focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problemsolving skills; 2. fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes; 3. do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences;

4. do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary Attribute pattern approach Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differencesthe leader attribute pattern approach.[17][18][19][20][21] 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.[20][22] 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 Main article: Managerial grid model 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.[23] 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.[24]

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, andlaissez-faire.[25] 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.[26] 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.[27] 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.[28] 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 Main articles: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision model, Path-goal theory, and Hersey-Blanchard situational theory 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) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around.[29] 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 [sic] functions."[30] 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.[31] 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).[32] 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)[33] and later with Arthur Jago (1988),[34] 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.[35] 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.[36] The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom.[37]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".[38] The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, andsupportive, 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 and Blanchard 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.[39]

Functional theory Main article: Functional leadership model Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) 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. Transactional and transformational theories Main articles: Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership Eric Berne[40] first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms of transactional analysis.

The transactional leader (Burns, 1978)[41] 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. Idiosyncrasy Credits, first posited by Edward Hollander (1971) is one example of a concept closely related to transactional leadership. The transformational leader (Burns, 1978)[41] 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. Emotions Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social influence process.[42] In an organization, the leader's mood has some effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels:[43] 1. The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a (say) positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a (say) negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the mechanism of emotional contagion.[43] Mood contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers.[44] 2. 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.[43] 3. 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.[43] 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.[45] 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.[46] Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the self and others, contributes to effective leadership in organizations.[45] Neo-emergent theory Main article: Functional leadership model The Neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford school of leadership) espouses that leadership is 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 great 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.[citation needed] In modern society, the press, blogs and other sources report their own views of a leader, 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, it can be contended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect their true leadership qualities at all.

Styles Leadership style refers to a leader's behavior. 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,[47] Philippe-Joseph Salazar, L'Hyperpolitique. Technologies politiques De La Domination[48]). Autocratic or authoritarian style Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader, as with dictators. 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.[49] Participative or democratic style The democratic leadership style favors decision-making by the group. Such a leader gives instructions after consulting the group. They can win the cooperation of their group and can motivate them effectively and positively. The decisions of the democratic leader are not unilateral as with the autocrat because they arise from consultation with the group members and participation by them.[49] Laissez-faire or free rein style A free-rein leader does not lead, but leaves the group entirely to itself. Such a leader allows maximum freedom to subordinates; they are given a free hand in deciding their own policies and methods. 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.[49] Narcissistic leadership Main article: Narcissistic leadership Various academics such as Kets de Vries, Maccoby, and Thomas have identified narcissistic leadership as an important and common leadership style. Toxic leadership Main article: Toxic leader 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 first found them. 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 leadershipperformance, 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. The Ontological/Phenomenological Model for Leadership 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 wasnt 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 wasnt 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. [50] 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.[51]

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.[52][53] 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.[52] 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.[54] 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, 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.[52] 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 e.g. emphasis on procedures, contingent reward, management by exception) and "transformational" leadership (characterized by e.g. charisma, personal relationships, creativity).[41]

[Group leadership 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 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.[56] 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.[57]

According to the National School Boards Association (USA):[58] 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.

Primates

Mark van Vugt and Anjana Ahuja in Naturally Selected: The Evolutionary Science of Leadership present evidence of leadership in nonhuman 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 can be found in other social species, too.[59] Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, inDemonic 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 uniting behind the one chief male of the land.[60] 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 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.[citation needed] If one looks before these times, it is noticed that Pagan and Earth-based tribes in fact had female leaders.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed] The current day patrilineal custom is only a recent invention in human history and our original method of familial practices were matrilineal.[citation needed] The fundamental assumption that has been built into most of the world's countries is that patriarchy is the natural biological predisposition of homo sapiens. Unfortunately, this belief has led to the widespread oppression of women in all of those countries, in varying degrees. The Iroquoian First Nations tribes are an example of a matrilineal tribe, along with Mayan tribes, and also the society of Meghalaya, India.[citation needed] 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.

However, not all scientists agree on the allegedly peaceful nature of the bonobo or its reputation as a "hippie chimp".[2] ]Historical views Sanskrit literature identifies ten types of leaders. Defining characteristics of the ten types of leaders are explained with examples from history and mythology.[61] 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 familias. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may object to such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensualempathetic 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[62] 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 litism came withLeninism, which demanded an lite group of disciplined cadres to act as

the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence thedictatorship of the proletariat. Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines ofCaesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasizedstewardship of divinely-provided resourceshuman and materialand 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.

Leadership 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).[63] [64] Leadership is innate According to some, leadership is determined by distinctive dispositional characteristics present at birth (e.g., extraversion; intelligence;ingenuity). However, it is important to note that leadership also develops through hard work and careful observation. [65] 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). [65] 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. [66] Moreover, it has been documented that group performance,[67]creativity,[68] and efficiency [69] all tend to climb in businesses with designated managers or CEOs. However, the difference leaders make isnot 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.[70] 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. [71] 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,[72][73] are limited in size, are free from stressful decisionmaking,[74] 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).

[edit]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, [65] most people actually prefer to be led than to be without a leader (Berkowitz, 1953).[75] 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). [76] Action-oriented environments One approach to team leadership examines action-oriented environments, where effective functional leadership is required to achieve critical or reactive tasks by small teams deployed into the field. In other words, there is leadership of small groups often created to respond to a situation or critical incident. 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. Titles emphasizing authority At certain stages in their development, the hierarchies of social ranks implied different degrees or ranks of leadership in society. Thus aknight 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 to 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 subordinates employ 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 that use definite articles) emphasizes the existence of a sole "true" leader. Critical thought Noam Chomsky[77] and others[78] have brought critical thinking to the very concept of leadership 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 is rather satisfying to 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). The fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the leadership principle is challenged by the introduction of concepts such as autogestion,employeeship, common civic virtue, etc., which stress individual responsibility and/or group authority in the work place and elsewhere 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 are attributed to a misplaced reliance on the principle of leadership. Varieties of individual power According to Patrick J. Montana and Bruce H. Charnov, the ability to attain these unique powers is what enables leadership to influence subordinates and peers by controlling organizational resources. The successful leader effectively uses these powers to influence employees, and it is important for leaders to understand the uses of power to strengthen their leadership. The authors distinguish the following types of organizational power:

Legitimate Power refers to the different types of professional positions within an organization structure that inherit such power (e.g. Manager, Vice President, Director, Supervisor, etc.). These levels of power correspond to the hierarchical executive levels within the organization itself. The higher positions, such as president of the company, have higher power than the rest of the professional positions in the hierarchical executive levels.

Reward Power is the power given to managers that attain administrative power over a range of rewards (such as raises and promotions). Employees who work for managers desire the reward from the manager and will be influenced by receiving it as a result of work performance.

Coercive Power is the manager's ability to punish an employee. Punishment can be mild, such as a suspension, or serious, such as termination.

Expert Power is attained by the manager due to his or her own talents such as skills, knowledge, abilities, or previous experience. A manager who has this power within the organization may be a very valuable and important manager in the company.

Charisma Power: a manager who has charisma will have a positive influence on workers, and create the opportunity for interpersonal influence.

Referent Power is a power that is gained by association. A person who has power by association is often referred to as an assistant or deputy.

Information Power is gained by a person who has possession of important information at an important time when such information is needed to organizational functioning.]

References
Notes

1.

^ Chemers M. (1997) An integrative theory of leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. ISBN 9780805826791

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

^ Locke et al. 1991 ^ (Richards & Engle, 1986, p.206) ^ http://qualities-of-a-leader.com/trait-approach/ ^

a b c

Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 6-16.

^ Bass, B.M. & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

7. 8.

^ Bird, C. (1940). Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century. ^ Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

9.

^ Mann, R.D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.

10. ^ a b Kenny, D.A. & Zaccaro, S.J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 678-685. 11. ^ a b c Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L., & Alliger, G.M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leader perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410. 12. ^ Arvey, R.D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. The Leadership Qua

Further reading
  Argyris, C. (1976) Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, Wiley, New York, 1976 (even though published in 1976, this still remains a "standard" reference text) Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and applications. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. *Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12. (pp. 277307): John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F., & Weber, T. J. (in press). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology. Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research: Permission Set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY, US: Free Press. Bennis, W. (1989) On Becoming a Leader, Addison Wesley, New York, 1989 Borman, W. C., & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements. Human Performance, 6(1), 1-21.