Talk:Leadership

............

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at James Madison University supported by Theories of Leadership and Leader Bios and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 SP term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Carnegie Mellon University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Fall term.

Above message substituted from on 14:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
Hi I am a student at York College and would like to make an edit on this page if you do not mind. The edit that I would like to add is on the like provided

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SRampersaud/Leadership

SRampersaud 01:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC) SRampersaudl (talk)

A new approach
I propose a new way forward on this. I have contributed a short summary on leadership, which opens the path to separate articles on organisational leadership (House, Fiedler &c &c &c), and on leadership in other areas (eg military, sport). I hope this is helpful. Deipnosophista 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a better way to start would be to define Leader objectively, since it is an easier word to define, e.g., one who directs or influences the actions of others. Then proceed to define leadership very sparsely, e.g. a character trait or ability that makes a leader effective. Adding any more to this definition would not be objective, since it is a matter of opinion as to what exactly makes a leader effective or good. This article should include a representative list of official roles that are considered leaders, e.g. kings, generals, coaches, executives, etc. and the corresponding "others" that they lead. There could also be a list of famous individuals that are considered to have had great leadership ability historically, although that would of course be a matter of opinion. Napoleon and Roosevelt come to mind. Probably also a mention that people can lead without having any officially given title, like Joan of Arc or Martin Luther King, Jr. Lay the foundation with cold facts, then y'alls can get into your theories about what makes a good leader. I think the theories mentioned should preferably be those that have had the most influence on society, not necessarily what people believe to be most accurate, since again, the very nature of leadership is extremely subjective, hence the terrible state of this article. Plato's Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince seem like good candidates. Maybe Sun Tzu's Art of War. I'm not familiar with more modern theories since it seems like the waters are muddied with a bunch of hacks just trying to sell books.--Edwardstirling (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How to Be a Leader in a Crowd, Not a Follower

Technique (Lead the Listeners): No matter how prominent the big cat behind the podium is, crouched inside is a little scaredy-cat who is anxious about the crowd’s acceptance. Big winners recognize you’re a fellow big winner when they see you leading their listeners in a positive reaction. Be the first to applaud or publicly commend the man or woman you agree with (or want favors from). Technique (The Great Scorecard in the Sky): Any two people have an invisible scorecard hovering above their heads. The numbers continually fluctuate, but one rule remains: players with lower score pays deference to player with higher score. The penalty for not keeping your eye on The Great Scorecard in the Sky is to be thrown out of the game. Permanently
 * How to Make All the Right Moves

Big winners-before putting pen to paper, fingers to keyboard, mouth to phone, or hand to someone else’s to shake it-do a quick calc ulation. They ask themselves “Who has the most to benefit from this relationship? What has each of us done recently that demand deference from the other?” And what can I do to even the score 05/2023>https://kizlonji.wordpress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrakiz17 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, meaning the content should be Objective. Please guys, this is not a biography nor a place to spread your theories or what you think. Please, don't add a section starting with "According to John Smith", while you are, in fact, John Smith. Thanks for your understanding. This article is already very very bad right now it's almost unreadable. Thanks!

Is not an encyclopedia a place to look for "notble" theories and information. I have noted that there are many Biogrphies and Theories already included, John C Maxwell, Tom Peters, Ken Blachard. These are All Americans, I do Assume this is not just for Americans or for those only known to Americans.

Steve Coldwell (Malaysia) 211.24.170.130 09:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

i agree, why should leadership gurus be exclusive to the perseption of americans. there are many influential leadership gurus in asia also, and not political ones who make a difference for better leadership in multinational companies. we asians have oppinions too, but it not agreed by all americans. Lily 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perspective of leadership
IMHO, the front article has mainly dealt with


 * Transformational perspective
 * Competency perspective

It could be good if we mention something about these other perspectives


 * Romance perspective
 * Behavioral perspective
 * Contingency perspective

Oh, and some guy Fred Fiedler that success of a leader depend on how well matched his natural leadership style matches the situation on hand, kind of go against the path-goal leadership theory. Some lame tools Leadership Grid may fall somewhere in the article

It might make more sense to lay the page out by the major schools of leadership theory:


 * Trait/Skills
 * Behavior
 * Contingency
 * Relational
 * Principled
 * Ethical
 * Transformational/Transactional

Then move to leadership in an applied setting:


 * Business settings
 * Small Teams and Groups
 * Military
 * Political

Getting Others Involved
In order to be a good leader, you must also get others involved in what you are doing. There are several ways that you can get outsiders involved. First you must publicize your event or meeting to draw those who are not involved in. Also, you can provide incentives to attract those outsiders. When they can get a reward for coming, they are more likely to get involved. Once they have come and made the decision to get involved, you must give them responsibility. Giving someone responsibility within your organization will make the person feel like they are a part of the bigger picture, and are really contributing. Finally, you must give your members a chance to get others involved. When someone gets involved, it makes it so much better for them when they can reach out and get others involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgold007 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Scholarship
This article is so poorly written as to defy description. An article on leadership that makes no mention at all of its true function, which is to manage the overall production of goods and services that enable the standard of living a society requires. It is almost like this article was written in a "vacuum", a veritable "dream state" of contributors repeating what they read in some old book or magazine. There is literally no thinking going on at all in the contributions to this article, they are just "cut and paste". Just think about it, without production who needs leaders? If as human beings we decided we weren't going to produce anything anymore, leadership would not be necessary except at the most basic tribal level for common defence. Oh, by the way, those tribal leaders all got wiped out by leaders who oversaw the production of superior weapons. So it is the volume and type of production that a leader oversees that they derive their power from. Please make an effort to write an article that has even the slightest bit of truth and analysis. Oh, by the way, the "natural born leader" is one who disagrees with everyone else, you can put that in too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.229.151 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on "Primate Leadership" is a regurgitation of Feminist Critical Thinking 101. And what Chomsky has to say, in the grand tradition of Marx and Freud, is completely irrelevant. Chomsky has expertise in certain areas of language and syntax. Otherwise he is about as scholarly as a newspaper editorial. I am chopping some of this out.


 * Please do not delete text without making at least a token effort to discuss and to reach concensus. I agree that the article is awful and needs serious work on it, but the talk page is where editors can discuss changes aimed at improving the article, and Wikipedia in general. --Technopat (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for a Renewal
This article on "Leadership" is a bit overwhelming. Shouldn't this be the "once over the world" view and then allow it to spin out into all the differing models and theorists. I believe that this article would be more beneficial if it provided a scholarly look at the study of leadership, allowing individual readers to pursue their own paths. This should be a topical outline of all things "leadership" and feed readers out to supporting articles. Just my opinion, but I volunteer if there is some consensus. --Bullock 07:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E.w.bullock (talk • contribs)

Suggestions
In our view (Stellenbosch MBA 2010 English Group 1), having reviewed this article, we found it to be somewhat lacking in regards to its distinction between what Leadership versus Management is. Yes, it was briefly touched on but we still felt that further expansion on the subject would have added greatly to the discussion, hence our summation below:

MANAGEMENT VERSUS LEADERSHIP:

Many definitions of management and leadership do not provide clear distinction between the roles of “managers” and “leaders”. Often managers and leaders perform similar tasks but the two are not synonymous. Both managers and leaders have authority; utilise resources ; motivate people; provide direction; require good communication; create processes for work; have objectives and a strategy; deal with conflict resolution and negotiate (Oyedele, 2009). Both “lead” in a sense. Whilst leadership is an aspect of the management function, this may imply that being a leader derives automatically from becoming a manager. This is often not the case. The differentiator is in how managers and leaders go about their tasks.

We can use the term “manager” to describe individuals in a hierarchical structure, who have employees reporting to them. Here, the manager has some power vested in him/her by virtue of his/her position within the company. They have the authority to exercise direct influence over their subordinates, who are motivated to comply by the reward of payment, promotion or recognition (or some other psychological need). This style is what Burns (1978) refers to as transactional leadership. Essentially, management refers to the planning, organising, directing and controlling of subordinates’ activities in the pursuit of some set of goals. By implication, the tasks to be completed are the focus of the manager, rather than the employees completing those tasks - the “what” of the role, rather than the “how”.

Studies by Buckingham and Coffman (1999) demonstrate that “people join companies but leave managers”. These managers do not inspire performance and often use coercion and co-option as tools to deliver results (Beudeker and Nel 2009). Many have earned their promotion due to excellent performance as an employee (such as those they now manage), but have not developed the necessary skill and change in mindset required to be an effective manager – which is usually a function of leadership development. Charan, Drotter and Noel (2001) describe “leadership pipelines” and the challenges and changes that individuals need to undergo in order to perform at the next level up in the hierarchy. As individuals move higher up an organisation, their roles need to move increasingly into the leadership realm as opposed to their management positions. Drucker (1999) states that “one does not "manage" people; the task is to lead people. And the goal is to make productive the specific strengths and knowledge of each individual.” Therefore, what defines great managers is the leadership that they exhibit. This speaks to the “how” referred to earlier.

A “leader” is someone who is able to motivate, inspire and persuade people through collaboration and co-creation. A leader considers employees as colleagues and understands that “organisations In our view (Stellenbosch MBA 2010 English Group 1), having reviewed this article, we found it to be somewhat lacking in regards to its distinction between what Leadership versus Management is. Yes, it was briefly touched on but we still felt that further expansion on the subject would have added greatly to the discussion, hence our summation below:are first and foremost human systems” (Beudeker and Nel, 2009). Thus, the focus of leadership is on the people. Leaders measure their success according to their contribution in unleashing people’s potential: their own, those they work with and their organisations and societies. A leader motivates their teams to be effective and efficient; and actively seeks and embraces change with a big-picture view to longer-term sustainability and success – what Burns (1978) terms transformational leadership (in contrast to transactional leadership described previously). Warren Bennis describes this as “managers are people who do things right; leaders are people who do the right thing”.

Nel (2010) asserts that “high impact leadership is, per definition, a team activity” and the further up you progress in the company hierarchy (managing increasingly diverse portfolios), the more ignorant and incompetent you become. What sets leaders apart is their acceptance of this reality as non-threatening and the manner in which they collaborate and engage with the teams that they work with to unlock the collective genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charityn27 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

leaders
if the following is not in here anywhere, it should be: true leaders figure out how to motivate people toward the goal. they learn how to energize a team. if someone on the team gives a leader trouble the leader must not take it personally and must continue to figure out how to motivate the team member and how to energize persons by way of those persons' membership within a team. A leader's demeanor must be steady. a leader's authority is only truly undermined when he/she cannot effectively motivate the team toward the goal. TheBridge 07:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, the artical need´s to be devided into Leader and Leadership. My understanding of Leader is one who Lea´s, as Franz Bengtsson explained in his book Karl XII Life, the Hero King, "he did not point and say, "go and fight" but standing at the head of his army turnd to them and said "come" and led them into battle. Or as General Longstreet said to General Lee at Gettysburg, "I cain´t lead from behind" when Lee requasted that he stay behind the line. Leadership seem to me more of an organizaional term. Rytter 1 Dec. 2008

History of Leadership
What's going on with these two sentences under the subheading Historical Views on Leadership?

"In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman pater familias. feminist thinking, on the other hand, may damn such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance and matriarchies."

Is the bold type there for a reason to which I'm oblivious?

The sentence structure seems a little awkward and unclear.

Also, this sentence is incomplete:

"(Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back aant leadership]]."

Article length
Does anyone else think this article should be split into multiple articles on leadership? I think a history of leadership article and another on theories of leadership would make good splits. Thoughts? --Noetic Sage 04:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

ME AGREE LONGTIME

Leadership Readiness
Leadership is a much written and talked about term. We have seen authors and management gurus talking about leadership styles, theories and even how great leaders worked to rise to the occasion to save the day for their nations. There are numerous articles and material available on internet as well. A simple search for the term “leadership” in Google will give you approximately 164,000,000 (164 million) results. So what is different about this course titled “Leadership Readiness” being taught at SZABIST (Karachi, Pakistan) for the first time by Mr. Wali Zahid? It is not about the above mentioned questions. It is about what it takes to become a leader. What factors are involved in shaping up a leader, in preparing him / her to take up the leadership role, getting him / her ready to be precise? It is a prologue to leadership or becoming a leader. In studying the various aspects of readiness and during various brainstorming sessions in class we have developed a leadership readiness model. These and other documents shall be posted on the blog specifically made for it. http://readiness.wordpress.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fnaik (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The citation
The citation removed from this article (see history) may, if anybody finds it important, be inserted in Wikiquote instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad quality standard section
I had to move the following section "The embodiment of leadership" from the article to here, because of several issues, which need to be sorted out before reinsertion of anything of it:


 * It's just a citation. To meet Wikipedia quality standards, the gist of it need to be found and reinserted.
 * That "medical research" need citation before any reinsertion
 * It needs more concrete, encyclopaedic explanation. As for now it's actually rather confusing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding a new "Task-oriented and relationship-oriented" section under Styles
After some research, my partner and I think that there is room for elaboration in discussing task-oriented and relationship-oriented types of leadership. In section 1.6 Situational and Contingency Theories paragraph 3 ( on the Fiedler Contingency Model), the two aforementioned styles of leadership are briefly touched upon, but does not 1) fully convey the concepts, methods and processes involved in task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership, 2) expand on the benefits and disadvantages of each, and 3) discuss the outcomes of each. These two types of leadership are fundamental to understanding how leaders behave and act in a team, and how that affects the performance and efficiency of the team, and therefore warrants a more comprehensive explanation in the "Leadership" page.

Using research from various texts, and drawing from the meta-analysis "What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams?" (Burke et al., 2006), we plan to implement a new section under 2 Styles, named "Task-oriented and Relationship-oriented". This new proposed section will: 1) clearly define the two types of leadership, 2) give examples of each type, 3) mention the synonymous terms ("task-focused", "person-focused", etc), 4) discuss the theories on each type, 5) and discuss the conclusions and results from the aforementioned meta-analysis.

If you have any relevant feedback please feel free to post them here or on my, or my partner's, talk page. Rkwok92 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

More work is (still) needed

 * Can we please focus a little more on what is known of current day leadership, especially as it pertains to ethics in leadership? My point being that of all the theories and practices covered in most leadership texts, we are still facing a serious crisis in leadership...in both commercial, non-commercial and political contexts. So I would suggest a section on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of leadership theories, and references to the latest studies and publications that shine a spotlight on that aspect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.248.47 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of work needs doing here. Let's start with structuring the article, keeping edits within the structure, and all making a commitment to using only referenced material. I am removing any content that is irrelevant and unreferenced as a start ChrisTW (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC).


 * Some good improvements have been made, and I think it's time to move work that is not up to standard to the discussion to leave the main article reasonably professional. I have moved Leadership Cycles and Leadership in Politics to the discussion so far. ChrisTW (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree a lot of work is necessary. I particularly liked the suggestion of structure bellow, that is not signed and I am repeating here.


 * It might make more sense to lay the page out by the major schools of leadership theory:


 * * Trait/Skills
 * * Behavioral Style
 * * Situational Leadership
 * * Contingency theory
 * * Relational
 * * Principled
 * * Ethical
 * * Transformational/Transactional


 * Then move to leadership in an applied setting:


 * * Business settings
 * * Small Teams and Groups
 * * Military
 * * Political


 * I can work on the leadership theories in a separate article, trying to clean up/expand the theories, and then summarize in the main article. Thoughts? --Editor br (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I began to expand the trait/skill theory and welcome comments. --Editor br (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The following suggested structure is not exhaustive since there are so many leadership theories. I have changed "behavior" to "behavioral style" since this is a major theory and all theories involve behavior. Situational theories are important and should be included. More needs to be said about Transformational Leadership.
 * I would like to see the contexts of leadership section tidied up. I suggest removing politics and primates until they can be written in a scholarly fashion. I think Thomas Carlyle is overdone - this isn't an article about Thomas Carlyle although a link could be placed from this article to his shrine ChrisTW (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I am working in other articles in -en and -pt, but I will come back to this one later. According to Heifetz, there are four main schools of thought in leadership: 1) trait (leaders have certain characteristics), 2) situational (the situation defines the type of leadership and leader), 3) conditional (synthesis of trait and situational), 4) transactional (emphasis on leader-follower exchanges). There are also two types of approaches, A) descriptive (explain how leader behaves), B) prescriptive (explain how you should behave to become one). In prescriptive approach there is a lot of crap, so we need to sort some things out. I will try to work on bringing more scholarship and fixing the text in the next few weeks. Cheers, Editor br (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am thinking about a 'scope of leadership' section as well - traditional studies on leadership where related to the concept of authority as a way to provide protection, direction and order in groups. Early studies where predominantly about military and political leaders. There is also studies that define the scope of leadership as change. I will write down a proposal of a different outline in a while, if I can. Editor br (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Transformational leadership
Transformational Leadership (Bass; Kouzes & Posner) is a relatively new theory and deserves more lengthy treatment.ChrisTW (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris, lately I've been busy with Wiki-pt and Marketing, so I left Leadership aside. I will work on it as soon as I can. I will take a look at the material on Transformational leadership and include the text. Editor br (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked the article on Transformational leadership, and I have the Burns book at home. I can also check the other two references you cited when I go back, checking them out of the Univ's library. I am out of town, so I probably will read them early February. If I understood it correctly, transformational leadership as defined by Burns is still a follower-leader relationship (leader motivate follower, follower motivate leader), which would place within the scope of transactional theories. I favor Heifetz four schools of thought (as outlined above), as it is sucint, comprehensive enough and mutually exclusive (MECE). The problem is that I will only work on it late January, cannot promise working on more deepen research earlier than that... Editor br (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
Isn't it about time this article, as well as the Mike Richards article, be put under semi-protection? --scottieISmad (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

historical context
This article is impoverished by being almost exclusively about company leadership as studied in US business schools. Where is the reference to leadership as taught to Prussian officers or in the army of British India, or of the role of the mediaeval European or Japanese aristocracy?

I propose to impose some context by adding at the start something like this:

"Humans are social animals, which has made leadership of some sort part of humanity from its beginning. Ancient societies were keenly interested in leadership, and made studies of different leaders in an attempt to learn what made them successes or failures : the conclusion was that it was often character on the one hand, or external influences such as luck or the gods on the other . Such debates became part of formal philosophical debate in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the idea that success in endeavours was largely due not to individual leaders but to external factors became very influential through the Encyclopedists, Hegel, Marx and twentieth-century communism, though since the fall of the Soviet Union there has been something of a reaction.

"Leadership has been studied in political and military contexts, but most vigorously in recent years in the context of the leadership of organisations since the founding of management theory by Henri Fayol, Frederick Taylor and others. This article focuses on organisational leadership."

Deipnosophista (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

List of leadership qualities without reference
As there is no references, this list has no encyclopedic value, so I removed. Any objections? --Editor br (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

" Studies of leadership have suggested qualities that people often associate with leadership. They include:


 * Technical/specific skill at some task at hand
 * Charismatic inspiration - attractiveness to others and the ability to leverage this esteem to motivate others
 * Preoccupation with a role - a dedication that consumes much of leaders' life - service to a cause
 * A clear sense of purpose (or mission) - clear goals - focus - commitment
 * Results-orientation - directing every action towards a mission - prioritizing activities to spend time where results most occur
 * Cooperation - work well with others
 * Optimism - very few pessimists become leaders
 * Rejection of determinism - belief in one's ability to "make a difference"
 * Ability to encourage and nurture those that report to them - delegate in such a way as people will grow
 * Role models - leaders may adopt a persona that encapsulates their mission and lead by example
 * Self-knowledge (in non-bureaucratic structures)
 * Self-awareness - the ability to "lead" (as it were) one's own self prior to leading other selves similarly
 * Awareness of environment - the ability to understand the environment they lead in and how they affect and are affected by it
 * With regards to people and to projects, the ability to choose winners - recognizing that, unlike with skills, one cannot (in general) teach attitude. Note that "picking winners" ("choosing winners") carries implications of gamblers' luck as well as of the capacity to take risks, but "true" leaders, like gamblers but unlike "false" leaders, base their decisions on realistic insight (and usually on many other factors partially derived from "real" wisdom).
 * Empathy - Understanding what others say, rather than listening to how they say things - this could partly sum this quality up as "walking in someone else's shoes" (to use a common cliché).
 * Integrity - the integration of outward actions and inner values.
 * Sense of Humour - people work better when they're happy. "

Suggested qualities of leadership
Checked this reference and this is a list of leadership qualities that the Bristow company looks for. Questionable and not according to Wikipedia standards. Reference is an internal journal. Any objections? --Editor br (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In 2008 Burman and Evans published a 'charter' for leaders:


 * 1) Leading by example in accordance with the company’s core values.
 * 2) Building the trust and confidence of the people with which they work.
 * 3) Continually seeking improvement in their methods and effectiveness.
 * 4) Keeping people informed.
 * 5) Being accountable for their actions and holding others accountable for theirs.
 * 6) Involving people, seeking their views, listening actively to what they have to say and representing these views honestly.
 * 7) Being clear on what is expected, and providing feedback on progress.
 * 8) Showing tolerance of people’s differences and dealing with their issues fairly.
 * 9) Acknowledging and recognizing people for their contributions and performance.
 * 10) Weighing alternatives, considering both short and long-term effects and then being resolute in the decisions they make.

Leadership cycles
If a group or an organization wants or expects identifiable leadership, it will require processes for appointing/acquiring and replacing leaders.

Traditional closed groups rely on bloodlines or seniority to select leaders and/or leadership candidates: monarchies, tribal chiefdoms, oligarchies and aristocratic societies rely on (and often define their institutions by) such methods.

Competence or perceived competence provides a possible basis for selecting leadership elites from a broader pool of potential talent. Political lobbying may prove necessary in electoral systems, but immediately demonstrated skill and character may secure leadership in smaller groups such as gangs.

Many organizations and groups aim to identify, grow, foster and promote what they see as leadership potential or ability - especially among younger members of society. See for example the Scouting movement. For a specific environment, see leadership development.

The issues of succession planning or of legitimation become important at times when leadership (particularly individual leadership) might or must change due to term-expiry, accident or senescence.

General references

 * Argyris, C. (1976) Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, Wiley, New York, 1976 (even though published in 1976, this still remains a "standard" reference text)
 * Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research: Permission Set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.
 * Bennis, W. (1989) On Becoming a Leader, Addison Wesley, New York, 1989
 * Crawford, C. J. (2005). Corporate rise the X principles of extreme personal leadership. Santa Clara, CA: XCEO. ISBN 0-976-90190-0 9780976901907
 * Greiner, K. (2002). The inaugural speech. ERIC Accession Number ED468083.
 * House, R. J. (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2004.
 * Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 * Laubach, R. (2005) Leadership is Influence
 * Machiavelli, Niccolo (1530) The Prince
 * Maxwell, J. C. & Dornan, J. (2003) Becoming a Person of Influence
 * McGovern, George S., Donald C. Simmons, Jr. and Daniel Gaken (2008) Leadership and Service: An Introduction, Kendall/Hunt Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7575-5109-3.
 * Nanus, Burt (1995) The visionary leadership
 * Ogbonnia, SKC. (2007). Political Parties and Effective Leadership: A contingency Approach
 * Pitcher, P. (1994 French) Artists, Craftsmen, and Technocrats: The dreams realities and illusions of leadership, Stoddart Publishing, Toronto, 2nd English edition, 1997. ISBN 0-7737-5854-2
 * Renesch, John (1994) Leadership in a New Era: Visionary Approaches to the Biggest Crisis of Our Time, San Francisco, New Leaders Press (paperback 2002, New York, Paraview Publishing
 * Renesch, John (2001) "Conscious Leadership: Taking Responsibility for Our Better Future," LOHAS Weekly Newsletter, March 1, 2001
 * Roberts, W. (1987) Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun
 * Stacey, R. (1992) Managing Chaos, Kogan-Page, London, 1992
 * Stogdill, R.M. (1950) 'Leadership, membership and organization', Psychological Bulletin, 47: 1-14
 * Terry, G. (1960) The Principles of Management, Richard Irwin Inc, Homewood Ill, pg 5.
 * Torbert, W. (2004) Action Inquiry: the Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
 * Warneka, P and Warneka, T. (2007). The Way of Leading People: Unlocking Your Integral Leadership Skills with the Tao Te Ching. Asogomi Publications Intl. Cleveland, Ohio. website
 * Warneka, T. (2006). Leading People the Black Belt Way: Conquering the Five Core Problems Facing Leaders Today. Asogomi Publications Intl. Cleveland, Ohio. website
 * Warneka, T. (2008). Black Belt Leader, Peaceful Leader: An Introduction to Catholic Servant Leadership. website
 * Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspective. American Psychology, 62 (1), 7-16.
 * Zaleznik, A. (1977) "Managers and Leaders: Is there a difference?", Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1977

Text that have citations but need strong revision
The text bellow is written in an essay-like manner, and seems original research. I kept the transformational/transactional part until I find time to rewrite them. Weber is an important theorist and I will reinsert this text once I improve it under the "Behavior & Style Theory" section. Editor br (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gendered leadership theories are conflicted. See: Collins, Burris & Meyers (2014); Eagly and Carli (2003); Vecchio (2002); etc. This section is poorly written and unacademic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.201.228 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition
'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'.

I would delete the word 'common' since the task itself might be only on the leader's list of objectives. The task would then only be 'common' in the sense that every follower helps deliver it.

It is important to recall that people who are 'good' at leading may be evil or disturbed - and are merely very skilled at leading their followers over a cliff.

Being good at leading is very different from being a good leader.

Historically an awful lot of so-called 'great' leaders, (maybe most of them) seem to have got their followers killed in very large numbers - and lots of other folk too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.92.240 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Narcissistic leaders and leadership
There needs to be material on narcissistic leaders and leadership.--Penbat (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Leadership
Ladies and Gentlemen,

After much thought and research, in reading many peoples theories on leadership, I have determined that the definition of Leadership is, "Guiding Intent with Integrity."

In your own research, and on the discussion of Leadership, there primary theme is organizing people to reach a common goal. Or, put another way, "Who is guiding who where, when, how and why for what reason and what purpose." This algebraic expressing creates over 100,000 styles of leadership, that promote growth, retards growth, and / or maintains the status quo.

For clarity, it should be understood that Guiding, Intent and Integrity are ranges that run a scale from "100% for" - "0 / neutral" - "100% against". They should never be expected to be in a positive aspect, as leaders can/will/do use subterfuge to achieve needed / wanted results. (this goes back to style).

To insure that this definition is solid, I have sent it to many people who have written books on leadership, and have posted a blog articles about it. No one todate has refuted the definition. However, I would like to make sure that there is agreement before I take command and update the page on leadership with the definition. In the scientific community, if 3 scientists can reach the same conclusion about an experiment independently or through recreating ones experiment, then it moves from a hypothesis to a theory. Moving to a law is more work that I choose to take on at this time.

I look forward to your comments.

71.202.46.180 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Michael J. Fuhrman E Net Arch mfuhrman@enetarch.net

Leader
I think a good leader should have some characteristic which includes ''responsibility,motivation, diversity'' and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.121.23.152 (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Parsimonious"
"This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive and parsimonious picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. "

The word parsimonious is used completely incorrectly here. It means extremely frugal or thrifty. I doubt this person is saying that the research was inexpensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.9.168 (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One could take it in the sense of 'using a minimal number of assumptions', but I agree that it seems like extraneous rhetoric and adds no real value to the sentence. I've removed it. Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Major Changes Coming
A class of students who are working on a project with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program at James Madison University will soon be taking on this article to make improvements. If you have any issues or concerns please let me know; as I am serving as the campus ambassador for the class. Please keep in mind that the students who are working on this article are newcomers to the Wikipedia Community; and may make a few mistakes along the way. -dean (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Anything that produces greater coherence here would be welcome. I suggest that any revision needs to engage with:


 * >the history of leadership theory
 * >whether leadership is a part of business studies or military studies or politics or history or psychology or philosophy or...
 * >how far there are empirical cross-cultural data to support ideas on leadership, and how far they are little more than individual opinion and assertion
 * >whether strategic leadership differs from supervision
 * >the "leadership" vs "management" debate
 * >transactional and transformational leadership
 * >the consensual vs authoritarian debate
 * >distributed leadership and "followership"
 * >trait theory
 * >behaviourist approaches
 * >contingency approaches


 * It may well be that more than one article is needed. Deipnosophista (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Submission for external link
Hi,

I did not realise that you can't put links to your own site under wiki rules. I was therefore wondering if anyone here would see if they think that the blog helps the reader with leadership. There is no advertising or selling on the page that the link goes to, but it is a business website.

Ocinternational (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)23rd Oct 2012Ocinternational (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Ocinternational (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)OCinternationalOcinternational (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't link to blogs per WP:ELNO point 11. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Intended Edit from York College Student
Hello! My name is Nika. I am a York College student working on a class assignment and I have intentions to edit this article on leadership. I invite you to please review my intended edit located in my sandbox. I will post the link below. Thank you. (MsNika349 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC))

MsNika349 Sandbox


 * Hi Nika. there is already some coverage of transactional leadership in the article. Any edits pertaining to that topic should therefore be an improvement upon the current content. With this in mind, at this stage I would be concerned with the lack of references in your own writing. I would also be interested in how you see the content you propose as fitting in with the current Wikipedia article dedicated to transactional leadership. Cheers and best of luck with the assignment Andrew (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew, first and for most thank you for responding. Although there is some coverage on "transactional theory," I think that there is room for extra information on the transactional style of leadership, hence why I chose to make the edit to the leadership section. I think it gives somewhat of a better understanding on the specific of transactional leadership styles. Thank you for your wishes on my assignment as I now have to ask my peers to review my edit. Thank you again for your response. (MsNika349 (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC))

Edit coming: adaptive leadership
I am a student at Harvard Kennedy School and would like to edit a short reference to the model of adaptive leadership which has been taught by Heifetz and others at Harvard for around 30 years. It will refer to a new article on the subject "adaptive leadersip."

Marburgmichi (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Marburgmichi. Welcome to Wikipedia and I look forward to seeing your contribution. One I suggestion I would like to make is to be careful to craft your edits such that they don’t come across as spam|spam. Spam is a major problem in Wikipedia; particularly in fields related to the cooperate world, where every man and his dog wants their pet theory and latest publication to feature prominently in Wikipedia. In fact, it might be worth double checking with yourself whether this particular approach warrants inclusion in the article in the first place.


 * Beyond this, two ways in which to avoid the perception of spam is to use older well cited sources (as opposed to a new article as you suggest), and to suitably embed the relevant content within the existing article structure. In other words, I would caution against simply tacking on another ‘theory of leadership’ to the article. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew, thank you for your feedback. I will ensure proper sourcing and relevance. I will focus on Heifetz main work, ensure neutrality and include criticism. I was intending to open a separate Wikipedia article with around 1.500 words and link it to this more general article on leadership. This work is part of a requirement I am taking for a media policy class at Harvard Kennedy School.Marburgmichi (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The ontological-phenomenological model for leadership?
Hi all. I am just looking at this section that has been added back into the article after recently being removed. Now the original removal was not explained, and so in terms of procedure I have no problem with MLKLewis's decision to add it back in (hi MLKLewis). In terms of content though, I am not sold on its appropriateness. Specifically, I am concerned that the paragraph a) is giving undue weight to a highly niche perspective, b) is a departure from the article topic (e.g. the definition raised essentially boils down to coordination rather than something resembling mainstream conceptions of leadership), c) has readability issues, and d) is an exercise in promotion. Do other editors share this concern? Or can other editors reassure me that the content is appropriate? In terms of the latter, it would be particularly reassuring to see evidence that this perspective on leadership has some substantial 'take up' in academic circles. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Titles emphasizing authority
removing this section from article as it's unreferenced, OR-ish and adds little. Bacchiad (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

At certain stages in their development, the hierarchies of social ranks implied different degrees or ranks of leadership in society. Thus a knight led fewer men in general than did a duke; a baronet might in theory control less land than an earl. See peerage for a systematization of this hierarchy, and order of precedence for links to various systems.

In the course of the 18th to 20th centuries, several political operators took non-traditional paths to become dominant in their societies. They or their systems often expressed a belief in strong individual leadership, but existing titles and labels ("King", "Emperor", "President", and so on) often seemed inappropriate, insufficient, or downright inaccurate in some circumstances. The formal or informal titles or descriptions they or their subordinates employ express and foster a general veneration for leadership of the inspired and autocratic variety. The definite article when used as part of the title (in languages that use definite articles) emphasizes the existence of a sole "true" leader.

Charisma
Charisma is an important aspect of leadership. I will ponder how to add this to the present article. Meanwhile, how would one add to "See also" a reference to the "Personality charisma" section of the article on charisma? Pring (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Charisma is the main quality of a leader in the sense that one cannot lead without having positive moral inbeding skills Sylvia Savage (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Leadership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131101163340/http://ehis.ebscohost.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c5e54625-1ac1-4cb4-b934-0ca10456da86%40sessionmgr13&vid=6&hid=2 to http://ehis.ebscohost.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c5e54625-1ac1-4cb4-b934-0ca10456da86%40sessionmgr13&vid=6&hid=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a psychology article. That's not a very nice thing to say about leadership.
Maybe the person that made the decision to cast this as psychology was abused by their boss. They're misguided to accuse their boss of insanity, but I don't really blame them for that. I would have accused that boss of feigning mental illness, as if in all the ways that are important there could be such a thing as mental illness. 203.215.118.62 (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. Good observation. But psychology concerns itself with all aspects of behavior and the mind, not just illnesses. SnailsSpace (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Addition of a Journal Reference
As a newcomer to wikipedia I tried to add a journal reference to this page as a small contribution and starting point. It was * and it was removed by another editor who advised me on this talk page that it was not notable enough. The first sentence of this leadership article states that leadership is both a research area and practical skill yet the article seems to be mostly a compendium of theories. Wikipedia describes an encyclopedia as a compendium holding all branches of knowledge and in the knowledge article states that knowledge can either be theoretical or practical. The leadership article seems to miss the practical part. The journal reference I tried to add focuses on the practical elements of leadership. After reading some of the other journal references I noticed that When I click on House Robert it takes me to a blank wiki page. The first House article cited is a discussion of a theory that the author states shows promise and should be furthers tested. The second House article is a review of a theory from that one persons perspective. When I click on Vroom Victor it takes me to a page with very little content on a business school professor. The article cited is nothing more than a very general discussion on a page promoting the sale of the article. I replied to the editor with these observations and he suggested that I go to the talk page of this article and seek advice. Why was what I added not considered notable when other journal references that are already there seem to be even less so? I am a bit confused. Before trying to make any other contributions I thought it best to seek advice on this page. thanks AFHistoryBuff (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As all of those "journals" are contained in the references section of the article, they should be directly supporting material in the article itself and cited as such. For example, the House works are cited in footnotes 40 and 41. There are probably stray books/references that have creeped in over time and we'd likely need to prune those. Why were you wanting to add a reference without any material?  Kuru   (talk)  18:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Im looking to add different styles of leadership
Im looking to add different styles of leadership, I do not really see a section for different styles. Does anyone have any input? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaparralCote (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up over all article
Hello I would like to try to just clean up article. One thought is to try to join common thoughts under different headings. Any imput as to how to accomplish? Also I found an article titled leadership styles my thought is that this article should be brought into the leadership article, it also needs some work, any thoughts?--ChaparralCote (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leadership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170222013842/http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=256 to http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=256
 * Added tag to http://amj.aom.org/cgi/doi/10.2307/20159921

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by YW5634 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Ritalyo (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)