The Classical Old School Leader

This concise paper addresses a lifetime of learning on part of the author and the gracious graduated squadron commander interviewee who leant his time and wisdom. In the next few paragraphs the three key elements that will be addressed include: the author’s leadership philosophy, elicited in the hot seat from the Group Commander, a summary of the author’s commander interview, and an analysis of the interview through the lens of the author’s own philosophy.

For centuries leaders have been analyzed in order to determine what the traits and characteristics of a successful leader are. Leadership, as defined by Koontz and Weihrich (2008) is “the art or a process of influencing people so that they will strive willingly and enthusiastically toward the achievement of group goals” (p. 311). Leadership plays an important role in employee’s participation, creativity, recruitment to an organization, their commitment to the organization, and productivity levels. Over the years, there have been a number of theories surrounding leadership such as the “Great Man” theory, which, according to Riaz and Haider (2010), “assumes that leaders are born and have innate qualities, therefore, leaders

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.

Leadership has come a long way with earlier studies of trait and behavioral approaches. Since these were highly directive and non-supportive types of leaders, their main objective was to get the job done within the nine to five work day and go home. Although, this was an effective style back in the early 1900s, a lot has changed in terms of the business setting and functionality that many employees were operating back in the early 1900s. Many of the businesses back in the early 1900s consisted of factories, locally run family businesses that leaned towards a bureaucratic organizational system that suited that kind of leadership style. One of the major outcomes from this era was a lack of relationships and high standards of the work environment towards their employees. Overtime, businesses with help of extensive research till this day realized that in order to have better performance from their employees which could lead to increased profits, they must change how they operate within the organization and deal with their employees. Employees started to strive for more interpersonal style leadership behaviors and improved work settings to thrive and develop as an employee within the organization. Theories such as: LMX, Path-Goal, Transformational, Charismatic, and Servant Leadership were created to help understand and develop leaders for the benefit of their subordinates. These leadership styles are all good in their own way, yet I believe authentic leadership is ultimately

There are many things that make a person a good leader but when narrowed down, Wooden describes some of his steps that he uses. This paper will discuss three of the steps that Wooden uses to be an effective leader. As well as my understanding of the steps and what I got out of them. It will also talk about how I can relate to this steps and examples on how I can use them in order to become a more successful leader.

There are varieties of leadership styles. Niccolo Machiavelli and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, are opposites in their characterization of what makes a good leader. One justifies that the “end justifies the means” while the other directs us that “it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends” (King). I agree with the latter of the two believing that the first one burns bridges, while the latter builds them. However, both leadership styles exist today.

During each period, there is always a leader who changes a basic component of society: a king or ruler. We find characteristics of leaders as well as what changes they made in the ancient and medieval period. It is important to study ancient history because we can learn the mistakes and impacts of the decisions they made. During the time periods, organization depended upon the leader that brought change to the state. The organization of government relied upon the role of certain individuals or groups.

Leadership is the art of influencing people to get the necessary support and cooperation in a community or organizational affairs to maintain solidarity among people. It is the ability to influence others towards desired goals. More so, leadership may imply “doing the right thing”.

Please, I am writing to clarify the third assignment please. If I choose to do the first part, which is the historical leadership transformative role, do I have to answer the sub questions relating to the “case question”? For example, why is the case important? Address the major ramifications for impacting change, which arise from your case, what “lessons learned” resonate for future leaders and managers? How might you have handled the situation differently?

Chief King was promoted from the rank of deputy chief of the police department, and the outgoing Chief Mac’s right hand man, to chief of the department after a nationwide search. King is viewed by the rank and file officers as being part of the old guard and as someone who will not progress the department forward. In order for Chief King to gain the trust of his personnel he must employ several leadership theories.

Leadership is all around us—in our everyday lives. It can be as simple as helping a friend with homework or as complex as the president of the United States. Drum majors conduct the marching band, the quarterback on a football team makes win or lose decisions, a friend helps a someone who doesn’t quite understand the math homework. None of these have to be complex—a few words of encouragement often do the trick.

I asked what David has learned in his to journey to becoming the great leader he is today. He said that this has been a humbling experience for him. He is a big personality and seeing how that relates to him as a leader has been a learning experience. One aspect that he is working on is how he is perceived by those he is coaching. David said that he realizes after being affronted that he may come off as arrogant. You have to look at yourself through others eyes. So in being a leader he is worked on seeing things from others perspectives and being fair while doing this. Being very confident is a trait that he has to kept in check, the last thing that you would want is for that to alienate someone, or color their perception of you. He looks at all of

Leadership is a concept most people feel informed enough to discuss, but that few are truly educated sufficiently to comment on. Therefore, it is instructive to consider the leadership styles of people with very different approaches both to better understand the diversity underlying leadership, as well as to appreciate the effective and less effective strategies that underlie different leadership outcomes. For that reason, this essay will consider the styles of two leaders who are less visible in this highly contentious presidential election season: Jill Stein (the Green Party nominee) and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. The leadership styles of both are very different, yet they are aligned in the sense that both are outsider candidates struggling to gain momentum from a disaffected electorate. This essay begins with a theoretical discussion of leadership more generally and then turns to the two leaders as case studies, comparing and contrasting them and drawing conclusions about how they both work within the same public sphere and for putatively similar ends (i.e., gaining votes).

Leadership theories are attempts to answer some of the question people have about leadership. These theories range from simple “armchair philosophies” about the personal characteristics and effect relationship between leaders and followers and situations.

Determination, courage, and confidence are all characteristics needed to be a good leader. The principal player in a music group is considered to be a leader. Even bands need leaders, if we didn’t have leaders where would we be today? John Quincy Adams once said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” A good leader is liked by the people, has power, and produces followers. When there is an unwillingness to make things happen, to take the initiative and accept responsibility; this is when a leader emerges. Leaders develop through drive, creativity, and devotion.