Leadership can derive from a combination of several factors. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Defining characteristics of the functions of a leader pdf types of leaders are explained with examples from history and mythology.
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.
English only as far back as the 19th century. Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious leadership. The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has continued for centuries. What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader? Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. 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 notable works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of a leader. International networks of such leaders could help to promote international understanding and help “render war impossible”. 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. The focus then shifted away from traits of leaders to an investigation of the leader behaviors that were effective. 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.
This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks. Focus on a small set of individual attributes such as “The Big Five” personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills. Fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes. Do not distinguish between the leadership attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences.
Do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership. 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. 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.
To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential. 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 1945, Ohio State University conducted a study which investigated observable behaviors portrayed by effective leaders, They would then identify if these particular behaviors reflective in leadership effectiveness. The first dimension was identified as “Initiating Structure”, which described how a leader clearly and accurately communicates with their followers, defines goals, and determine how tasks are performed.