Leaders Case

Introduction:

A leader is a person who leads or who is responsible of a team or party. In general we can define a leader as a person who rules. It is impossible to achieve single definition about leaders. We have seen many examples from our childhood that there are numerous leaders who have led in one or other form. There are numerous theories from centuries about leaders and all claiming to answer the question, "Are leaders born or made?" Until now, no conclusions have been yielded from all these theories. However, in general, we can say that, the leader is someone who helps others or influences others to achieve goals, and each leader has his or her way to lead, which is called as leadership styles and every single leader has a unique style of leading.

For example, as per Lewin (1939) leader is a person who is rigid like Adolf Hitler, independent like John F. Kennedy or individualistic like Ronald Reagan. In the same way as per House (1976) leader is a person who has the charismatic style like Steve Jobs, who think innovatively in the world of technology. On this Bass (1990) added that a person can be a leader if he or she has the transformational style along with charismatic style like Richard Branson.

By our personal experience in day to day life we come across with such examples of leaders, and their success stores .For example when we were in school we read about leaders like Alexander the Great; William the Conqueror, Genghis Kahn-Emperor of Mongols and Napoleon Bonaparte who lead their armies to victory in battlefield. Apart from this we have read about normal people who inspired others for a common cause and who are remembered even today for their leadership like Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, Dalai Lama, etc.

Even in present if we look in the field of sports we have great leaders of their game. Who play for their countries and who lead their teams to victory. Lance Armstrong (seven consecutive time's Tour De France winner), Mahendra Singh Dhoni (Indian cricket captain), Michael Schumacher ( Seven Time Formula One champion), David Beckham (Leading Football Player of the year), Tiger Woods(most successful golfers of all time) are very good examples of inspirational leaders. They are liked for their inborn ability and knowledge that they posses about their game and for their leadership ability.

Now, on analyzing above-mentioned examples, we can understand that there are various definitions about a leader and their styles of leadership. Though these examples and theories do not help us to explain the most dangerous leadership myth that is "what make them the leader" or "Are leader born or made"?

WHAT MAKES A LEADER?

Before the twentieth century, the ideas of leaders are born rather than made was widely accepted. Many scholars agreed with the views of Jerome Dowd and Thomas Carlyle at that time. As per Dowd "masses are being led by The Superior Few" (ORGAN.1996).Thomas Carlyle who put forward the Great Man theory and who argued that "some people are born with more leadership quality than others". (BROWNING and SPARKS.2002). To answer all these questions one more theory came into existence known as Trait theory. This theory is considered as one of the main leadership theories. As per this theory, some people have certain characteristics, which make them a suitable candidate to become a leader. The basis of this theory is that people with a mental, social and physical trait become leaders.

As per Trait theory if we consider the example of William Wallace, he is taller than the average man of his day. So Wallace has an advantage of his height to become a leader because it gives him more power and strength. However, if we compare the same case with other tall individuals like Sultan Kosen - currently the world tallest man (COCKCROFT. 2009), then we find that height provides some advantage, but it is not necessary that it makes someone a leader. Contradictory to this if we take Napoleon Bonaparte's example, he was not tall but still he was considered one of the greatest leaders of all time. Although meaning of Trait theory differs from one researcher to another, Stogdill (1948) thinks that leaders should have some prime qualities like intelligence, scholarship, and dependability in exercising responsibilities, activity, social participation and socio-economic status, which makes them a perfect leader.

However, contradictory to this some scholars thinks that leadership traits should contain emotional stability and composure, admitting error, good interpersonal skills, and intellectual breadth. Trait theory gives an example of William Wallace and tries to prove that there are also some physical factors that make someone suitable like tall, handsome, and healthy usually take the advantages. So the basic assumption of Trait theory is that leader are born with inherited traits. It also tells that a follower usually wants that their leader should contain such characteristics. Considering the outputs by Trait Theory it can be seen that physical appearance does not necessary make a good leader. Along with this there are several other factors which a person should possess in order to become a good leader.

Predicting Leadership

Many researchers and scholar use these ideas and perform research works on the relationship between characteristics and leadership. (COOPER. 2000). But if we go by Trait theory, there is a lack of correlation between Wallace and Kosen, or we can say that lack of correlation between characteristics (height) and leadership. But at the end Wallace becomes the leader, and Kosen doesn't, which shows that along with born qualities, environmental factor also plays a main role in becoming a leader. However, research work which was carried out by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) support the above view. In their study, they concluded that "the possession of certain traits alone does not guarantee leadership" but that "traits help the leader to acquire the necessary skills." Even in today's age some researchers think that Trait theory is quite irrelevant and it does not fit in the current scenario. Many things have been changed as compared to earlier ages in terms of leaders. For example, recent literature and research work on leaders identified two important characteristics of leaders which are:

1) Extraversion - keeping one's interest towards others and

2) Conscientiousness - taking care or control. (JUDGE and BONO, 2000)

We can use these two characteristics as a predictor of leaders and their leadership styles which can be used in children or adults. (ROBBINS