Домашняя кошка

Leadership, both as a research area and as a practical skill, encompasses the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or entire organizations.

"Leadership" is a contested term.[1] Specialist literature debates various viewpoints on the concept, sometimes contrasting Eastern and Western approaches to leadership, and also (within the West) North American versus European approaches.[2]

Some U.S. academic environments define leadership as "a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common and ethical task".[3][page needed][4][need quotation to verify]—in other words, as an influential power-relationship in which the power of one party (the "leader") promotes movement/change in others (the "followers").[5] Some have challenged the more traditional managerial views of leadership (which portray leadership as something possessed or owned by one individual due to their role or authority), and instead advocate the complex nature of leadership which is found at all levels of institutions, both within formal[6] and informal roles.[7][page needed][need quotation to verify]

Studies of leadership have produced theories involving (for example) traits,[8] situational interaction,[9] function, behavior,[10] power, vision[11] and values,[12][need quotation to verify] charisma, and intelligence,[13] among others.[4]

Historical views[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The Prince, written by Niccolò Machiavelli (pictured), argued that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved, if one cannot be both.

In the field of political leadership, the Chinese doctrine of the Mandate of Heaven postulated the need for rulers to govern justly, and the right of subordinates to overthrow emperors who appeared to lack divine sanction.[14]

Pro-aristocracy thinkers[15] have postulated that leadership depends on one's "blue blood" or genes.[16] 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). On the other hand, more democratically inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals profiting from careers open to talent.[17]

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".[18]

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.

— P.K. Saxena[19]

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.

— Jia Lin, in commentary on Sun Tzu, Art of War[20]

Machiavelli's The Prince, written in the early-16th century, provided a manual for rulers ("princes" or "tyrants" in Machiavelli's terminology) to gain and keep power.

Prior to the 19th century, the concept of leadership had less relevance than today—society expected and obtained traditional deference and obedience to lords, kings, master-craftsmen, and slave-masters. The Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back as 1821.[21] Historically, industrialization, opposition to the ancien regime, and the phasing out of chattel slavery meant that some newly developing organizations (nation-state republics, commercial corporations) evolved a need for a new paradigm with which to characterize elected politicians and job-granting employers—thus the development and theorizing of the idea of "leadership".[22] The functional relationship between leaders and followers may remain,[23] but acceptable (perhaps euphemistic) terminology has changed.

Starting in the 19th century, the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into question. One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism—Lenin (1870–1924) demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, which was to bring 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 this with servant leadership.[24]

For a more general view on leadership in politics, compare the concept of the statesperson.

Theories[edit]

*Early Western history***[**edit]

The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has continued for centuries. Philosophical writings from Plato's Republic[25] to Plutarch's Lives have explored the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlying this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership[26] 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".

A number of works in the 19th century – when the traditional authority of monarchs, lords, and bishops had begun to wane – explored the trait theory at length: especially the writings of Thomas Carlyle and of Francis Galton. In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. Galton's Hereditary Genius (1869) examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when his focus moved from first-degree to second-degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these works lent support to the notion that leadership is rooted in the characteristics of the leader.

Cecil Rhodes (1853–1902) believed that public-spirited leadership could be nurtured by identifying young people with "moral force of character and instincts to lead", and educating them in contexts (such as the collegiate environment of the University of Oxford) that further developed such characteristics. International networks of such leaders could help to promote international understanding and help "render war impossible". This vision of leadership underlay the creation of the Rhodes Scholarships, which have helped to shape notions of leadership since their creation in 1903.[27]

*Rise of alternative theories***[**edit]

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a series of qualitative reviews[28] 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 people 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—situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. The focus then shifted away from traits of leaders to an investigation of the leader behaviors that were effective. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades.

ClanekJedna