Political Leadership And Its Importance

Leadership might be the most discussed and written about topics in our modern society. Thousands of books have covered this topic and people are often using this term correctly as well as in the right format. But what does it really mean? Strength? Power? Leadership could be as simple as holding the hand of a small child crossing the street, or as complex as signing the Declaration of Independence. A leader is not someone who cheats their way to the top, or tricks others into doing things. Being a leader is also not all about power and control. Power is not leadership because leaders don’t necessarily need any source of “power,” but instead are looked up to by their followers. The assertion of power can create feelings of fear, betrayal,

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.

Leadership is a term that cannot be defined or simplified with a standard definition (Bethel, 2011). The term’s complexity is a phenomenon, as it carries a different meaning for each person. During the

Every person has a different definition of what makes a leader. Some feel a leader is inspirational, while others regard leadership as someone who can give criticism and make the tough decisions. Each definition is unique, and each is vague. This is why the definitions of leadership people use aren’t always accurate. Bolman and Deal, however, do an excellent job of presenting four frames of leadership people use to successfully—or unsuccessfully—support and lead a group of people. The four frames presented by the authors are: human resource, symbolic, structural, and political. The human resource frame is used by leaders to empathize with their followers, the symbolic frame is used to inspire and unite followers around a vision, the structural frame is used to emphasize the importance of a process, and the political frame establishes competition and focuses on creating allies.

Leadership has been described 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”...

The focus on leadership, in its myriad of forms, has long been an interest among researchers in academia. Scholars from many disciplines such as communication, psychology, sociology, political science, and education have examined principles of leadership: scrutinizing everything from the interactions of leaders in small group scenarios (Barge, 1994; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Kouzes, & Posner, 1995; Stogdill, 1948) to the impact of the rhetoric of major political leaders such as the president of the United States (Bostdorff,1994; Campbell, & Jamison, 1990; Davis, 1995; Stuckey, 1991). Scholars have examined the communication of leaders providing insights to everything from the lexicons (Abelman & Dalesandro, 2008; Bligh, & Hess, 2007; Hart, 1996) to the universal themes (Burke, 1966; Crowley & Hawhee, 1999) used by leaders to spread their messages.

It seems we hear a considerable amount on the topic of leadership today. Moral, business and particularly political leadership gains attention on our national news, personal conversations and even appearing on posts within social networks.

Unquestionably, the greatest of leaders have always been guided by a vision and gathered follows to share in that vision. Transformational leadership was created by presidential biographer and leadership expert James MacGregor Burns as a way to categorize the traits and leadership style which most visionary leaders posses. According to Burns, transformational leadership is apparent when, “’leaders and followers make each other advance to a higher level of morality and motivation (Burns).’” It is a transformational leader’s nature and

Burns’ views of transforming leadership in comparison to Bass’ share concepts but offer slightly different views. They both recognize leadership as a relationship. Burns (1978) relates the transforming leadership relationship to lifting both leaders and followers together, while Bass (1990) relates leadership to the inspiration or positive motivation of followers. Burns (1978) wrote about transforming leadership as “occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (p.20). This implies that both the leader and the follower can be changed by their interaction with each other. Bass (1990) wrote: “leaders broaden and elevate the interest of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purpose and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group” (p.13). There is a group dynamic but the onus is on the leader’s action to create the impact. Like a platoon leader trying to save all his men in a combat area, or a CEO trying to save a struggling business- motivated for the good of all is when transformation leadership can arise. It can transform average followers into the best versions of themselves motivated to do extraordinary things.

The definition of leadership has not changed over the course of time. Through a compare and contrast method of analysis, one can glean the common traits of a leader from Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Thomas More’s Utopia, and Queen Elizabeth’s speech to the Spanish Armada. Leadership can be defined as a person who is able to relate to their subjects, accept their responsibilities as a leader, and has a following of supportive people.

A leader’s position and responsibility would therefore be akin to that of a shepherd leading sheep or the captain of a boat that is taking people to a destination, who had to steer the boat through dangerous and convoluting waters. The lives, the prospects and hopes of the passengers depend on how well the captain performs as a leader.

There has been vast amounts of research done on the topic of leadership, and yet despite this it continues to be ‘‘riddled with paradoxes, inconsistencies, and contradictions’’

Yet, “pure” charismatic leadership can become an undemocratic form of leadership. Transforming leaders take account for public values that “embrace the supreme and enduring principles of the people” (34). These leaders mobilize people “for participation in the processes of change, encouraging a sense of collective identity and collective efficacy, which in turn brings stronger feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy, described by Bernard Bass as an enhanced “sense of ‘meaningfulness’ in their work and lives” (31). Therefore, by pursuing transformational change, it creates a positive change in the followers and potentially developing followers into leaders. They do this by empowering their followers. Burns states, “Instead of exercising power over people, transforming leaders champion and inspire followers” (32). However, tension can arise in the process of transformational leadership. As followers “rise above narrow interests and work together for transcending goals” leaders are then exceeded by their followers. This element is what makes transforming leadership participatory and democratic.

Burns, the father of contemporary leadership thinking, as part his seminal work on leadership, also propagated the now popular transformation and transaction leadership theories. As expected, his work has generated plenty interest and variation. The most popular variation of the transformation leadership theory, is the work by Bass. Burns (1978) and

Leadership is a vital factor that affects the performance of every type of establishment in the world. It is necessary in providing success and direction, maintaining order and focus, and ultimately setting and reaching goals. (Nahavandi, 2015) Being a leader can be a rewarding positon. However, in any situation, being a successful leader can be a daunting task. The process of leading others often presents situations where the leader has to choose between what is right and what is easy. One particular individual decided to choose what was easy and it cost him everything. (Nahavandi, 2015)