Leadership Vs. Authoritative Leadership

From the vantage point of the present, it is easy to look back at the tenure of any great leader and draw conclusions about just what it was that made him/her great. We can examine the circumstances under which their leadership flourished; piece together what we know of their character and personality traits; delve into the factors that may have driven them; and dissect their leadership style all in an effort to pinpoint the source of their success. The ‘Great Man’ theory, popular in the 19th century and now thoroughly debunked, held that leaders are born, not made; suggesting that men like George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., and Winston Churchill were born with the innate capacity to change the world (Landis,

Leadership goals should always contain methods of a continuous process of learning through education, training, and individual experiences that help ensure that the message will be communicated in a confident and competent manner when leading troops. Soldiers tend to follow leaders that demonstrate and live the Army values, while displaying their confidence in every decision that affects change. Leaders are not born as organizational or tactical leaders; but grown by their genetic determinism, which is inside and the characteristics they work toward; that mold is which type leader they will become. Not just anyone can lead; you must have the desire to lead, be willing to make the commitment to being a leader, and prepare yourself properly, then you have the desire to become a leader. (Fulton, 1995).

Grojean, Resick & Diskson (2004) suggest that leaders are responsible for facilitating their follower’s to become capable and guide them to improving their capabilities and strengths. Differentiating between different leadership styles can be done in a number of ways. It was determined that the traditional styles of leaders include authoritian (autocratic), democratic, permissive (laissez-faire) and bureaucratic (Viinamäki, 2009).

Leaders are some of the most influential individuals in any society. They have the ability to influence those around them with various leadership styles including coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching. Effective leaders consistently adapt to the environment around them to either enhance or correct any situation facing them. Within these leadership styles the most effective style has been considered that of the authoritative style. This style brings individuals together, builds self-confidence, and easily adapts to the environment around it.

What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.

As many countries developed over time, changes have occurred that benefited the citizens of each nation. However, there is one important element that is needed to establish laws, peace, and harmony in each country. This element is known as leadership. Leaders around the world have contributed to the success and evolution of all of our nations, proving to be a huge responsibility. Residents are dependent amongst leaders, who are in charge of protecting their citizens at no cost. Without the presence of them, chaos and corruption would establish, which could ruin relationships and trade with other nations. In history, great leaders have been praised and admired. The characteristics of three great leaders, who are Suleiman, Nelson Mandela, and Queen Elizabeth I, have exhibited the qualities of being a great leader. These traits include causing admiration and inspiration, demonstrating intelligent knowledge, and guiding residents and themselves to solve conflicts that may cause death.

As many countries developed over time, changes have occurred that benefited the citizens of each nation. However, there is one important element that is needed to establish laws, peace, and harmony in each country. This element is known as leadership. Leaders around the world have contributed to the success and evolution of all of our nations, proving to be a huge responsibility. Residents are dependent amongst leaders, who are in charge of protecting their citizens at no cost. Without the presence of them, chaos and corruption would establish, which could ruin relationships and trade with other nations. In history, great leaders have been praised and admired. The characteristics of three great leaders, who are Suleiman, Nelson Mandela, and Queen Elizabeth I, have exhibited the qualities of being a great leader. These traits include causing admiration and inspiration, demonstrating intelligent knowledge, and guiding residents and themselves to solve conflicts that may cause death.

Teresa Nguyen Honors History 11 Ms. Gray December 8, 2017 A Great and Controversial Leader The personality and behavior of a person can help his success or failure. With great determination to be a soldier as a young boy, General George Smith Patton Jr., became one of the greatest yet most contradictory leader. As a little boy, Patton had extreme knowledge of military history and military strategy comparing to those his age.

Throughout history, there have been many systems of government that have been created, and have revolutionised todays modern forms of government. Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Theocracy, and Anarchy all use various, unique techniques on how to run a civilization. Each of them require different leadership traits in order for it to work properly.

Vishwas Chavan once said, ““I have always believed in the power of collaboration... I realized that you can't develop all the competencies you need fast enough on your own. Furthermore, if you don't collaborate, your ideas will be limited to your own abilities. As a result, you will not be able to serve your clientele and thus can't achieve the anticipated impact.” This means that working and learning together helps create more ideas, and therefore, more problems can be solved. One can actually limit one’s ability to lead by insisting that one rule alone. Throughout history, collaborative leadership has yielded more positive results than authoritarian leadership. Authoritative leadership is less effective than collaborative leadership

When societal leaders are envisioned a faction of elites often comes to mind. These identifiable individuals embody desirable leadership characteristics. Resourcefulness, charisma, strength, tolerance, compassion, honesty, and determination are just a few of the personal facets ascribed to these leaders. However, this oversimplification of perfection is a narrative created by followers and it ignores some vital details. The leaders held above all others are simply human, and they too are flawed. The ignorance of this fact leads to blind faith which is dangerous. The leaders we look to for guidance should be ordinary people, rather than conventional figures whose established significance often overshadows their true character.

Born November 11, 1885 in San Gabriel, California, General George Smith Patton, Jr. was one of the most complicated, yet greatest leaders in military history. On June 11, 1909, he attended the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) for a year and then to the United States Military Academy at West Point where he commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the 15th cavalry Regiment. Growing up, Patton’s ultimate life goal was to become a hero and a successful leader. In Robert B. Williamson’s book, “General Patton’s Principles for Life & Leadership”, the author takes a personal account of Patton’s principles which he lived and fought for. These main principles consisted of the following: Leadership,

When society contemplates famous leaders they often bring up characters such as Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi. However, one is a dictator and the other is a guide. A considerable segment of the populace confuses what the term leadership is and implies. The term goes beyond a power position and it is much more intimate than mere guidance for the achievement of certain goals. True and successful leaders are able to care, inspire, and execute plans for the members they guide; the direction and development of these three valuable characteristics are the key difference that defines true mentorship.

If one has no leadership ability, one cannot be a leader. If one does not make what his or her followers consider the correct decisions to achieve their goals, no one will have faith in the leader's abilities and, consequently, no one will follow and without followers, there can be no leader. Another important criterion which one must have in order to be a leader is a person who leads a crowd in the direction where the goal can be accomplish as well as someone who acknowledges a problem and finds solutions to it.

This literature review is based on 21st Century Leadership. This review will provide a comparative discussion of the various leadership developments, theories and models, identifying similarities and differences based on a set of criteria selected. This paper begins with an introduction to viewing the ‘map’ of leadership, its theory and frameworks through the different contextual lenses of academic, practitioner and learner. It affirms the complementary importance of theory and practice and the ability of everyone to be a learner in terms of leadership development. The paper then provides a short review of generic leadership literature, highlighting the more significant trends, similarities and differences in 21st century leadership vs