History of Leadership

Leadership, unsurprisingly, has changed over time, just as the rest of the world has.  Also unsurprising is that leadership seems to have changed alongside of history, corresponding directly with certain events and time eras. This makes sense, since leadership often involves people that are at the heads of society, and when a changing society forces those who run it to change, then physical leadership will probably change too.  This is present throughout history-I think a major shift in power such as the American Revolution is a particularly good example since it is usually the result of a changing society in general.  In this case, the movement within society away from absolute rule and towards representative rule resulted in an obvious change in leadership, since absolute leaders were no longer accepted in society.  Leadership now meant more fairness and equality, and leaders were forced to change their tactics.  In addition, it could also be argued that this change relates directly to the timeline of history-gradually emerging shifts in leadership since the revolution has shaped the world today, in which leadership is definitely characterized differently than it generally would have been a few centuries ago.  Thus, I think it makes sense to see the relation between leadership developing alongside of history.

There's a saying that change is always progressive and for the better; however, I don't subscribe to this theory.  In fact, I think the opposite is particularly visible as far as leadership is concerned.  Certainly, as society has progressed, so has leadership, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what we have now is good/better than before.  To me this is very evident in politics.  I think it's better to discard what society has to say about the subject and examine it with one's own eyes, but even ignoring all of the stereotypes spewed out by the mainstream media and society's current cultural disgust with politics in general, it's easy to find shortcomings.  My single greatest issue is what I view as a shift from doing into debating.  I see that over a period of a few centuries, society has developed from one in which few hold power, to one in which many hold power.  Granted this is debatable, but I think it makes sense-in the current setting of democracy and extensive civil rights, the average citizen holds more power than most wield.  There are so many more people involved with the decision-making process, so many things have to be considered, and even more people get involved along the way.  No one person (or even a small group of people, for that matter) is able to wield extensive power above anyone else, and when people occasionally try to, an immediate uproar follows (any scandal involving police, a politician, etc abusing their power is a great example).  What I see as the result is a society in which it takes forever to get things done-essentially, less doing, and more talking.  Of course, the opposite can be argued as well, and I am certainly not advocating for absolute power such as monarchies.  I only wish to point out that as society has grown and involved more of its citizens, so has leadership.  I don't think leadership is the strong, central power concept anymore, and now features many more people than was probably ever conceived maybe five hundred years ago.  What I view as the unfortunate side effect is the current state of American politics.

Definitions of Leadership

"What is your definition of leadership?"  A difficult question if I ever heard one-you might as well ask me what the meaning of life is.  I hate such seemingly rhetorical questions, because it's impossible to come up with a single correct answer.  Many have certainly tried, but as I found out in class last week, those definitions changed drastically in a matter of years.  Which one is right?  The answer-quite possibly none of them, but it's just as likely that all of them are right too.  I wouldn't be able to pick one out-who am I to judge, after all?  However, I did have to come up with my own definition of leadership, and eventually I decided that leadership is the ability to oversee, support, and be supported by a group of people working towards a common goal.  At least it was easier than picking an existing definition.


I should explain my exact meaning.  When I think of leaders (people), all of the obvious choices run through my head-Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, the Dalai Lama, etc.  What do all these people (and many more) have in common?  They all represented a group of people with common interests, hopes, and goals.  MLK lead African-Americans on the path to greater civil rights, Ronald Reagan was elected by the people of the United States to lead the country, and the Dalai Lama advocates for a group of like-minded, spirituality-based Tibetans.  All were heads of a very large group of people, guiding them towards common interests.  Thus, my definition of being a leader is people who are able to do exactly that.


However, being a leader is not quite the same thing as leadership in general.  I want to distinguish between people who actually do so and people who only have the ability-having the ability does not make one a leader.  While that trait is great and admirable, I don't think a leader is a leader unless they are recognized as such.  As bad as it sounds, I think it follows logic-without recognition, one can say he is anything he wants to be, and he'll be both right and wrong.  If you ask me, my definitions are as follows-leadership is the physical act of leading, while leaders are people who act on the act of leading.


Looking back on the first day of class, I now find that my definition is very similar to that from the 1930s-"Leadership is a process in which the activities of many are organized to move in a specific direction by one".  This definition is closest with mine in that it emphasizes the process-the act of guiding, nurturing, and leading-rather than influence or relationships, as is present in definitions from other decades.  I think this revelation is kind of interesting-maybe I'm just old fashioned?  But then again, as I've said before, I don't think there's one single correct definition.