Categories and types of leadership Leadership is a quality a person may have. One can categorize the exercise of leadership as either actual or potential: * actual – giving guidance or direction, as in the phrase “the emperor has provided satisfactory leadership”. Potential – the capacity or ability to lead, as in the phrase “she could have exercised effective leadership”; or in the concept “born to lead”. In both cases, as a result of the constancy of change some people detect within the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the act of learning appears fundamental to certain types f leading and leadership.
When learning and leadership coalesce, one could characterize this as “learners”. Leadership can have a formal aspect (as in most political or business leadership) or an informal one (as in most friendships). Speaking of “leadership” (the abstract term) rather than of “leading” (the action) usually implies that the entities doing the leading have some “leadership skills” or competencies.  The Psychology of Leadership One of the differentiating factors between Management and Leadership is the ability or even necessity to inspire.
A Leader, one who can instill passion and erection to an individual or group of individuals, will be using Psychology to affect that group either consciously or unconsciously. Those who seem to be “Natural Leaders” and effectively inspire groups without really knowing the strategies or tactics used are considered Charismatic Leaders. The conscious Leader on the other hand applies a variety of psychological tactics that affect the “reactions” of a group to the environment they exist in.
In numerous “directive” (meaning to willfully direct as opposed to unconsciously do) Organizational psychology disciplines such as “Directive Communication” y Arthur F Carmaker and theories like “The ripple effect” by Sigil Barded, leadership is a product of awareness and command of the reactions and influences of a group on the individual as well as the individual on the group. A Leader’s successful application of directive organizational psychology by modifying specific leadership behaviors towards the group, will yield an Organizational culture that is in essence “inspired”. Edit] The Embodiment of Leadership Types Of Leadership Structures Leadership Effectiveness Leadership Behaviors Leadership Development Leadership Qualities Individualized Leadership Leadership Theory Market Leadership Effective Style Leadership Skills Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership Genesis Khan Effective Manager Situational Leadership Leadership Relation Leaders Leadership Leadership Styles Management Styles People Managers Most research into leadership mistakenly focused on cognitive and intellectual processes, forgetting the important fact that every cognitive process is an embodied process.
In the book Leading People the Black Belt Way, Timothy Warned accurately points out that, “Great leadership begins with the body. ” People are living, organic beings, ND medical research is increasingly recognizing the truth that mind and body are, in fact, one. While we often speak about mind and body as separate entities, great leaders understand that mind and body are, in reality, two sides of the same coin. Superior leaders recognize further that an awareness of their own physical selves is a critical component of their success.
In a very real way, our toes, stomachs, and shoulders are on equal footing (pardon the pun) with our thoughts and ideas. As with any other tool, however, leaders must be trained to use embodied leadership technology appropriately and effectively. In leadership, as in the martial arts, your stance is critical to your success. If you have a weak stance, then every way you lead will be fundamentally flawed. For example, if you have a weak stance in your emotional life, then you will have significant difficulties when you attempt to lead other people relationally.
Recalling that we are embodied beings, I do not mean the word stance to be understood only metaphorically. I am also using the word stance in the literal sense, in terms of how leaders actually carry themselves physically when they lead others. Learning embodied stance will deepen your capacity or experiencing your own emotions, and better equip you to cope with the emotions of others, from the lighthearted to the highly conflicted. Your stance, you will learn, has a very literal, not to mention enormous impact on your ultimate success as a leader.
Most research into leadership mistakenly focused on cognitive and intellectual processes, forgetting the important fact that every cognitive process is an embodied process. In the book Leading People the Black Belt Way, Timothy Warned accurately points out that, “Great leadership begins with the body. ” People are living, organic beings, and medical research is increasingly recognizing he truth that mind and body are, in fact, one.
While we often speak about mind and body as separate entities, great leaders understand that mind and body are, in reality, two sides of the same coin. Superior leaders recognize further that an awareness of their own physical selves is a critical component of their success. In a very real way, our toes, stomachs, and shoulders are on equal footing (pardon the pun) with our thoughts and ideas. As with any other tool, however, leaders must be trained to use embodied leadership technology appropriately and effectively.
In leadership, as in the martial arts, your stance is critical to your success. If you have a weak stance, then every way you lead will be fundamentally flawed. For example, if you have a weak stance in your emotional life, then you will have significant difficulties when you attempt to lead other people relationally. Recalling that we are embodied beings, I do not mean the word stance to be understood only metaphorically. I am also using the word stance in the literal sense, in terms of how leaders actually carry themselves physically when they lead others.
Learning embodied stance will deepen your capacity for experiencing your own emotions, and better equip you to cope with the edit] Leadership associated with positions of authority In On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, Thomas Carlyle demonstrated the concept of leadership associated with a position of authority. In praising Oliver Cromwell use of power to bring King Charles I to trial and eventual beheading, he wrote the following: “Let us remark, meanwhile, how indispensable everywhere a King is, in all movements of men.
It is strikingly shown, in this very War, what becomes of men when they cannot find a Chief Man, and their enemies From this viewpoint, leadership emerges when n entity as “leader” contrives to receive deference from other entities who become “followers”. And as the passage from Carlyle demonstrates, the process of getting deference can become competitive in that the emerging “leader” draws “followers” from the factions of the prior or alternative “leaders”. In representative democracies the people retain sovereignty (popular sovereignty) but delegate day-to-day administration and leadership to elected officials.
In the United States, for example, the Constitution provides an example of recycling authority. In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the American Founders rejected the idea of a monarch. But they still proposed leadership by people in positions of authority, with the authority split into three powers: in this case the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Under the American theory, the authority of the leadership derives from the power of the voters as conveyed through the electoral college. Many individuals share authority, including the many legislators in the Senate and the House of Representatives. 2]  Leadership cycles If a group or an organization wants or expects identifiable leadership, it will quire 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 radiotelegraphy 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 leaders hip development. The issues of succession planning or of legitimating become important at times when leadership (particularly individual leadership) might or must change due to term-expiry, accident or senescence. Edit] Titles emphasizing authority 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 systemization of this hierarchy, and order of precedence for links to various systems. In the course of the 19th and 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 flunkies employed 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 which use definite articles) emphasizes the existence of a sole “true” leader. Edit] Symbolism of leadership Main article: Symbols of leadership Various symbolic attributes ? often varying according to the cultural milieu mark out authority-figures and help make them seem special and revered or feared. For examples and discussion, see symbols of leadership.  Leadership among primates Richard Wrangler and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence present evidence that only humans and chimpanzees, among all the animals living on earth, share a similar tendency for a cluster of behaviors: violence, territoriality, and competition for uniting behind the one chief male of the land. 3] This position is contentious. Many animals beyond apes are territorial, compete, exhibit violence, and have a social structure controlled by a dominant male (lions, wolves, etc. ) suggesting Wrangler and Peterson evidence is not empirical. By comparison, bonbons, the second-closest species- elites of man, do not unite behind the chief male of the land. The bonbons show deference to an alpha or top-ranking female that, with the support of her coalition of other females, can prove as strong as the strongest male in the land.
Thus, if leadership amounts to getting the greatest number of followers, then among the bonbons, a female almost always exerts the strongest and most effective leadership. However, not all scientists agree on the allegedly “peaceful” nature of the bono or its reputation as a “hippie chimp”. CO] Some have argued that, since the bono pattern inverts the dominant pattern mongo chimpanzees and men with regard to whether a female can get more followers than a male, humans and chimpanzees both likely inherited gender- bias against women from the ancestors of the chimpanzees; gender- bias features as a genetic condition of men.
And the bias against women having leadership as a position of authority occurs in most cultures in the world. As of 2002, Sweden had the highest percentage of women in the legislature: but only 43%. And the United States, Andorra, Israel, Sierra Leone, and Ireland tied for 57th place with less than 15% of the legislature women.  Admittedly, hose percentages significantly outclass the occurrence of female chimpanzees becoming alpha of the community by getting the most followers, but similar trends exist in manifesting a general gender-bias across cultures against females gaining leadership as a position of authority over followers.
An alternative explanation suggests that those individuals best suited to lead the a group will somehow rise to the occasion and that followers (for some reason) will accept them as leaders or as proto-leaders. In this scenario, the traits of the leaders (such as gender, aggressiveness, etc. ) will depend on the requirements f a given situation, and ongoing leadership may become extrapolated from a series of such situations.
In Guttural anthropology, much speculation on the origins of human leadership relates to the perceived increasing need for dispute resolution in increasingly densely-populated and increasingly complex societies. The image of swarms of lemmings which follow the first lemming off a cliff appears frequently in characterizing followers. The animal kingdom also provides the actual model of the bellwether function in a mob of sheep. And human society also offers many examples of emulation.
The fashion industry, for example, depends on it. Fashion marketers design clothing for celebrities, then offer less expensive variations/imitations for those who emulate the celebrities. Unintentional leadership can also occur from more pro-active forms fellowship. For example, in organizations which punish both leadership inaction and mistakes, and in which a predicament has no good solution, a common tendency involves declaring oneself a follower of someone else ? metaphorically passing the buck.
Another example of fellowship without intentional leadership comes with the market leadership of a pioneering company, or the price leadership of monopolist. Other companies will emulate a successful strategy, product, or price, but originators may certainly not desire this ? in fact they often do all they can legally do to prevent such direct competition. The term “leadership” sometimes applies (confusingly) to a winning position in a race. One can speak of a front-runner in a sprint or of the “leader” in an election or poll as in a position of leadership.
But such “leadership” does not involve any influence processes, and the “leader” will have followers who may not willingly choose to function as followers. Once again: one can make an important extinction between “in the lead” and the process of leadership. Once again, leadership implies a relations hip of power – the power to guide others. Leading from the front, in a military sense, may imply foolhardiness and unnecessary self-exposure to danger: these do not necessarily make for successful long-term leadership strategies. Edit] Scope of leadership One can govern oneself, or one can govern the whole earth. In between, we may find leaders who operate primarily within: * youth * families * bands * tribes * organizations * states and nations * empires Intertwined with such categories, and overlapping them, we find (for example) elisions leaders (potentially with their own internal hierarchies), work-place leaders (executives, officers, senior/upper managers, middle managers, staff- managers, line-managers, team- leaders, supervisors … ) and leaders of voluntary associations.
Some anthropological ideas envisage a widespread (but by no means universal) pattern of progression in the organization of society in ever- larger groups, with the needs and practices of leadership changing accordingly. Thus simple dispute resolution may become legalistic dispensation of justice before developing into proactive legislative activity. Some leadership careers parallel this sort of progression: today’s school-board chairperson may become tomorrows city councilor, then take in (say) a martyrdom before graduating to nation-wide politics.
Compare the circus honor in ancient Rome.  Orthogonally and leadership Those who sing the praises of leadership or of certain types of leadership may encounter problems in implementing consistent leadership structures. For example, a pyramidal structure in which authority consistently emanates from the summit can stifle initiative and leave no path for grooming future leaders in the ranks of subordinate levels. Similarly, a belief in universal direct democracy may become unwieldy, and a system consisting of nothing but representative leaders may well become stymied in committees.
Thus many leadership systems promote different rules for different levels of leadership. Hereditary autocrats meet in the United Nations on equal representative terms with elected governments in a collegial leadership. Or individual local democracies may assign some of their powers to temporary dictators in emergencies, as in ancient Rome. Hierarchies intermingle with equality of opportunity at different levels.  Support-structures for leadership
Though advocates of the “big man” school of visionary leadership would have us believe that charisma and personality alone can work miracles, most leaders operate within a structure of supporters and executive agents who carry out and monitor the expressed or filtered-down will of the leader. This undercutting of the importance of leadership may serve as a reminder of the existence of the follower: compare fellowship. A more or less formal bureaucracy (in the Hibernia sense) can throw up a colorless nonentity as an entirely effective leader: this phenomenon may occur (for example) in a politburo environment.
Bureaucratic organizations can also raise incompetent people to levels of leadership (see Peter Principle). In modern dynamic environments formal bureaucratic organizations have started to become less common because of their inability to deal with fast- changing circumstances. Most modern business organizations (and some government departments) encourage what they see as “leadership skills” and reward identified potential leaders with promotions.
In a potential down-side to this sort of development, a big-picture grand-vision leader may foster another sort of hierarchy: a fetish of leadership amongst subordinate sub- leaders, encouraged to seize resources for their own sub-empires and to apply to the supreme leader only for ultimate arbitration. Some leaders build coalitions and alliances: political parties abound with this type of leader. Still others depend on rapport with the masses: they labor on the shop-floor or stand in the front-line of battle, leading by example. Edit] Determining what makes “effective leadership” In comparing various leadership styles in many Strictures, academic studies have examined the patterns in which leadership emerges and then fades, other ways in which it maintains its effectiveness, sometimes by natural succession according to established rules, and sometimes by the imposition of brute force. The simplest way to measure the effectiveness of leadership involves evaluating the size of the following that the leader can muster.
By this standard, Doll Hitler became a very effective leader for a period ? even if through delusional promises and coercive techniques. However, this approach may measure power rather than leadership. To measure leadership more specifically, one may assess the extent of influence on the followers, that is, the amount of leading. Within an organizational context this means financially valuing productivity. Effective traders generate higher productivity, lower costs, and more opportunities than ineffective leaders.
Effective leaders create results, attain goal, realize vision, and other objectives more quickly and at a higher level of quality than ineffective leaders. James MacGregor Burns introduced a normative element: an effective Burnside leader will unite followers in a shared vision that will improve an organization and society at large. Burns calls leadership that delivers “true” value, integrity, and trust transformational leadership. He distinguishes such leadership from “mere” transactional leadership that builds power by doing whatever will get ore followers. 6] But problems arise in quantifying the transformational quality of leadership – evaluation of that quality seems more difficult to quantify than merely counting the followers that the straw man of transactional leadership James MacGregor Burns has set as a primary standard for effectiveness. Thus transformational leadership requires an evaluation of quality, independent of the market demand that exhibits in the number of followers. Current assessments of transformational and transactional leadership commonly make use of the Multiracial Leadership Questionnaire (ML), developed by Bass ND Viola in 1990 and revised in 1995.
It measures five dimensions of transformational leadership: 1. Idealized influence – attributions 2. Idealized influence – behaviors 3. Inspirational motivation 4. Individualized consideration 5. Intellectual stimulation The three dimensions of transactional leadership measured by the ML cover: 1. Contingent reward 2. Management by exception (active) 3. Management by exception (passive) The functional leadership model conceives leadership as a set of behaviors that helps a group perform a task, reach their goal, or perform their function.
In this model, effective leaders encourage functional behaviors and discourage dysfunctional ones. In the path-goal model of leadership, developed jointly by Martin Evans and Robert House and based on the “Expectancy Theory of Motivation”, a leader has the function of clearing the path toward the goal(s) of the group, by meeting the needs of subordinates. Some commentators use the metaphor of an orchestral conductor to describe the quality of the leadership process. An effective leader resembles an orchestra conductor in some ways.
He/she has to somehow get a group of potentially diverse and talented people many of whom have strong personalities – to work together toward a common output. Will the conductor harness and blend all the gifts his or her players possess? Will the players accept the degree of creative expression they have? Will the audience enjoy the sound they make? The conductor may have a clear determining influence on all of these questions.  Suggested qualities of leadership Studies of leadership have suggested qualities that people often associate with leadership.
They include: * Guiding others through modeling (in the sense of providing a role model ) and wrought willingness to serve others first (compare fellowship) * Technical/ specific skill at some task at hand * Initiative and entrepreneurial drive * 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 – proportioning activities to spend time where results * Cooperation -work well with others most accrue 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 * 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 game bless’ 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). 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 click©). The approach of listing leadership qualities, often termed “trait theory”, assumes certain traits or characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal, difficulties may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents frequently challenge this approach.
The “strongest” versions of trait theory see these “leadership characteristics” as innate, and accordingly labels some people as “born leaders” due to their psychological makeup. On this reading of the theory, leadership development involves identifying and measuring leadership qualities, screening potential leaders from non-leaders, then training those with potential. David McClellan, a Harvard-based researcher in the psychology of power and achievement, saw dervish skills, not so much as a set of traits, but as a pattern of motives. He claimed that successful leaders will tend to have a high need for power, a low need for affiliation, and a high level of what he called activity inhibition (one might call it self- control). Situational leadership theory offers an alternative approach.
It proceeds from the assumption that different situations call for different characteristics. According to this group of theories, no single optimal cryptographic profile of a leader exists. The situational leadership model of Hershey and Blanchard, for example, suggest our leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of fellowship-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well. Other situational leadership models introduce a variety of situational variables.
These determinants include: * the nature of the task (structured or routine) * organizational policies, climate, and culture * the preferences of the leader’s superiors * the expectations of peers the reciprocal responses of followers The contingency model of Broom and Yet uses other situational variables, including: * the nature of the problem * the requirements for accuracy * the acceptance of an initiative * time-constraints * cost constraints However one determines leadership behavior, one can categorize it into various leadership styles. Many ways of doing this exist. For example, the Managerial Grid Model, a behavioral leadership-model developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964, suggests five different leadership styles, based on leaders’ strength of concern for people and their concern for goal achievement. Kurt Lenin, Ronald Lippie, and R. K. White identified three leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-fairer, based on the amount of influence and power exercised by the leader.
The Fiddler contingency model bases the leader’s effectiveness on what Fred Fiddler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational variableness (later called “situational control”).  Leadership “styles” (per House and Foodstuff) In 1994 House and Foodstuff attempted to summarize the behaviors and approaches of “outstanding leaders” that they obtained from some more odder theories and research findings. These leadership behaviors and approaches do not constitute specific styles, but cumulatively they probably  characterize the most effective style of today’s leaders/ managers. The listed leadership “styles” cover: I. Vision .
Outstanding leaders articulate an ideological vision congruent with the deeply-held values of followers, a vision that describes a better future to which the followers have an alleged moral right. 2. Passion and self- sacrifice. Leaders display a passion for, and have a strong conviction of, what they regard as the moral correctness f their vision. They engage in outstanding or extraordinary behavior and make extraordinary self-sacrifices in the interest of their vision and mission. 3. Confidence , determination, and persistence. Outstanding leaders display a high degree of faith in themselves and in the attainment of the vision they articulate.
Theoretically, such leaders need to have a very high degree of self- confidence and moral conviction because their mission usually challenges the status quo and, therefore, may offend those who have a stake in preserving the established order. 4. Image -building. House and Foodstuff regard outstanding traders as self-conscious about their own image. They recognize the desirability of followers perceiving them as competent, credible, and trustworthy. 5. Role- modeling. Leader-image-building sets the stage for effective role-modeling because followers identify with the values of role models whom they perceived in positive terms. 6. External representation. Outstanding leaders act as spokes persons for their respective organizations and symbolically represent those organizations to external constituencies. 7. Expectations of and confidence in followers.
Outstanding leaders communicate expectations of high performance room their followers and strong confidence in their followers’ ability to meet such expectations. 8. Selective motive-arousal. Outstanding leaders selectively arouse those motives of followers that the outstanding leaders see as of special relevance to the successful accomplishment of the vision and mission. 9. Frame alignment. To persuade followers to accept and implement change, outstanding leaders engage in “frame alignment”.