How the Understanding of Leadership Has Changed - Essay Example

How the Understanding of Leadership Has Changed Name: Course: Tutor: Date: How the Understanding of Leadership Has Changed Different people have given many definitions of leadership since time immemorial. Leadership had existed even in the period before human beings existed in their current form. This is evidenced today by the organisation of other species of animals, like ants, honeybees, chimpanzees and baboons, into distinct units with well-defined leadership structures. The concept of leadership as evolved with time in order to suit the needs of a dynamic world. Different leadership theories have emerged, as the way people view things and understand leadership has changed. In all the different definitions of leadership that exist, many of them simply narrow down to defining leadership as a process of social influence, where one person is able to enlist support from other people in order to achieve a common purpose. Today, leadership is viewed as the process of inspiring and motivating people to work together, as opposed to forcing and manipulating people to achieve one’s own selfish needs (Rost, 1993, 21). For a long time, influence was the character mark of a leader. Many previous and current outstanding leaders are the ones who have been able to influence people to a position of influence. People take their leaders as the people who have been able to impact on and influence them to achieve something that previously seemed difficult. A leader was and is expected to help people achieve their goals and to be effective in whatever they do. This is the reason why today ardent expectations are laid on the leaders. In the early 19th Century, various theories of leadership existed and were propagated by distinguished scholars. Among these, the trait theory of leadership was highly researched on and advocated by many people, who thought that leadership is a genetic characteristic of a person, and was inherited form one person to another. The qualities that distinguished an individual leader were all inherent and the leadership depicted by this person could not be changed through training or any other process. The implication of this is that leadership could not be trained and leaders were born and not made. This trait theory of leadership was held for a long period with its various advantages and disadvantages. The believe that leadership was an inborn character trait limited the way people responded to wards leadership, since no everyone was regarded as fit to be a leader. People understood that only specific people who were able to organize people to perform effectively were the ones who had leadership characteristics. However, research came to prove that those people who showed exemplary leadership qualities in one area did not necessarily perform well as leaders in other fields. People began to realise that a leader would perform well at one point, but in other cases perform miserably. The implication of this is that leadership is not an inborn characteristic of a person, since if it were so; a leader would be universal and would be expected to perform exemplary well in any environment. This is what led to development of alternative theories of leadership, as people wanted to get a better understanding of leadership in a bid to improve their performance (Birchfield, 2003, 19). Although peoples understanding of leadership changed frequently, one thing that persisted and was believed for a long time is the idea that leaders were born, and could only improve their leadership skills with time. In the period, it was believed that certain individuals could emerge as leaders across various fields and tasks. Additionally, leadership was attributed to having certain values as a person. People who were leaders at one point were likely to be leaders at other points in life, while also the society expected so of them. Other people in the society would as well look up to these people in order to get guidance and to be organized in order to achieve everyday goals. This perception of leadership existed in a while, and could have been the idea behind the successful organisation of monarchs and other forms of social units that had leadership roles in hereditary mode. In this case, succession would occur since the incoming person would be deemed as competent in the disguise of the incumbent, since they were related. People have also started to drift from trait theory into other theories that best define their expectation and understanding of leadership. People argue that leadership is developed, and anyone can develop or improve his or her leadership skills if he or she works towards bettering his ability and skills (Kiefer, 2008, 10). The modes of leadership development vary for different people. There are some who say that repetitive learning and experience in leadership builds people to bring out leadership skills that are in them. Others view leaders as the people who are able to make the best decision as per the moment or situation that is facing them, hence leadership is spontaneous and the best leader is the one who is able to make the best decisions to suit a particular moment. This is in the view that different situations always call for different reactionary measures. This argument calls for the leaders to be people who are dynamic and highly responsive, able to identify the occasional and moments need in order to act for the benefit of people. This shift in thinking drew people to expect less of leaders, from the high position that leaders were regarded into an expectation that a leader is a person who can help to build stronger and more effective team, out of the people who have the ability to organise and lead people themselves. Leaders came to be viewed as ordinary people who have been entrusted with the noble responsibility of organising and leading others. With this attitude, strong expectation is laid on the leaders and they are expected to work hard and be efficient, since this is what they have committed to doing. As a leader, one is expected to be a manager who is entrusted to manage the affairs of others effectively, and must be extremely accountable to the people whom he has been entrusted to lead. This is the reason why in the world today, there are many influential people who are in leadership positions, but their authoritarian actions have stripped them the respect and high regard that people would have for them. Influencing people is not an easy task. According to Branson (2009), human beings always have a tendency to be rebellious and to underperform. This may be the reason as to why leaders are people who are known to set so high targets that will help them to motivate people to achieve their best. In some cases, some of these expectations are not realistic and are therefore just there to guide people to do their best and effectively achieve something close to the high standard that the leaders have set on them. This has led to a situation where leaders pursue ideal but not real standards are set. The subjects view leaders as people who just want to motivate them to work harder, and not necessarily achieve what they ask of them. This view makes leaders appear as people who are out of touch with reality. As a result, there is a need to embrace authentic leadership that is based on several values. Authentic leadership calls for one to be a person who can act like a liberated human being, and be able to view things independently and make a rational decision. There are several marks of an authentic leader. First, one is expected to stand alone in spite of conflicting opinions. Additionally, a leader should be able to act heroically in difficult situations that call for a brave step to be undertaken. Many current leaders, especially those who have a responsibility towards the electorate tend to shy away from making decisions that may make them unpopular, although they are the right decisions. Authentic leaders want to be true more than feeling free in their action, and therefore there is a need for them to be consistent with their principles. This is what would make them to be effective and live up to their goals. Authentic leadership demands that one is responsible for his or her own action (Kerfoot, 2006, 10). This calls for unconditional responsibility for everything that one does. Leaders should always be particularly true to their principles, in spite of circumstances that call for one to be relaxed. There is no point for one to be a leader who evades difficult challenges or even undesirable situations, even though they may be embarrassing or bring much discomfort. This means taking absolute responsibility for everything, and not living in denial of reality. One should not set unrealistic goals or unachievable targets, but should simply strive to make sure that he is realistic and in touch with reality. The most defining thing about people is their ability to see things as we are, and not as they are. Authentic leadership calls for one to be able to view things impersonally, and not just be influence by whoever they are. This neutrality helps to give someone independent analysis for situations, that is based on facts and not on personal tastes. People expect leadership that is remarkably real and impartial, and any deviation from this will most certainly face objection from others. Concerning this, authentic leaders must be highly effective, although they are faced by more understanding followers. Their leadership has a higher purpose besides making people achieve their goals (Wagner, 2006, 128). The significant shift that has occurred in the way people view leadership has not altered the obligations of leaders, but has certainly affected their motives. There is a significant difference from the early days when people expected leaders to act with a near supreme powers, to today when people understand the concepts of leadership exceptionally well, yet allow people others to take the leadership authority over them. Authentic leadership therefore means that leaders are available to take their position in leading other, while at the same time being exceedingly accountable and working hard to ensure that they stay at the leading position, but not pushing people from behind. Bibliography Birchfield, R. (2003). Leadership Authenticated. New Zealand Management, vol. 50 (10), p. 17-21 Branson, C. (2009). Leadership for an Age of Wisdom. New York, Springer Publishers Kerfoot, K. (2006). Authentic Leadership. MEDSURG Nursing, 15 (5), pp. 318-320 Kiefer, F. (2008). Leadership and learning. Executive Excellence, 15 (5), pp. 10 Rost, J. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Connecticut, Greenwood Publishing Group Wagner, J. (2006). Authentic leadership: the self-aware leader. Tennessee, Bethel University Publishers. Read More