Historical Perspective of Leadership Main Blog Page Leadership Theories
The origins of leadership analysis started with the study of political and religious rulers back in biblical times. However, the term leadership only appeared in the Oxford English dictionary starting at the beginning of the 19th century. Bass (1990) said that leadership research is nothing more than the study of history. Historically, top level leaders were prophets, chiefs, kings, pharaohs, gods, and idols. In modern times, these labels changed to head of state, military commander, and president. The study of leadership concepts is the study of rulers and commanders. Many of the leaders recorded by historians have their roots in the engagement of conflict, specifically generals whose strategy was better than that of their opponents. Additionally, politicians who moved groups into action, people who took control of a crisis, and special individuals whose actions were pivotal to their followers were also documented.
Leadership has many different definitions and there is little consensus among scholars on a standard definition of leadership (Gardner, 1990, p. 5). Gardner (1990) defines leadership as the process of influencing others to follow a leader’s vision. Robbins (2001) defines leadership as the ability to influence an individual or group to the attainment of a shared goal. In contrast, Senge (1990) classifies leaders as people who are responsible for expanding an individual’s capabilities by clarifying vision, improving mental well being, and expanding horizons (pp. 318-320).
Although a clear definition of leadership is not apparent, scholars agree that the universally accepted definition of leadership is confusing and contradictory. This state of confusion and contradiction can be attributed to the significant number of leadership theories and styles, the limited scope of research projects, and the deficiency of leadership theories that often fail to integrate results from various origins within a cultural, organizational, and environmental change framework.
Scholars seem to agree on the concept that leadership is about getting people to follow. Leadership is influencing others to follow a shared goal (Maxwell, 1998, p. 17).
One of the issues with leadership in today’s organizations is that people tend to associate leadership with management. Even though managers have followers, their role does not converge with the full definition of leadership. Robbins (2001) defines a manager as a person who gets things done by directing others to achieve goals. Managers are involved in decisions, resource allocation, determining priorities, and setting the goals of followers. Managers only manage within an organization while leaders may lead without an organization (Gardner, 1990, p. 4). Historians have indicated that Martin Luther King, Jr. was an extraordinary leader even though he did not have a formal organization under his command (Gardner, 1990, p. 4).
According to Gardner (1990), a leader stands out from managers in several areas, such as:
• Leaders think about long-term goals
• Leaders think out of the box, they see the overall picture
• Leaders influence people beyond their immediate circle
• Leaders create the vision and emphasize value, character, and relationships
• A leader possesses the political skills to resolve conflicts between followers, peers, superiors, and
others under their influence
• Leaders are always thinking about change
Leaders inspire people to achieve while managers are primarily concerned with managing tasks (Gardner, 1990, p. 4). A leader’s objective is to bring out individual strengths and knowledge in each person. (Drucker, 2001, p. 81).
References can be found by Clicking here:
