To understand the issue presented in the research, one has to start with an explanation of leadership as a concept. Many definitions of the term “leadership” have been introduced in scholarship, each of them focusing on a particular area or philosophy. As Winston and Patterson (2006) note, the abundance of such descriptions may be explained by the researchers’ reliance on isolated variables. Thus, the authors argue that by locating and combining these variables, one can create the most encompassing description of leadership. Winston and Patterson (2006) offer such dimensions of leadership as encouragement, trust, togetherness, clarity, collaboration, team building, fresh thinking, servanthood, empowerment, and more than 80 other characteristics. This integrative description covers the central notions connected to leadership and shows that it is a combination of personal qualities, communicative and professional skills, as well as social awareness and work experience.
This definition, however, it challenging to present in a short and explainable form since all of the discussed descriptors are equally important in forming a leader. Kruse (2013) takes a different approach to defining this concept by initially discussing what leadership is not. First of all, it is not a position of seniority or higher status in an organization’s hierarchy. Executive power is not connected to being a leader, similar to one’s title. Second, the author denounces the connection between leadership and personal attributes, arguing that charisma does not equate to leadership in all situations (Kruse, 2013). Finally, management and leadership are differentiated, the former being a specific occupation with duties and clear organizational objectives. Eliminating the descriptions that do not fit the term, Kruse (2013) concludes that leadership is a “process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others, towards the achievement of a goal” (para. 11). Here, such critical elements as the social factor, a variety of approaches, and goal achievement are highlighted.
However, the definitions presented above do not reveal the major scale of research that was conducted to understand what underlying qualities, traits, or skills can an individual possess or acquire to be considered a leader. The history of this term is a vital element in discussing contemporary approaches. Early theories’ evaluation may show how the concept evolved both in research and real-life and allow one to deepen the knowledge of the subject.
The question of what defines a true leader has interested researchers for centuries. The scholarly investigation into the concept of “leadership” began in the nineteenth century, but the idea was expressed as early as in the ancient texts in Sanskrit, Greek, and Chinese (Allio, 2013). Therefore, the researchers started examining the ideas, using the most recognizable rulers throughout history – Napoleon, Caesar, Mao Zedong, and many others (Hunt & Fedynich, 2019). While their governing styles drastically differed from each other, the role of these persons in the lives of other people was in some way related to this sphere of knowledge. The exploration of early academic studies, as a result, focused on these individuals, presenting theories based on separate and inherent qualities.
One of the first ideas considered by scholars was the “Great Man Theory.” It was introduced in the nineteenth century and fully relied its principles on the available knowledge about the “great men” – heroes and conquerors who led people or changed the course of history in a meaningful way (Antonakis & Day, 2012). As this viewpoint considered a limited number of persons and focused on specific achievements, the conclusion was made that the identity of a leader is inherent and unique rather than acquirable and universal (Hunt & Fedynich, 2019).
References & bibliography
Antonakis, J., & Day, D. V. (Eds.). (2012). The nature of leadership (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hunt, T., & Fedynich, L. (2019). Leadership: Past, present, and future: An evolution of an idea. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 8(2), 20-26.
Kruse, K. (2013, April 9). What is leadership? Forbes. Web.
Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6-66.
Allio, R. J. (2013). Leaders and leadership – Many theories, but what advice is reliable? Strategy & Leadership, 4(1), 4-14.