Talk:Leadership

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:BusinessWikiProject Business articles	WikiProject Business	(Rated B-Class)
	Business and economics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale. This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it.

PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:PhilosophyPhilosophy articles	WikiProject Philosophy
	Philosophy portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Social and political philosophy

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Criticism 1.1 A new approach 1.2 Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia 1.3 Perspective of leadership 1.4 Lack of Scholarship 2 Suggestions 2.1 leaders 2.2 History of Leadership 2.3 Article length 2.4 Ringleader 2.5 Leadership Readiness 2.6 Leadership in primates 2.7 The citation 2.8 Bad quality standard section 2.9 The embodiment of leadership 2.10 Leadership by Rudolph Guliani 3 More work is (still) needed 3.1 Transformational leadership 4 Materials removed 4.1 The geoleader 4.2 List of leadership qualities without reference 4.3 Suggested qualities of leadership 4.4 Some paragraphs removed 4.5 Theories of Leadership 4.6 Leadership cycles 4.7 Moved to talk for discussion 4.8 Leadership in politics 4.8.1 Representative democracy 4.9 Removal from criticisms section 4.10 Leadership and vision 4.11 Environment leader 5 Bibliography 5.1 General references 6 Text that have citations but need strong revision 7 managerial grid/Wikipedia 8 Semi-Protection 9 leadership and emotions 10 historical context

[edit] Criticism

[edit] A new approach

I propose a new way forward on this. I have contributed a short summary on leadership, which opens the path to separate articles on organisational leadership (House, Fiedler &c &c &c), and on leadership in other areas (eg military, sport). I hope this is helpful. Deipnosophista 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a better way to start would be to define Leader objectively, since it is an easier word to define, e.g., one who directs or influences the actions of others. Then proceed to define leadership very sparsely, e.g. a character trait or ability that makes a leader effective. Adding any more to this definition would not be objective, since it is a matter of opinion as to what exactly makes a leader effective or good. This article should include a representative list of official roles that are considered leaders, e.g. kings, generals, coaches, executives, etc. and the corresponding "others" that they lead. There could also be a list of famous individuals that are considered to have had great leadership ability historically, although that would of course be a matter of opinion. Napoleon and Roosevelt come to mind. Probably also a mention that people can lead without having any officially given title, like Joan of Arc or Martin Luther King, Jr. Lay the foundation with cold facts, then y'alls can get into your theories about what makes a good leader. I think the theories mentioned should preferably be those that have had the most influence on society, not necessarily what people believe to be most accurate, since again, the very nature of leadership is extremely subjective, hence the terrible state of this article. Plato's Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince seem like good candidates. Maybe Sun Tzu's Art of War. I'm not familiar with more modern theories since it seems like the waters are muddied with a bunch of hacks just trying to sell books.--Edwardstirling (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, meaning the content should be Objective. Please guys, this is not a biography nor a place to spread your theories or what you think. Please, don't add a section starting with "According to John Smith", while you are, in fact, John Smith. Thanks for your understanding. This article is already very very bad right now it's almost unreadable. Thanks!

Is not an encyclopedia a place to look for "notble" theories and information. I have noted that there are many Biogrphies and Theories already included, John C Maxwell, Tom Peters, Ken Blachard. These are All Americans, I do Assume this is not just for Americans or for those only known to Americans.

Steve Coldwell (Malaysia) 211.24.170.130 09:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

i agree, why should leadership gurus be exclusive to the perseption of americans. there are many influential leadership gurus in asia also, and not political ones who make a difference for better leadership in multinational companies. we asians have oppinions too, but it not agreed by all americans. Lily 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perspective of leadership

IMHO, the front article has mainly dealt with

• Transformational perspective
• Competency perspective

It could be good if we mention something about these other perspectives

• Romance perspective
• Behavioral perspective
• Contingency perspective

Oh, and some guy Fred Fiedler that success of a leader depend on how well matched his natural leadership style matches the situation on hand, kind of go against the path-goal leadership theory. Some lame tools Leadership Grid may fall somewhere in the article

It might make more sense to lay the page out by the major schools of leadership theory:

• Trait/Skills
• Behavior
• Contingency
• Relational
• Principled
• Ethical
• Transformational/Transactional

Then move to leadership in an applied setting:

• Business settings
• Small Teams and Groups
• Military
• Political

[edit] Lack of Scholarship

This article is so poorly written as to defy description. An article on leadership that makes no mention at all of its true function, which is to manage the overall production of goods and services that enable the standard of living a society requires. It is almost like this article was written in a "vacuum", a veritable "dream state" of contributors repeating what they read in some old book or magazine. There is literally no thinking going on at all in the contributions to this article, they are just "cut and paste". Just think about it, without production who needs leaders? If as human beings we decided we weren't going to produce anything anymore, leadership would not be necessary except at the most basic tribal level for common defence. Oh, by the way, those tribal leaders all got wiped out by leaders who oversaw the production of superior weapons. So it is the volume and type of production that a leader oversees that they derive their power from. Please make an effort to write an article that has even the slightest bit of truth and analysis. Oh, by the way, the "natural born leader" is one who disagrees with everyone else, you can put that in too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.229.151 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on "Primate Leadership" is a regurgitation of Feminist Critical Thinking 101. And what Chomsky has to say, in the grand tradition of Marx and Freud, is completely irrelevant. Chomsky has expertise in certain areas of language and syntax. Otherwise he is about as scholarly as a newspaper editorial. I am chopping some of this out.

Please do not delete text without making at least a token effort to discuss and to reach concensus. I agree that the article is awful and needs serious work on it, but the talk page is where editors can discuss changes aimed at improving the article, and Wikipedia in general. --Technopat (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

[edit] leaders

if the following is not in here anywhere, it should be: true leaders figure out how to motivate people toward the goal. they learn how to energize a team. if someone on the team gives a leader trouble the leader must not take it personally and must continue to figure out how to motivate the team member and how to energize persons by way of those persons' membership within a team. A leader's demeanor must be steady. a leader's authority is only truly undermined when he/she cannot effectively motivate the team toward the goal. TheBridge 07:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, the artical need´s to be devided into Leader and Leadership. My understanding of Leader is one who Lea´s, as Franz Bengtsson explained in his book Karl XII Life, the Hero King, "he did not point and say, "go and fight" but standing at the head of his army turnd to them and said "come" and led them into battle. Or as General Longstreet said to General Lee at Gettysburg, "I cain´t lead from behind" when Lee requasted that he stay behind the line. Leadership seem to me more of an organizaional term. Rytter 1 Dec. 2008

[edit] History of Leadership

What's going on with these two sentences under the subheading Historical Views on Leadership?

"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 damn such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance and matriarchies."

Is the bold type there for a reason to which I'm oblivious?

The sentence structure seems a little awkward and unclear.

Also, this sentence is incomplete:

"(Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back aant leadership]]."

[edit] Article length

Does anyone else think this article should be split into multiple articles on leadership? I think a history of leadership article and another on theories of leadership would make good splits. Thoughts? --Noetic Sage 04:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

ME AGREE LONGTIME

[edit] Ringleader

I'm not sure that "ringleader" ought to redirect to leadership. It seems more appropriate to redirect it to the article about Ringmasters, and perhaps acknowledge in the ringmasters article that the term "ringleader" can be used in a somewhat slang sense to describe any form of leader. Does anyone else agree? --65.28.73.99 03:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree "ringleader" seems more to fit the definition of "Management" -Recon10096

[edit] Leadership Readiness

Leadership is a much written and talked about term. We have seen authors and management gurus talking about leadership styles, theories and even how great leaders worked to rise to the occasion to save the day for their nations. There are numerous articles and material available on internet as well. A simple search for the term “leadership” in Google will give you approximately 164,000,000 (164 million) results. So what is different about this course titled “Leadership Readiness” being taught at SZABIST (Karachi, Pakistan) for the first time by Mr. Wali Zahid? It is not about the above mentioned questions. It is about what it takes to become a leader. What factors are involved in shaping up a leader, in preparing him / her to take up the leadership role, getting him / her ready to be precise? It is a prologue to leadership or becoming a leader. In studying the various aspects of readiness and during various brainstorming sessions in class we have developed a leadership readiness model. These and other documents shall be posted on the blog specifically made for it. http://readiness.wordpress.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fnaik (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership in primates

Someone needs to fix this section, Humans are equally related to both Chimps and Bonobos.

I personally belive this to be in the wrong section. this artcle is in the "Business" project. do we dare remove it? or at least move it to the right location

ChrisTW (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)I think this section has been recently rewritten and adds an interesting perspective on leadership which naturally isn't limited to the business context. It could be made more relevant to leadership ChrisTW (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The citation

The citation removed from this article (see history) may, if anybody finds it important, be inserted in Wikiquote instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad quality standard section

I had to move the following section "The embodiment of leadership" from the article to here, because of several issues, which need to be sorted out before reinsertion of anything of it:

• It's just a citation. To meet Wikipedia quality standards, the gist of it need to be found and reinserted.
• That "medical research" need citation before any reinsertion
• It needs more concrete, encyclopaedic explanation. As for now it's actually rather confusing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The embodiment of leadership

Most research into leadership mistakenly focused on cognitive and intellectual processes, forgetting the important fact that every cognitive process is an embodied process. In the book Leading People the Black Belt Way, Timothy Warneka accurately points out that, “Great leadership begins with the body.”

People are living, organic beings, and medical research is increasingly recognizing the truth that mind and body are, in fact, one. While we often speak about mind and body as separate entities, great leaders understand that mind and body are, in reality, two sides of the same coin. Superior leaders recognize further that an awareness of their own physical selves is a critical component of their success. In a very real way, our toes, stomachs, and shoulders are on equal footing (pardon the pun) with our thoughts and ideas. As with any other tool, however, leaders must be trained to use embodied leadership technology appropriately and effectively.

In leadership, as in the martial arts, your stance is critical to your success. If you have a weak stance, then every way you lead will be fundamentally flawed. For example, if you have a weak stance in your emotional life, then you will have significant difficulties when you attempt to lead other people relationally. Recalling that we are embodied beings, I do not mean the word stance to be understood only metaphorically. I am also using the word stance in the literal sense, in terms of how leaders actually carry themselves physically when they lead others. Learning embodied stance will deepen your capacity for experiencing your own emotions, and better equip you to cope with the emotions of others, from the lighthearted to the highly conflicted. Your stance, you will learn, has a very literal, not to mention enormous impact on your ultimate success as a leader^[1].

[edit] Leadership by Rudolph Guliani

I was looking for Leadership by Rudolph Guliani, but it redirected me here. I am curious if there is any reference to the book.--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See Leadership (book). Kuru ^talk 12:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

--Michael Billington (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More work is (still) needed

A lot of work needs doing here. Let's start with structuring the article, keeping edits within the structure, and all making a commitment to using only referenced material. I am removing any content that is irrelevant and unreferenced as a start ChrisTW (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

Some good improvements have been made, and I think it's time to move work that is not up to standard to the discussion to leave the main article reasonably professional. I have moved Leadership Cycles and Leadership in Politics to the discussion so far. ChrisTW (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree a lot of work is necessary. I particularly liked the suggestion of structure bellow, that is not signed and I am repeating here.

It might make more sense to lay the page out by the major schools of leadership theory:

* Trait/Skills

* Behavioral Style

* Situational Leadership

* Contingency theory

* Relational

* Principled

* Ethical

* Transformational/Transactional

Then move to leadership in an applied setting:

* Business settings

* Small Teams and Groups

* Military

* Political

I can work on the leadership theories in a separate article, trying to clean up/expand the theories, and then summarize in the main article. Thoughts? --Editor br (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I began to expand the trait/skill theory and welcome comments. --Editor br (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The following suggested structure is not exhaustive since there are so many leadership theories. I have changed "behavior" to "behavioral style" since this is a major theory and all theories involve behavior. Situational theories are important and should be included. More needs to be said about Transformational Leadership.

I would like to see the contexts of leadership section tidied up. I suggest removing politics and primates until they can be written in a scholarly fashion. I think Thomas Carlyle is overdone - this isn't an article about Thomas Carlyle although a link could be placed from this article to his shrine ChrisTW (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I am working in other articles in -en and -pt, but I will come back to this one later. According to Heifetz, there are four main schools of thought in leadership: 1) trait (leaders have certain characteristics), 2) situational (the situation defines the type of leadership and leader), 3) conditional (synthesis of trait and situational), 4) transactional (emphasis on leader-follower exchanges). There are also two types of approaches, A) descriptive (explain how leader behaves), B) prescriptive (explain how you should behave to become one). In prescriptive approach there is a lot of crap, so we need to sort some things out. I will try to work on bringing more scholarship and fixing the text in the next few weeks. Cheers, Editor br (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking about a 'scope of leadership' section as well - traditional studies on leadership where related to the concept of authority as a way to provide protection, direction and order in groups. Early studies where predominantly about military and political leaders. There is also studies that define the scope of leadership as change. I will write down a proposal of a different outline in a while, if I can. Editor br (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transformational leadership

Transformational Leadership (Bass; Kouzes & Posner) is a relatively new theory and deserves more lengthy treatment.ChrisTW (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris, lately I've been busy with Wiki-pt and Marketing, so I left Leadership aside. I will work on it as soon as I can. I will take a look at the material on Transformational leadership and include the text. Editor br (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked the article on Transformational leadership, and I have the Burns book at home. I can also check the other two references you cited when I go back, checking them out of the Univ's library. I am out of town, so I probably will read them early February. If I understood it correctly, transformational leadership as defined by Burns is still a follower-leader relationship (leader motivate follower, follower motivate leader), which would place within the scope of transactional theories. I favor Heifetz four schools of thought (as outlined above), as it is sucint, comprehensive enough and mutually exclusive (MECE). The problem is that I will only work on it late January, cannot promise working on more deepen research earlier than that... Editor br (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Materials removed

[edit] The geoleader

this seems to be more leadership characteristics than a "style". this is a copy of what was removed, perhaps it would be better suited in Leadersip characteristics, any ideas?

"The geoleader ( Wibbeke, 2008)^[2] is the one who recognizes that cultures are always evolving and one's own intercultural education never ends. This leader realizes that to be effective in intercultural situations, there must be development of sufficient personal and organization capability. This leader must shift from the old mechanistic mindsets of the industrial era to the flexible adaptive perspective of organizational life as what it is, a complex socio-cultural system. This leader develops the ability to perceive, discern, and adapt to the situations within which they work, to suspend judgment, and are able to work comfortably and effectively with ambiguity. This leader maintains a self-awareness in order to lead effectively in intercultural situations. Finally, this leader holds and maintains equal concern for the bottom line and for stakeholder groups despite background or location."

[edit] List of leadership qualities without reference

As there is no references, this list has no encyclopedic value, so I removed. Any objections? --Editor br (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Suggested qualities of leadership

Checked this reference and this is a list of leadership qualities that the Bristow company looks for. Questionable and not according to Wikipedia standards. Reference is an internal journal. Any objections? --Editor br (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In 2008 Burman and Evans^[3] published a 'charter' for leaders:

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

[edit] Some paragraphs removed

I have removed:

"Yet other usages have a leadership which does not lead, but to which one simply shows respect (compare the courtesy title reverend)."

To have leadership without leading is an oxymoron. mydogategodshat 02:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have also removed:

"such entities encourage their followers and believers to worship leadership, to respect it, and to strive to become proficient in it. Followers in such a situation may become uncritically obedient."

If these followers are becoming so proficient in leadership, how is it that they are also becoming uncritically obedient? mydogategodshat 02:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theories of Leadership

The Ronald Heifitz Lone Ranger comparison is incomplete.

(previous post did not have a signature. What follows below is not connected with the Lone Ranger comment)

This section and some other apparently "self-created" sections mingle commercial leadership consultants in with theorists. Without debating the potential value of what Messrs. Carmazzi, Farr and others who have inserted links to their consulting home pages, these shameless self-promoters have blended themselves in with the likes of Burns, Heifetz, House and others who are genuine, reconized theoreticians in the field.

If you do split this page, please park these folks under something called Leadership Training or Consulting, and provide more nuanced analysis of the real scholarship in the field.

This page is at best a good start on the topic. The references at the end are both thin and out of date. 209.244.187.99 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to actually CHECK the credentials Before you include your own SELF Judgement of "Recognised" theorist. by nature those whos "theories" actually work, are in the consulting business - What are your credentials to determine what works and what does not? this page had some good quotes and material the WAS ACTUALLY USEFUL before it was deleted. And if you think that not recognising who came up with theories just because they are in business, then thats would be just stealing.

Steven Coldwell 211.24.170.130 08:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership cycles

If a group or an organization wants or expects identifiable leadership, it will require processes for appointing/acquiring and replacing leaders.^{[citation needed]}

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

Competence or perceived competence provides a possible basis for selecting leadership elites from a broader pool of potential talent. Political lobbying may prove necessary in electoral systems, but immediately demonstrated skill and character may secure leadership in smaller groups such as gangs.^{[citation needed]}

Many organizations and groups aim to identify, grow, foster and promote what they see as leadership potential or ability - especially among younger members of society. See for example the Scouting movement. For a specific environment, see leadership development.^{[citation needed]}

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

[edit] Moved to talk for discussion

The following two subsections, originally second-level headings after "Leadership in organizations", were added in place of sourced material that even included internal links to related articles. This new information appears to be from a consulting company, so WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:COPY are all concerns as well as proper referencing. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Leadership In Today's World

One of the most important traits as a leader is to lead by example. Followers are able to see for themselves the leader’s values and to use the cliché, actions does speak louder than words. In various teambuilding programmes, facilitators frequently come across frustrated employees who could be model workers but are instead, totally demotivated by the actions, of their leaders.

Many bosses seem to feel that since they are the ones at the top, no one has the right to question their actions. These same bosses will soon realize if they didn’t already, that they are sadly mistaken. Unhappy workers generally result in a drop in productivity and in extreme cases, the employees just look for greener pastures!

Another important trait would be that the leader must feel personally responsible for his resources particularly, the human resource. In the mad chase to achieve our own personal goals, most of us tend to forget that we are dealing with humans, with the ability to feel and think.

An effective leader should also be aware of the needs of the group he is leading and the needs of the individuals. If he is to push for his personal needs alone without consideration for the rest of the members, the leader at the end of the day, may find himself the only member left in the team. This may be the most difficult and tedious among all the necessary traits but as with all natural laws, the higher the sacrifice, the bigger the gain. The outcome of this characteristic would more likely than not result in more permanency of the team.

[edit] Leadership in politics

The following isn't yet ready for the article because it is more about political systems than leadership.ChrisTW (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Representative democracy

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

Values-based leadership

According to D'Jungle People Experiential Consultants, great leaders are those with strong foundation with values such as honesty, integrity, fairness and kindness. These virtues in the leader and the members of his team minimizes politicking, in-fighting, back-stabbing and mutual suspicion etc. and who better to set the example than the leader?

With strong values, great leaders are those that are able to cascade down the values throughout the whole organisation and at the same time, enabling team members to achieve their potential.

[edit] Removal from criticisms section

I've removed the following block of text from the "Criticism of the concept of leadership" due to the amount of bias contained in it:

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

If anyone has a particular need for this idea to appear in the article, then it will most likely need re-writing and a source to support it.

[edit] Leadership and vision

Removed this text as it is uncited and depicts only one perspective about the topic. Editor br (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

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

• appear as a simple, yet vibrant, image in the mind of the leader
• describe a future state, credible and preferable to the present state
• act as a bridge between the current state and a future optimum state
• appear desirable enough to energize followers
• succeed in speaking to followers at an emotional or spiritual level (logical appeals by themselves seldom muster a following)^{[citation needed]}

For leadership to occur, according to this theory, some people "leaders" must communicate the vision to others "followers" in such a way that the followers adopt the vision as their own. Leaders must not just see the vision themselves, they must have the ability to get others to see it also. Numerous techniques aid in this process, including: narratives, metaphors, symbolic actions, leading by example,incentives, and penalty|penalties.^{[citation needed]}

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

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

[edit] Environment leader

Non-notable work to be together with other theories of significant presence in peer-reviewed journals. Editor br (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The environment leader ( Carmazzi, 2005)^[4] is the one who nurtures group or organizational environment to affect the emotional and psychological perception of an individual’s place in that group or organization. An understanding and application of group psychology and dynamics is essential for this style to be effective. The leader uses organizational culture to inspire individuals and develop leaders at all levels. This leadership style relies on creating an education matrix where groups interactively learn the fundamental psychology of group dynamics and culture from each other. The leader uses this psychology, and complementary language, to influence direction through the members of the inspired group to do what is required for the benefit of all.

[edit] Bibliography

Books that are listed in the references, but no longer are cited in the text. I am keeping it here until I finish the restructuring of the article. Editor br (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Other bibliography

• 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. 277-307): 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. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY, US: Free Press.
• Borman, W. C., & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements. Human Performance, 6(1), 1-21.
• Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business: a long-term AT&T study of managerial lives: Wiley, New York.
• Campbell, J. (1990). An overview of the Army selection and classification project. Personnel Psychology, 43, 231-240.
• Campbell, J., McCloy, R., Oppler, S., & Sager, C. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in organizations (pp. 35-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Day, D. V., & Lord, R. G. (1988). Executive leadership and organizational performance: suggestions for a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, 14(3), 453-464.
• Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2002). Leadership in organizations. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, Volume 2: Organizational psychology. (pp. 166-187): Sage Publications, Inc.
• Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 1-6.
• Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245-287.
• Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A Theory of Team Coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269-287.
• Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 72-119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Hogan, R., Curphy, C. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504.
• Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: advancing age and changing times: New York: Guilford Press.
• Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in Complex Systems In Praeger (Ed.), Human Productivity Enhancement (Vol. 2, pp. 7-65). New York.
• Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1990). Military executive leadership. Measures of leadership, 281-295.
• Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
• Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the Fate of Organizations. American Psychologist, 63(2), 96.
• Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590-621.
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Beyerlein, M. M., Johnson, D. A., et al. (1996). Team leadership and development: *Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership, Vol. 3. (pp. 253-291): Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
• Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generlization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410.
• McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Civil Service Commission.
• Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 91-109.
• Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The External Leadership of Self-Managing Teams: Intervening in the Context of Novel and Disruptive Events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 497-508.
• Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. Borman, Walter C (Ed); Ilgen, Daniel R (Ed); et al, (2003). Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Mumford, M. D. (1986). Leadership in the organizational context: Conceptual approach and its application. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(6), 508-531.
• Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.
• Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press
• Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: An introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today’s leaders (pp. 3-41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483.

[edit] General references

• Argyris, C. (1976) Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, Wiley, New York, 1976 (even though published in 1976, this still remains a "standard" reference text)
• Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research: Permission Set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.
• Bennis, W. (1989) On Becoming a Leader, Addison Wesley, New York, 1989
• Crawford, C. J. (2005). Corporate rise the X principles of extreme personal leadership. Santa Clara, CA: XCEO. ISBN 0-976-90190-0 9780976901907
• Greiner, K. (2002). The inaugural speech. ERIC Accession Number ED468083 ^[2].
• House, R. J. (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2004 ^[3].
• Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Laubach, R. (2005) Leadership is Influence
• Machiavelli, Niccolo (1530) The Prince
• Maxwell, J. C. & Dornan, J. (2003) Becoming a Person of Influence
• McGovern, George S., Donald C. Simmons, Jr. and Daniel Gaken (2008) Leadership and Service: An Introduction, Kendall/Hunt Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7575-5109-3.
• Nanus, Burt (1995) The visionary leadership
• Ogbonnia, SKC. (2007). Political Parties and Effective Leadership: A contingency Approach
• Pitcher, P. (1994 French) Artists, Craftsmen, and Technocrats: The dreams realities and illusions of leadership, Stoddart Publishing, Toronto, 2nd English edition, 1997. ISBN 0-7737-5854-2
• Renesch, John (1994) Leadership in a New Era: Visionary Approaches to the Biggest Crisis of Our Time, San Francisco, New Leaders Press (paperback 2002, New York, Paraview Publishing
• Renesch, John (2001) "Conscious Leadership: Taking Responsibility for Our Better Future," LOHAS Weekly Newsletter, March 1, 2001 [4]
• Roberts, W. (1987) Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun
• Stacey, R. (1992) Managing Chaos, Kogan-Page, London, 1992
• Stogdill, R.M. (1950) 'Leadership, membership and organization', Psychological Bulletin, 47: 1-14
• Terry, G. (1960) The Principles of Management, Richard Irwin Inc, Homewood Ill, pg 5.
• Torbert, W. (2004) Action Inquiry: the Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Warneka, P and Warneka, T. (2007). The Way of Leading People: Unlocking Your Integral Leadership Skills with the Tao Te Ching. Asogomi Publications Intl. Cleveland, Ohio. website
• Warneka, T. (2006). Leading People the Black Belt Way: Conquering the Five Core Problems Facing Leaders Today. Asogomi Publications Intl. Cleveland, Ohio. website
• Warneka, T. (2008). Black Belt Leader, Peaceful Leader: An Introduction to Catholic Servant Leadership. website
• Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspective. American Psychology , 62 (1), 7-16.
• Zaleznik, A. (1977) "Managers and Leaders: Is there a difference?", Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1977

[edit] Text that have citations but need strong revision

The text bellow is written in an essay-like manner, and seems original research. I kept the transformational/transactional part until I find time to rewrite them. Weber is an important theorist and I will reinsert this text once I improve it under the "Behavior & Style Theory" section. Editor br (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The bureaucratic leader (Weber, 1905)^[5] is very structured and follows the procedures as they have been established. This type of leadership has no space to explore new ways to solve problems and is usually slow paced to ensure adherence to the ladders stated by the company. Leaders ensure that all the steps have been followed prior to sending it to the next level of authority. Universities, hospitals, banks and government usually require this type of leader in their organizations to ensure quality, increase security and decrease corruption. Leaders who try to speed up the process will experience frustration and anxiety.

The charismatic leader(Weber, 1905)^[5] leads by infusing energy and eagerness into their team members. This type of leader has to be committed to the organization for the long run. If the success of the division or project is attributed to the leader and not the team, charismatic leaders may become a risk for the company by deciding to resign for advanced opportunities. It takes the company time and hard work to gain the employees' confidence back with other type of leadership after they have committed themselves to the magnetism of a charismatic leader.

The servant leader (Greenleaf, 1977)^[6] facilitates goal accomplishment by giving its team members what they need in order to be productive. This leader is an instrument employees use to reach the goal rather than a commanding voice that moves to change. This leadership style, in a manner similar to democratic leadership, tends to achieve the results in a slower time frame than other styles, although employee engagement is higher.

[edit] managerial grid/Wikipedia

Does this mean that Jimmy Wales is an impoverished style of leader?--217.112.186.121 (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

Isn't it about time this article, as well as the Mike Richards article, be put under semi-protection? --scottieISmad (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] leadership and emotions

this paragraph is incoherent at the end —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.154.26 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] historical context

This article is impoverished by being almost exclusively about company leadership as studied in US business schools. Where is the reference to leadership as taught to Prussian officers or in the army of British India, or of the role of the mediaeval European or Japanese aristocracy?

I propose to impose some context by adding at the start something like this:

"Humans are social animals, which has made leadership of some sort part of humanity from its beginning. Ancient societies were keenly interested in leadership, and made studies of different leaders in an attempt to learn what made them successes or failures^[7]: the conclusion was that it was often character on the one hand^[8], or external influences such as luck or the gods on the other^[9]. Such debates became part of formal philosophical debate in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the idea that success in endeavours was largely due not to individual leaders but to external factors became very influential through the Encyclopedists, Hegel, Marx and twentieth-century communism, though since the fall of the Soviet Union there has been something of a reaction.

"Leadership has been studied in political and military contexts, but most vigorously in recent years in the context of the leadership of organisations since the founding of management theory by Henri Fayol, Frederick Taylor and others. This article focuses on organisational leadership."

Deipnosophista (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)