Leadership

Examples of leadership throughout human history and various cultures, differ in style, strength, and effectiveness. Though most have the same general interpretation of its meaning, what seem like subtle variations in what people refer to as leadership, may not be so subtle after all. Leadership by one definition, can completely contrast leadership by another, but all can coexist under the definition of “the action or influence necessary for the direction or organization of effort in a group undertaking.” (Leadership Def. 1). There are different approaches to leadership, and certainly different opinions of effective leadership, but all that is required to be defined as leadership is functionally guiding or directing a group (Leadership Def. 3). By this definition, one could argue that those who are called “leaders” do not always display leadership, and leadership does not necessarily have to emanate from them. For example, the President and “leader” of the United States may make a decision for the country as a result of pressures from special interest groups. Conversely, a senator not widely recognized as a “leader,” may support a position that is unpopular with interest groups because he or she believes it will positively influence the country. Is the President displaying leadership despite the fact that he himself is not influencing the decision and direction of the country as much as the interest groups? Does the senator display leadership despite the fact that his or her stance may not be the one that is ultimately taken by the country? This then begs the question, what is leadership?
 * The Evolution of Leadership and How it Has Remained the Same **
 * Tyler Lipositz **

 The word “leadership,” as indicated by the Oxford English Dictionary, is comprised of three roots: “lead”, “er”, and “ship. The word “lead” has etymology tracing back to Old High German and Latin. It has always referred to the current meaning of “to guide” or “conduct” but there is evidence of it denoting “a journey” or “a road.” The possible evolution from “journey” or “road” makes sense because many believe that leading is the action of directing a journey, or guiding others on a road, both literally and figuratively. The suffix “er” has Latin origins, and again, does not differ much from today’s usage of it. Originally, it denoted, “a man who has to do with,” the infinitive of the verb it follows. This is the case with the word “leader” as is refers to a man, or woman who has to do with “leading.” Today it can be used to refer to “one who specializes in,” like a “commander” or “one who hails from” such as the word “southerner”. The suffix “ship” traces origins back prior to fifteenth century Old English, with variations of the suffix seen in languages such as German and Dutch. It first referred to “creation” or “creature” of the adjective it follows. An example would be the Old English Work “Drunkenship,” meaning the creation or creature of being a “drunken.” Today it means “the condition of being” what is expressed by the preceding noun. This is the case with “leadership” as it is expressing the condition of being a leader. Its original usage does not stray far from its usage today. Interestingly, there are many exceptions to its rule of meaning. It is difficult to apply the same meaning of the suffix “ship,” as found in the word “leadership,” to a word such as “penmanship.” If one were to do this, penmanship would be defined as the condition of being a penman, when in today’s usage it is simply a synonym of handwriting. With its three roots are broken down into their basic meanings, leadership can be defined as the condition of being one who guides or influences, or more simply, one who displays guidance or influence.  Over the past few hundred years, more specific definitions of leadership have evolved. During the 1800’s, the word “leadership” found in most texts, almost exclusively referred to political power, or formal authority (“Is the leadership of the House to be conservatively settled by placing the minority in office?” (Leadership Def 1, OED Online, 1834)). But as time passed, examples of leadership became broader (“Few of the editors of mass-circulation newspapers since 1830 have risked their careers to exert strong leadership in the community.” (Leadership Def 1, OED Online, 1963)). This change could have resulted from the elevation of the appreciation of various social roles, such as parents or teachers. People now a days seem to have a greater appreciation for the qualities that effective leaders display, and therefore do not shy away from labeling those with similar qualities as displaying leadership. As a result, those who display what is now referred to as, “leadership,” are highly valued amongst groups in society.  It is clear that leadership in different cultures is interpreted in vastly different ways as well. The examples in an article written by Ronald H. Heck regarding school leadership in different cultures, can be used as a representation of what these cultures interpret leadership as. In western nations that focus more on the wellbeing and productivity of the individual as opposed to the group, leadership is de-centralized, instructional, and has limited authority (Heck). This can result in productive communication, a greater ability to locate and solve problems within the group, and the ability to develop and change a group’s direction (Heck). It can also result in a blurry power structure with undefined leaders. Conversely, leadership in Asian and Pacific nations is more centralized (Heck). Clear power structures are implemented, goals are clearly defined, and there is a strong focus on program improvement (Heck). Unfortunately, this can also leads to a member’s fear of taking of initiative without permission, and the intimidation of higher ranking officials (Heck). One commonality of those groups that achieve their goals and fulfill expectations is effective leadership. This is almost intuitive when defining leadership in terms of the influence upon actions. Most arguments over what it means to display leadership stem from the question “How much power should a leader maintain?” As the brilliant Donelson Forsyth points out, leadership, whether it is autocratic, democratic, or laissez faire, is still leadership, and all can prove effective in the right situations, and ineffective in the wrong ones (Forsyth 7-10). Research has shown that in small task oriented groups autocratically led groups (groups with a supremely powerful and clearly defined leader) “were slightly more productive…..in completing various group tasks,” (Vugt, Jepson, Hart, Cremer) than comparable democratically or laissez faire led groups. But one consequence is that “there was more discontent, hostility, and aggression,” (Vugt, Jepson, Hart, Cremer) as well. Democratic leadership has proven to provide an “environment that supports participation, sharing of ideas, and the virtues” (Klinker 54) amongst all members, which can prove effective in small to moderately sized groups with a defined purpose, such as a sports team. However, democratic leadership has its flaws. Democracies require all members to be educated on most if not all important matters, and lack of widespread knowledge on important issues can lead to poor decision making (Klinker 61). Laissez Faire leadership is a “hands off” approach to leadership, in which the leader only provides materials, organization, and oversight to the group, and no input with regard to decision making. This style proves effective in groups that already contain highly skilled and motivated members, but chaotic or unproductive if these traits are not present (Chaudhry 259, 264). Leadership over time has changed, and leadership between various cultures contrast. But when being broadly defined as the guidance or influence of decisions, leadership has always remained constant. Whether it is the leadership of Jesus, Ronald Reagan, or one’s father, each have guided and influenced the decisions of those whom they are leading. As to which method reigns superior, that question will forever be debated.

Forsyth, D. R. Group Dynamics: Overview. Retrieved from Blackboard September 9, 2013. Heck, R. H. (1996). Leadership and culture conceptual and methodological issues in comparing models across cultural settings. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 74-97. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220456385?accountid=14731 September 29, 2013 Klinker, J. (2006). Qualities of Democracy: Links to Democratic Leadership. Journal of Thought, 51-63. Retrieved September 27, 2013. Leadership [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In OED Online Retrieved September 9, 2013, from <span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,non-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 2em;">http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/106604?redirectedFrom=leadership#eid <span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,non-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 2em;">Leadership [Def. 3]. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com Retrieved September 9, 2013, from <span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,non-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 2em;">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leadership <span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,non-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 2em;">Vugt, M. V., Jepson, S. F., Hart, C. M., & Cremer, D. D. (2004). Autocratic Leadership in Social Dilemmas: <span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,non-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 2em;">A Threat to Group Stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 1-13. Retrieved <span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,non-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 2em;">September 26, 2013. <span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,non-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 2em;">