A
REPORT ON
CONTEMPORARY
ISSUE
“ENTREPRENEURS AND SKILL”
Submitted in partial fulfillment for the
Award of degree of
Master of Business Administration
Submitted By:
Submitted To:
VIKAS PERIWAL SHILPIKHANDELWAL
MBA 2nd SEM H.O.D. {MBA DEPTT.}
APEX INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
SITAPURA, JAIPUR
2009-2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It gives me immense pleasure to present the REPORT on CONTEMPORARY
ISSUE ON
“
Entrepreneurs and Skill
”
.I express my sincere gratitude & humble thanks to Mrs. Shilpi Khandelwal for giving me an opportunity to undertake this valuable report. Her valuable inputs as project guide & timely guidance through out the project work helped me to complete the project in time.
My sincere thanks to all the respondents for their active participations & making the report a representation of their preference.
Last but not the least I extend my thanks to all the people who were directly or indirectly helped me during the project work.
SIGNATURE
Vikas Periwal
Contents:-01 Introduction Background……….………..4
02 As a leader.………..4
03 Research into entrepreneurs ……….………5
04 Social Entrepreneur ……….………6
05 Seven Must-Have Skills Every Entrepreneur, Needs Entrepreneurial Skills………..………..……….32
06 Discover What Makes an Entrepreneur Successful…...34
07 Profiling An Entrepreneur? Use a Mirror………...36
08 Entrepreneur Skills and Qualities….………...38
09 Entrepreneur Challenge……….40
10 Characteristic of Successful Entrepreneurs ……….……..43
11 Entrepreneurship………...44
12 Entrepreneurship, Small Business and Innovation……… ……...50
13 How Is Entrepreneurship Good for Economic Growth?...53
14 Entrepreneurship in INDIA……… .…..54
15 Entrepreneurship: No Experience Necessary………...55
16 Skills Associated With Entrepreneurship………...58
17 Entrepreneurial Personality………..59
18 Male Vs. Female Entrepreneurs……….…..…60
19 Conclusion………..…..64
Entrepreneurs and Skills
An entrepreneur is a person who has possession of a new enterprise, venture or idea and assumes significant accountability for the inherent risks and the
outcome. The term is originally a loanword from French and was first defined by the Irish economist Richard Cantillon. Entrepreneur in English is a term applied to the type of personality who is willing to take upon herself or himself a new venture or enterprise and accepts full responsibility for the outcome. Jean-Baptiste Say, a French economist is believed to have coined the word "entrepreneur" first in about 1800. He said an entrepreneur is "one who undertakes an enterprise, especially a contractor, acting as intermediatory between capital and labour
1. Background and Introduction
Entrepreneurs choose a level of personal, professional or financial risk to pursue opportunity.
Entrepreneurs tend to identify a market opportunity and exploit it by organizing their resources effectively to accomplish an outcome that changes existing interactions within a given sector.
Business entrepreneurs are viewed as fundamentally important in the capitalistic society. Some distinguish business entrepreneurs as either "political
entrepreneurs" or "market entrepreneurs," while social entrepreneurs' principal objectives include the creation of a net social benefit.]
Other entrepreneurs are necessity entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship, particularly among women in developing countries (Minitti, 2010) seems to offer an
improvement in the standard of living as well as a path out of poverty.
Entrepreneurship is now growing at nearly three times the rate among women as it is among men.
2. As a leader
Scholar Robert. B. Reich considers leadership, management ability, and team-building as essential qualities of an entrepreneur. This concept has its origins in the work of Richard Cantillon in his Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en
Général (1755) and Jean-Baptiste Say (1803 or 1834) in his Treatise on Political Economy.
A more generally held theory is that entrepreneurs emerge from the population on demand, from the combination of opportunities and people well-positioned to take advantage of them. An entrepreneur may perceive that they are among the few to recognize or be able to solve a problem. In this view, one studies on one side the distribution of information available to would-be entrepreneurs and on the other, how environmental factors (access to capital, competition, etc.), change the rate of a society's production of entrepreneurs.
A prominent theorist of the Austrian School in this regard is Joseph Schumpeter, who saw the entrepreneur as innovators and popularized the uses of the phrase creative destruction to describe his view of the role of entrepreneurs in changing business norms. Creative destruction dealt with the changes entrepreneurial activity makes every time a new process, product or company enters the market.
3. Research into entrepreneurs
Schumpeter argues that the entrepreneur is an innovator, one that introduces new technologies into the workplace or market, increasing efficiency, productivity or generating new products or services (Deakins and Freel 2009). Other
academics such as Say, Casson and Cantillon, say the entrepreneur is an organiser of factors or production that acts as a catalyst for economic change (Deakins and Freel, 2009). Shackle argues that the entrepreneur is a highly creative individual that imagines new solutions providing new opportunities for reward (Deakins and Freel, 2009). These are a few definitions from the
entrepreneurship field but show the complexity and lack of cohesion between academic research (Gartner, 2001). Most research focuses on the traits of the entrepreneur. Cope (2001) argues that although certain entrepreneurial traits are required the entrepreneurs behaviour are dynamic and influenced by
environmental factors.
Shane and VenKataraman (2000) argue the entrepreneur is solely concerned with opportunity recognition and exploitation; however, the opportunity that is recognized depends on the type of entrepreneur which Ucbasaran et al (2001) argue there are many different types of dependant on their business and personal circumstances.
There is a growing body of work that shows than entrepreneurial behavior is dependent on social and economic factors. The research into female
entrepreneurs illustrates this quite clearly. "Countries which have healthy and diversified labor markets or stronger safety nets show a more favorable ratio of opportunity to necessity-driven women entrepreneurs." (Minitti, 2010) What those factors are varies widely, based on local needs. In Somalia, this may be bigger crops or clean water while in the US, technology seems to be the driving factor.
4. Social Entrepreneur
Social entrepreneurs act within a market aiming to create social value through the improvement of goods and services offered to the community. Their main aim is to help offer a better service improving the community as a whole and are predominately run as non profit schemes. To support this point Zahra et al (2009: 519) said that “social entrepreneurs make significant and diverse contributions to their communities and societies, adopting business models to offer creative solutions to complex and persistent social problems”. Examples of socially run businesses include the NHS and also the 'Love One Water' drinks brand.
• Entrepreneurship education • Factors of production
• Infopreneur • Leadership
4.1. Entrepreneurship education
Entrepreneurship education seeks to provide students with the
knowledge, skills and motivation to encourage entrepreneurial success in a variety of settings. Variations of entrepreneurship education are offered at all levels of schooling from K-12 schools through graduate university programs. What makes entrepreneurship education distinctive is its focus on realization of opportunity, where management education is focused on the best way to operate existing hierarchies. Both approaches share an interest in achieving "profit" in some form (which in non-profit organizations or government can take the form of increased services or decreased cost or increased responsiveness to the
customer/citizen/client).
Opportunities can be realized in several ways. The most popular one is through opening a new organization (e.g. starting a new business). Another approach is to promote innovation or introduce new products or services or markets in existing firms. Newer research indicates that clustering is now a driving factor. Clustering occurs when a group of employees breaks off from the parent
company to found a new company but continues to do business with the parent. Silicon Valley is one such cluster, grown very large. (Minitti, 2010)
This approach is called corporate entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship, and was made popular by author Gifford Pinchot in his book of the same name. A recent approach involves creating charitable organizations (or portions of existing
charities) which are designed to be self-supporting in addition to doing their good works. This is usually called social entrepreneurship or social venturing. Even a version of public sector entrepreneurship has come into being in governments, with an increased focus on innovation and customer service. This approach got
its start in the policies of the United Kingdom's Margaret Thatcher and the United States' Ronald Reagan.
The 1990s saw the growth of entrepreneurship as a profession within business, and in that professional approach lies the secret benefit of entrepreneurship education — it helps decrease the chances of failure by stressing a consistent and proven set of practices. That idea of professionalizing the process of entrepreneurship is the other great commonality across all of modern
entrepreneurship education. Whether it is Junior Achievement of America, or Treps, the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship or members of the Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education working with grade school and high school kids in the USA, or undergraduate or MBA programs like those at USC Entrepreneur Program, Babson College, Saint Louis University, or any of the over 200 schools with majors (EntrepreneurEDU.org for a listing), there are formal entrepreneurship education programs turning out tens of thousands of prepared, motivated and connected student entrepreneurs each year. There are also non-profit organizations such as SCORE, government programs such as the U.S. Small Business Administration, and for-profit organizations like
StudentBusinesses.com. With entrepreneurship education, they know more, others (like bankers, investors, corporate customers, etc.) know what these student entrepreneurs are likely to know, and the entrepreneurs', their firms, and national economy are better off for their taking the time to learn how to do it right.
4.2. Factors of production
In economics, factors of production (or productive inputs) are the resources employed to produce goods and services. They facilitate production but do not become part of the product (as with raw materials) or become significantly transformed by the production process (as with fuel used to power machinery). To 19th century economists, the factors of production were land (natural resources, gifts from nature), labor (the ability to work), and capital goods (human-made tools and equipment). Recent textbooks have added entrepreneurship and "human capital" (labor's education and skills)VLP"Land" can include ecosystems while sometimes the overall state of technology is seen as a factor of production In any event, it is the scarcity of the factors of production which poses humanity's economic problem, often forcing us to choose between competing goals. The number and definition of factors varies, depending on theoretical purpose, empirical emphasis, or school of economics.
Differences are most stark when it comes to deciding which factor is the most important. For example, in the Austrian view—often shared by neoclassical and other "free market" economists—the primary factor of production is the time of the entrepreneur, which, when combined with other factors, determines the amount of output of a particular good or service. However, other authors argue
that "entrepreneurship" is nothing but a specific kind of labor or human capital and should not be treated separately. The Marxian school goes further, seeing labor (in general, including entrepreneurship) as the primary factor of production, since it is required to produce capital goods and to utilize the gifts of nature. But this debate is more about basic economic theory (the role of the factors in the economy) than it is about the definition of the factors of production.
• 4.2.1 Historical schools and factors
o 4.2.1.1 Physiocracy o 4.2.1.2 Classical o 4.2.1.3 Marxian o 4.2.1.4 Neoclassical economics o 4.2.1.5 Further distinctions • 4.2.2 A fourth factor? o 4.2.2.1 Entrepreneurship o 4.2.2.2 Human capital o 4.2.2.3 Intellectual capital o 4.2.2.4 Social capital
4.2.1. Historical schools and factors
In the interpretation of the currently dominant view of classical economic theory developed by neoclassical economists, the term "factors" did not exist until after the classical period and is not to be found in any of the literature of that time.[4]
4.2.1.1 Physiocracy
In French Physiocracy, the main European school of economics before Adam Smith, the productive process is explained as the interaction between
participating classes of the population. These classes are therefore the factors
of production within physiocracy: capital, entrepreneurship, land, and labor.
• The farmer labors on land (sometimes using "crafts") to produce food,
fiber, and the like.
• The artisan labors to produce important capital goods (crafts) to be used
by the other economic actors.
• The landlord is only a consumer of food and crafts and produces nothing
at all.
• The merchant labors to export food in exchange for foreign imports.
4.2.1.2 Classical
An advertisement for labour from Sabah and Sarawak, seen in Jalan Petaling, Kuala Lumpur.
The classical economics of Smith, Ricardo, and their followers focuses on physical resources in defining its factors of production, and discusses the distribution of cost and value among these factors. Adam Smith and David Ricardo referred to the "component parts of price as the costs of using:
• Land or natural resource – naturally-occurring goods such as water, air, soil, minerals, flora and fauna that are used in the creation of products. The payment for land use and the received income of a land owner is rent. • Labor – human effort used in production which also includes technical and marketing expertise. The payment for someone else's labor and all income received from ones own labor is wages. Labour can also be classified as the physical and mental contribution of an employee to the production of the good(s).
• The capital stock – human-made goods (or means of production) which are used in the production of other goods. These include machinery, tools and buildings.
The classical economists also employed the word "capital" in reference to money. Money however was not considered to be a factor of production in the sense of capital stock, since it is not used to directly produce any good. The return to loaned money or to loaned stock was styled as interest while the return to the actual proprietor of capital stock (tools, etc) was styled as profit.
4.2.1.3 Marxian
Marx considered the "elementary factors of the labor-process" or "productive forces" to be:
• Labor ("work itself")
• The subject of labor (objects transformed by labor) • The instruments of labor (or means of production).
The "subject of labor" refers to natural resources and raw materials, including land. The "instruments of labor" are tools, in the broadest sense. They include factory buildings, infrastructure, and other human-made objects that facilitate labor's
production of goods and services.
This view seems similar to the classical perspective described above. But unlike the classical school and many economists today, Marx made a clear distinction between labor actually done and an individual's "labor power" or ability to work. Labor done is often referred to nowadays as "effort" or "labor services." Labor-power might be seen as a stock which can produce a flow of labor.
Labor, not labor power, is the key factor of production for Marx and the basis for Marx's labor theory of value. The hiring of labor power only results in the
production of goods or services ("use-values") when organized and regulated (often by the "management"). How much labor is actually done depends on the importance of conflict or tensions within the labor process.
4.2.1.4 Neoclassical economics
Neoclassical economics, the currently dominant school of economics, started with the classical factors of production of land, labor, and capital. However, it developed an alternative theory of value and distribution. Many of its practitioners have added a fourth factor of production.
4.2.1.5 Further distinctions
Further distinctions from classical and neoclassical microeconomics include the following:
• Capital – This has many meanings, including the financial capital raised to
operate and expand a business. In much economics, however, "capital" (without any qualification) means goods that can help produce other goods in the future, the result of investment. It refers to machines, roads, factories, schools, infrastructure, and office buildings which humans have produced in order to produce goods and services.
• Fixed capital – This includes machinery, factories, equipment, new
technology, factories, buildings, computers, and other goods that are designed to increase the productive potential of the economy for future years. Nowadays, many consider computer software to be a form of fixed capital and it is counted as such in the National Income and Product Accounts of the United States and other countries. This type of capital does not change due to the production of the good.
• Working capital – This includes the stocks of finished and semi-finished
goods that will be economically consumed in the near future or will be made into a finished consumer good in the near future. These are often called inventories. The phrase "working capital" has also been used to refer to liquid assets (money) needed for immediate expenses linked to the production process (to pay salaries, invoices, taxes, interests...) Either way, the amount or nature of this type of capital usually changed during the production process.
• Financial capital - This is simply the amount of money the initiator of the
business has invested in it. "Financial capital" often refers to his or her net worth tied up in the business (assets minus liabilities) but the phrase often includes money borrowed from others.
4.2.2. A fourth factor?
As mentioned, recent authors have added to the classical list. For example, J.B. Clark saw the co-ordinating function in production and distribution as being served by entrepreneurs; Frank Knight introduced managers who co-ordinate using their own money (financial capital) and the financial capital of others. In contrast, many economists today consider "human capital" (skills and education) as the fourth factor of production, with entrepreneurship as a form of human capital. Yet others refer to intellectual capital. More recently, many have begun to see "social capital" as a factor, as contributing to production of goods and
services.
4.2.2.1. Entrepreneurship
Consider entrepreneurship as a factor of production, leaving debate aside. In markets, entrepreneurs combine the other factors of production, land, labor, and capital in order to make a profit. Often these entrepreneurs are seen as
innovators, developing new ways to produce and new products. In a planned economy, central planners decide how land, labor, and capital should be used to provide for maximum benefit for all citizens. Of course, just as with market
entrepreneurs, the benefits may mostly accrue to the entrepreneurs themselves. The word has been used in other ways. The sociologist C. Wright Mills refers to "new entrepreneurs" who work within and between corporate and government bureaucracies in new and different ways. Others (such as those practicing public choice theory) refer to "political entrepreneurs," i.e., politicians and other actors. Much controversy rages about the benefits produced by entrepreneurship. But the real issue is about how well institutions they operate in (markets, planning, bureaucracies, government) serve the public. This concerns such issues as the relative importance of market failure and government failure.
4.2.2.2. Human capital
Contemporary analysis distinguishes tangible, physical, or nonhuman capital goods from other forms of capital such as human capital. Human capital is embodied in a human being and is acquired through education and training, whether formal or on the job.
Human capital is important in modern economic theory. Education is a key element in explaining economic growth over time (see growth accounting). It is also often seen as the solution to the "Leontief paradox" in international trade.
4.2.2.3. Intellectual capital
A more recent coinage is intellectual capital, used especially as to information technology, recorded music, written material. This intellectual property is protected by copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
This view posits a new Information Age, which changes the roles and nature of land, labour, and capital. During the Information Age (circa 1971-1991), the Knowledge Age (circa 1991 to 2002), and the Intangible Economy (2002– present) many see the primary factors of production as having become less concrete. These factors of production are now seen as knowledge, collaboration, process-engagement, and time quality.
According to economic theory, a "factor of production" is used to create value and allow economic performance. As the four "modern-day" factors are all essentially abstract, the current economic age has been called the Intangible Economy. Intangible factors of production are subject to network effects and the contrary economic laws such as the law of increasing returns.
4.2.2.4. Social capital
Social capital is often hard to define, but to one textbook it is:
the stock of trust, mutual understanding, shared values, and socially held knowledge that facilitates the social coordination of economic activity.
Knowledge, ideas, and values, and human relationships are transmitted as part of the culture. This type of capital cannot be owned by individuals and is instead part of the common stock owned by humanity. But they often crucial to
maintaining a peaceful society in which normal economic transactions and production can occur.
Another kind of social capital can be owned individually. This kind of individual asset involves reputation, what accountants call "goodwill," and/or what others call "street cred," along with fame, honor, and prestige. It fits with Pierre
Bourdieu’s definition of "social capital" as:
an attribute of an individual in a social context. One can acquire social capital through purposeful actions and can transform social capital into conventional economic gains. The ability to do so, however, depends on the nature of the social obligations,
connections, and networks, available to you.
This means that the value of individual social assets that Bourdieu points to depend on the current "social capital" as defined above.
4.3. Infopreneur
Infopreneur is a person whose primary business is gathering and selling
electronic information. This term is a neologism portmanteau derived from the words "information" and "entrepreneur". An infopreneur is generally considered an entrepreneur who makes money selling information on the Internet. They use existing data and target an audience.
The term is often used on the Internet. The word infopreneur was registered as a trademark (USPTO) on February 1 1984 by Harold F. Weitzen. In 1988, H. Skip Weitzen published "Infopreneurs: Turning Data Into Dollars" (John Wiley & Sons).
Before the explosive popularity of the Internet, at the turn of the millennium, such an occupation already existed. These legacy inforpreneurs sold their information in other mediums such as audio tapes, audio CDs, CD-ROMs, videos, talk shows, and conferences. The classification of infopreneur has created a new style of business on the Internet, which allows anybody with a computer and an Internet connection to start a businesses by publishing information that may appeal to a specific market.
There are generally two kinds of infopreneurs: those that sell information they have amassed on their own and those that earn commissions from selling information that they know nothing about. The latter may be considered more of a "information trafficker".
Online publishing
As the infopreneur is his/her own developer, marketer, producer, and distributor - some infopreneurs consider themselves being in the publishing business. Unlike in traditional print publishing, the infopreneur puts down, in electronic form, what he/she knows from experience or what he/she learned and passes them on to the world through publishing on websites, blogs, ebooks, emails, etc
4.4 Leadership
Leadership is stated as the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.” Definitions more inclusive of followers have also emerged. Alan Keith of Genentech states that, "Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen." Tom DeMarco says that leadership needs to be distinguished from posturing.
Leadership remains one of the most relevant aspects of the organizational context. However, defining leadership has been challenging and definitions can vary depending on the situation. According to Ann Marie E. McSwain, Assistant Professor at Lincoln University, “leadership is about capacity: the capacity of leaders to listen and observe, to use their expertise as a starting point to encourage dialogue between all levels of decision-making, to establish
processes and transparency in decision-making, to articulate their own values and visions clearly but not impose them. Leadership is about setting and not just reacting to agendas, identifying problems, and initiating change that makes for substantial improvement rather than managing change.”
The following sections discuss several important aspects of leadership including a description of what leadership is and a description of several popular theories and styles of leadership. This article also discusses topics such as the role of emotions and vision, as well as leadership effectiveness and performance, leadership in different contexts, how it may differ from related concepts (i.e., management), and some critiques of leadership as generally conceived.
• 4.4.1 Theories of leadership
o 4.4.1.1 Trait Theory
4.4.1.1.1 Early History
4.4.1.1.2 The Rise of Alternative Leadership Theories 4.4.1.1.3 The Reemergence of the Trait Theory
4.4.1.1.4 Current Criticisms of the Trait Theory 4.4.1.1.5 Leader Attribute Pattern Approach o 4.4.1.2 Behavioral and style theories
o 4.4.1.3 Situational and contingency theories o 4.4.1.4 Functional theory
o 4.4.1.5 Transactional and transformational theories o 4.4.1.6 Leadership and emotions
o 4.4.1.8 Environmental leadership theory
• 4.4.2 Leadership styles
o 4.4.2.1 Kurt Lewin's Leadership styles
4.4.2.1.1 Autocratic or Authoritarian Leaders 4.4.2.1.2 Participative or Democratic Leaders 4.4.2.1.3 Laissez-Faire or Free Rein Leaders
• 4.4.3 Leadership performance • 4.4.4 Contexts of leadership
o 4.4.4.1 Leadership in organizations o 4.4.4.2 Leadership versus management o 4.4.4.3 Leadership by a group
o 4. 4.4.4 Leadership among primates
• 4.4.5 Historical views on leadership
• 4.4.6 Action Oriented Team Leadership Skills • 4.4.7 Titles emphasizing authority
• 4.4.8 Critical Thought on the concept of leadership
Theories of leadership
Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits, situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values, charisma, and intelligence among others.
* Trait
Theory
Trait theory tries to describe the characteristics associated with effective leadership.
Early History
The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries. History’s greatest philosophical writings from Plato’s Republic to Plutarch’s Lives have explored the question of “What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?” Underlying this search was the early
recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the “trait theory of leadership.”
This view of leadership, the trait theory, was explored at length in a number of works in the previous century. Most notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have prompted
decades of research. In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle
identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton’s (1869) Hereditary Genius, he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving from first degree to second
degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in
characteristics of the leader.
For decades, this trait-based perspective dominated empirical and theoretical work in leadership. Using early research techniques,
researchers conducted over a hundred studies proposing a number of characteristics that distinguished leaders from nonleaders: intelligence, dominance, adaptability, persistence, integrity, socioeconomic status, and self-confidence just to name a few.
The Rise of Alternative Leadership Theories
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940; Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades.
The Reemergence of the Trait Theory
New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in
researchers’ use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive and parsimonious picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods,
leadership researchers revealed the following:
• Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks
• Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as:
• intelligence • adjustment
• extraversion
• conscientiousness • openness to experience • general self-efficacy
Current Criticisms of the Trait Theory
While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks.
Specifically, Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still:
1. Focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills
2. Fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes 3. Do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences
4. Do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership
*Leader Attribute Pattern Approach
Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have begun to adopt a different perspective of leader
individual differences - the leader attribute pattern approach. In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attribute pattern approach is based on theorists’ arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather than a summation of individual variables. In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that integrated constellations or combinations of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes, or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.
* Behavioral and style theories
In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to
research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of 'successful' leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy and identifying broad leadership styles. David, for example, Leadership takes a strong personality with a well developed positive ego. Not so much as a pattern of motives, but a set of traits is crucial. To lead; self-confidence and a high self-esteem is useful, perhaps even essential. [Kevin Mick]
Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers
evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and criticism (feedback), and the
management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: (1) authoritarian, (2) democratic and (3) laissez-faire. Authoritarian climates were characterized by leaders who make decisions alone, demand strict compliance to his orders, and dictate each step taken; future steps were uncertain to a large degree. The leader is not necessarily hostile but is aloof from participation in work and commonly offers personal praise and criticism for the work done.
Democratic climates were characterized by collective decision processes,
assisted by the leader. Before accomplishing tasks, perspectives are gained from group discussion and technical advice from a leader. Members are given choices and collectively decide the division of labor. Praise and criticism in such an
environment are objective, fact minded and given by a group member without necessarily having participated extensively in the actual work. Laissez faire
climates gave freedom to the group for policy determination without any
participation from the leader. The leader remains uninvolved in work decisions unless asked, does not participate in the division of labor, and very infrequently gives praise. The results seemed to confirm that the democratic climate was preferred.
The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.
B.F. Skinner is the father of Behavior Modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a stimulus is
presented contingent upon a behavior which results in a higher probability of that behavior increasing in the future. The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforce for a particular employee. This employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often because the employee likes to be praised. In this example, praise (i.e. stimulus) is a positive reinforce for this employee because the employee arrives (i.e. behavior) to work on time more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time. The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates.
Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M, B.F. Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase productivity. Empirical
research covering the last 20 years suggests that reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many reinforcement techniques
such as the use of praise are inexpensive which can result in higher performances for low monetary costs.
* Situational and contingency theories
Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions." Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying in which situations each style works better. The authoritarian
leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the
"hearts and minds" of their followers in the day-to-day management; the
democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require
consensus building; finally, the laissez faire leadership style is appreciated by the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leader does not "take charge", he can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems.[ Thus,
theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership
theories appear more prominently in the recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision model, the path-goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader’s effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of
leadership style and situational favorableness (later called "situational control"). The theory defined two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good-relationships with the group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented)
According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favourable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favorability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988), developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations,
taxonomy that was used in a normative decision model where leadership styles where connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation. This approach was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred as situational contingency theory.
The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom. According to House, the essence of the theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective,
engage in behaviors that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance. The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands. The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, but also as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity
behavior between the leader and the followers.
The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey and Blanchard suggests four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of fellowship-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well.
* Functional theory
Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leader’s main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broader
organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature on functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001),
Hackman and Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs when promoting organisation's effectiveness. These functions include: (1) environmental monitoring, (2) organizing subordinate activities, (3) teaching
and coaching subordinates, (4) motivating others, and (5) intervening actively in the group’s work.
A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates perceived their supervisors’ behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior involved in fostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a
supportive manner towards others. Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment. This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to those standards.
* Transactional and transformational theories
Eric Berne first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms of Transactional Analysis.
The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team’s performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached. The transformational leader (Burns, 1978) motivates its team to be effective and efficient. Communication is the base for goal achievement focusing the group on the final desired outcome or goal attainment. This leader is highly visible and uses chain of command to get the job done. Transformational leaders focus on the big picture, needing to be surrounded by people who take care of the details. The leader is always looking for ideas that move the organization to reach the company’s vision.
* Leadership and emotions
Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social influence process. In an organization, the leaders’ mood has some effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in 3 levels:
1. The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a negative mood.The leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the mechanism of emotional contagion[46].Mood
contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers.
2. The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood.
3. Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their goals, intentions, and attitudes through their
expressions of moods. For example, expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward goals to be good.The group members respond to those signals cognitively and behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.
In research about client service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by the leader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were other findings.
Beyond the leader’s mood, her/his behavior is a source for employee positive and negative emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events that lead to emotional response. Certain leader behaviors displayed during
interactions with their employees are the sources of these affective events. Leaders shape workplace affective events. Examples – feedback giving,
allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since employee behavior and productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it is imperative to consider
employee emotional responses to organizational leaders. Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the self and others, contributes to effective leadership in organizations. Leadership is about being responsible.
* Neo-emergent theory
The Neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford school of leadership) espouses that leadership is created through the emergence of information by the leader or other stakeholders, not through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, the reproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by the majority. It is well known that the great naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote his own versions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived home in England he would receive a true hero's welcome. In modern society, the press, blogs and other sources report their own views of a leader which may be based on reality, but may also be based on a political command, a payment or an inherent interest of the author, media or leader.
Therefore, it can be contended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect their true leadership qualities at all.
* Environmental leadership theory
The Environmental leadership model (Carmazzi) describes leadership from a Group dynamics perspective incorporating group psychology and self awareness to nurture “Environments” that promote self sustaining group leadership based on personal emotional gratification from the activities of the group. The
Environmental Leader creates the psychological structure by which employees can find and attain this gratification through work or activity.
It stems from the idea that each individual has various environments that bring out different facets from their own Identity, and each facet is driven by
emotionally charged perceptions within each environment… The Environmental Leader creates a platform through education and awareness where individuals fill each others emotional needs and become more conscious of when, and how they affect personal and team emotional gratifications. This is accomplished by knowing why people “react” to their environment instead of act intelligently.
“Environmental Leadership is not about changing the mindset of the group or individual, but in the cultivation of an environment that brings out the best and inspires the individuals in that group. It is not the ability to influence others to do something they are not committed to, but rather to nurture a culture that
motivates and even excites individuals to do what is required for the benefit of all. It is not carrying others to the end result, but setting the surrounding for developing qualities in them to so they may carry each other.” Carmazzi
The role of an Environmental Leader is to instill passion and direction to a group and the dynamics of that group. This leader implements a psychological support system within a group that fills the emotional and developmental needs of the group.
Leadership styles
Leadership style refers to a leader’s behaviour. It is the result of the philosophy, personality and experience of the leader.
Kurt Lewin's Leadership styles
Kurt Lewin and colleagues identified different styles of leadership • Dictator
• Autocratic • Participative • Laissez-Faire
Autocratic or Authoritarian Leaders
Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader, as with dictator leaders.
They do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. It permits quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole group and keeps each decision to themself until they feel it is needed by the rest of the group.
Participative or Democratic Leaders
The democratic leadership style favors decision-making by the group as shown, such as leader gives instruction after consulting the group.
They can win the cooperation of their group and can motivate them effectively and positively. The decisions of the democratic leader are not unilateral as with the autocrat because they arise from consultation with the group members and participation by them.
Laissez-Faire or Free Rein Leaders
The phrase is French and literally means "let do", but, in a leadership context, can be roughly translated as "free rein".
A free rein leader does not lead, but leaves the group entirely to itself as shown; such a leader allows maximum freedom to subordinates, i.e., they are given a free hand in deciding their own policies and methods.
Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when there is little time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has significantly more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an
autocratic leadership style may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team with a homogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may be more effective. The style adopted should be that which most effectively achieves the objectives of the group while balancing the interests of its individual members.
Leadership performance
In the past, some researchers have argued that the actual influence of leaders on organizational outcomes is overrated and romanticized as a result of biased attributions about leaders (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987). Despite these assertions however, it is largely recognized and accepted by practitioners and researchers that leadership is important, and research supports the notion that leaders do contribute to key organizational outcomes (Day & Lord, 1988; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). To facilitate successful performance it is important to understand and accurately measure leadership performance.
Job performance generally refers to behavior that is expected to contribute to organizational success (Campbell, 1990). Campbell identified a number of
specific types of performance dimensions; leadership was one of the dimensions that he identified. There is no consistent, overall definition of leadership
performance (Yukl, 2006). Many distinct conceptualizations are often lumped together under the umbrella of leadership performance, including outcomes such as leader effectiveness, leader advancement, and leader emergence (Kaiser et al., 2008). For instance, leadership performance may be used to refer to the career success of the individual leader, performance of the group or organization, or even leader emergence. Each of these measures can be considered
conceptually distinct. While these aspects may be related, they are different outcomes and their inclusion should depend on the applied/research focus.
Contexts of leadership
An organization that is established as an instrument or means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the
organization. Divisions, departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to behave
impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its members. According to Weber's definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Each employee receives a salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards her/him from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the hierarchy, the greater his presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to their position.
In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges within the context of the informal organization that underlies the formal structure. The informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the individual membership. Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension of the social structures that generally characterize human life — the spontaneous emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.
In prehistoric times, humanity was preoccupied with personal security,
maintenance, protection, and survival. Now humanity spends a major portion of waking hours working for organizations. Her/His need to identify with a
community that provides security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging continues unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its emergent, or unofficial, leaders.
Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization. Their personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these and other factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or several overlay structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an appointed head or chief, the emergent leader wields influence or power. Influence is the ability of a person to gain co-operation from others by means of persuasion or control over rewards. Power is a stronger form of influence because it reflects a person's ability to enforce action through the control of a means of punishment.
A leader is a person who influences a group of people towards a specific result. It is not dependent on title or formal authority. (elevos, paraphrased from Leaders, Bennis, and Leadership Presence, Halpern & Lubar). Leaders are recognized by their capacity for caring for others, clear communication, and a commitment to persist. An individual who is appointed to a managerial position has the right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of his position.
However, she or he must possess adequate personal attributes to match his authority, because authority is only potentially available to him. In the absence of sufficient personal competence, a manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge her/his role in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead. However, only authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It follows that whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with
commensurate authority. Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level.
Leadership versus management
Over the years the philosophical terminology of "management" and "leadership" have, in the organisational context, been used both as synonyms and with clearly differentiated meanings. Debate is fairly common about whether the use of these terms should be restricted, and generally reflects an awareness of the distinction made by Burns (1978) between "transactional" leadership (characterised by eg emphasis on procedures, contingent reward, management by exception) and "transformational" leadership (characterised by eg charisma, personal
relationships, creativity).
Leadership by a group
In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this situation, more than one person provides direction to the group as a whole. Some organizations have taken this approach in hopes of increasing creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. Others may see the traditional
leadership of a boss as costing too much in team performance. In some situations, the maintenance of the boss becomes too expensive - either by draining the resources of the group as a whole, or by impeding the creativity within the team, even unintentionally.
A common example of group leadership involves cross-functional teams. A team of people with diverse skills and from all parts of an organization assembles to lead a project. A team structure can involve sharing power equally on all issues, but more commonly uses rotating leadership. The team member(s) best able to handle any given phase of the project become(s) the temporary leader(s). Additionally, as each team member has the opportunity to experience the
elevated level of empowerment, it energizes staff and feeds the cycle of success. Leaders who demonstrate persistence, tenacity, determination and synergistic communication skills will bring out the same qualities in their groups. Good
leaders use their own inner mentors to energize their team and organizations and lead a team to achieve success.
These Group Leadership or Leadership Teams have specific characteristics:
Characteristics of a Team
• There must be an awareness of unity on the part of all its members.
• There must be interpersonal relationship. Members must have a chance to contribute, learn from and work with others.
• The member must have the ability to act together toward a common goal.
Ten characteristics of well-functioning teams:
• Purpose: Members proudly share a sense of why the team exists and are invested in accomplishing its mission and goals.
• Priorities: Members know what needs to be done next, by whom, and by when to achieve team goals.
• Roles: Members know their roles in getting tasks done and when to allow a more skillful member to do a certain task.
• Decisions: Authority and decision-making lines are clearly understood. • Conflict: Conflict is dealt with openly and is considered important to
decision-making and personal growth.
• Personal traits: members feel their unique personalities are appreciated and well utilized.
• Norms: Group norms for working together are set and seen as standards for every one in the groups.
• Effectiveness: Members find team meetings efficient and productive and look forward to this time together.
• Success: Members know clearly when the team has met with success and share in this equally and proudly.
• Training: Opportunities for feedback and updating skills are provided and taken advantage of by team members.
Leadership among primates
Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins
of Human Violence present evidence that only humans and chimpanzees, among all the animals living on earth, share a similar tendency for a cluster of behaviors: violence, territoriality, and competition for uniting behind the one chief male of the land. This position is contentious. Many animals beyond apes are territorial, compete, exhibit violence, and have a social structure controlled by a dominant male (lions, wolves, etc.), suggesting Wrangham and Peterson's evidence is not empirical. However, we must examine other species as well, including elephants (which are matriarchal and follow an alpha female), meerkats (who are likewise matriarchal), and many others.
It would be beneficial, to examine that most accounts of leadership over the past few millennia (since the creation of Christian religions) are through the
perspective of a patriarchal society, founded on Christian literature. If one looks before these times, it is noticed that Pagan and Earth-based tribes in fact had female leaders. It is important also to note that the peculiarities of one tribe cannot necessarily be ascribed to another, as even our modern-day customs differ. The current day patrilineal custom is only a recent invention in human history and our original method of familial practices were matrilineal (Dr. Christopher Shelley and Bianca Rus, UBC). The fundamental assumption that has been built into 90% of the world's countries is that patriarchy is the 'natural' biological predisposition of homo sapiens. Unfortunately, this belief has led to the widespread oppression of women in all of those countries, but in varying
degrees. (Whole Earth Review, Winter, 1995 by Thomas Laird, Michael Victor). The Iroquoian First Nations tribes are an example of a matrilineal tribe, along with Mayan tribes, and also the society of Meghalaya, India. (Laird and Victor, ). By comparison, bonobos, the second-closest species-relatives of man, do not unite behind the chief male of the land. The bonobos show deference to an alpha or top-ranking female that, with the support of her coalition of other females, can prove as strong as the strongest male in the land. Thus, if leadership amounts to getting the greatest number of followers, then among the bonobos, a female almost always exerts the strongest and most effective leadership. However, not all scientists agree on the allegedly "peaceful" nature of the bonobo or its
reputation as a "hippie chimp"
Historical views on leadership
Sanskrit literature identifies ten types of leaders. Defining characteristics of the ten types of leaders are explained with examples from history and mythology. Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one's blue blood or genes: monarchy takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions against the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction: see the divine right of kings. Contrariwise, more democratically-inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic
marshals profiting from careers open to talent.
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 object to such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance, which is sometimes associated with matriarchies.
Comparable to the Roman tradition, the views of Confucianism on "right living" relate very much to the ideal of the (male) scholar-leader and his benevolent rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial piety.
Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline . . . Reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness. Exercise of
humaneness alone results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in folly. Dependence on the strength of courage results in violence. Excessive discipline and sternness in
command result in cruelty. When one has all five virtues together, each appropriate to its function, then one can be a leader. — Sun Tzu
In the 19th century, the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into question. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back as the 19th century.) One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts
between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided resources - human and material - and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan. Compare servant leadership.
For a more general take on leadership in politics, compare the concept of the statesman.
Action Oriented Team Leadership Skills
This is a unique approach to team leadership that is aimed at action oriented environments where effective functional leadership is required to achieve critical or reactive tasks by small teams deployed into the field. In other words
leadership of small groups often created to respond to a situation or critical incident.
In most cases these teams are tasked to operate in remote and changeable environments with limited support or backup (action environments). Leadership of people in these environments requires a different set of skills to that of front line management. These leaders must effectively operate remotely and negotiate both the needs of the individual, team and task within a changeable environment. This has been termed Action Oriented Leadership. Some example action
oriented leadership is demonstrated in the following ways: extinguishing a rural fire, locating a missing person, leading a team on an outdoor expedition or rescuing a person from a potentially hazardous environment.
Titles emphasizing authority
At certain stages in their development, the hierarchies of social ranks implied different degrees or ranks of leadership in society. Thus a knight led fewer men
