Over the years there has been thousands and thousands of pieces of literature written

about leadership and what defines a great leader. Several pieces of literature have even
epitomised certain people as the ultimate leader. Great leaders have been split into various
groups including, military, political, corporate and religious.

In ancient times great military leaders have been defined as Sun Tzu, Julius Caesar,
Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun and Mark Antony. More recently great military leaders
have included Richard the Lionhearted, Napoleon, Arthur Wellesley, Ulysses Grant and
Charles De Gaulle.

In the political sphere many people have been described as great leaders, including more
recently, Nelson Mandela, Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Clive
Churchill, Robert Menzies and Ghandi.

In the corporate world the list is endless. However some dominant names over the past few
years include but not limited to Mark Bloomberg, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Rupert
Murdoch, Kerry Packer and Richard Branson.

In the religious sphere, there have been people like Jesus, Mohammed, John the Baptist,
Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul the Second.

Whenever leadership is mentioned everybody has a different opinion on what a great leader
is and what defines a great leader. Each one of the leaders mentioned above has had
several pieces of literature written about them. One common thing amongst all of them is
how uncommon they are. It is clear each leader has their own leadership style and qualities
and each leader gets different results out of their team or people.

Whilst there have been several pieces of literature on leadership, no one has been able to
give a clear, concise and definitive answer to the age old question - what is leadership?
Leadership is very subjective and such a vast subject that encompasses so many levels. The
simplest definition of leadership available is “Leadership is a process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse 2007, p3). However
is this the true definition of leadership? Bass (1990, p.11) states “there are almost as many
different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the
concept”.

Analysing works from the last 200 years, the concept of leadership and what makes a great
leader has been portrayed in so many ways. Thomas Carlyle (Heroes and Hero Worship
1841) stated that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain people posses. Sir
Francis Galton stated that a leader is born not made (Hereditary Genius, 1869). So whenever
leadership is discussed, the age old question of “are leaders born or made?” arises.

In the 20th century several pieces of literature moved to discredit earlier findings by trying to
prove that leaders are made, and a leader in one situation may not necessarily be an
effective leader in another situation (Stogdill 1948; Mann 1959). However over the last 25
years, research and analysis has tended to move towards the 19 th century findings that state
there is a significant relationship between leadership and certain individual traits such as
intelligence, extraversion, self-efficacy and conscientiousness (R.G. Lord et al 1986; Arvey et
al 2006; Judge et al 2002).

Leadership is often confused or compared with management. Leadership is also linked to

The two should not be confused. Management is easy to define. As Washburn (2005) states
“.....decision-orientated behaviour. I would call this “managerial behaviour” not leadership
behaviour”. A manager is there to make decisions no matter how unpopular those decisions
may seem. They are not necessarily in place to lead. However having said that, a good
manager can turn into a good leader.

Nienbar (2010) states that over the past 200 years the term management and leadership
have been used “interchangeably to denote the person with ultimate responsibility for the
performance of the firm”. Nienbar states that many authors treat Management and
leadership as one while many other authors differentiate between the two and portray
management as “mundane, uninspiring and tactical by nature, and cannot guarantee the
success of the business”. He goes on to state that these authors “propose that leadership be
favoured at the expense of management which seems to be an outdated concept” (Spurgeon
and Cragg 2007, in Nienbar 2010). However it doesn’t seem that any of these authors give a
clear concise differential between management and leadership.

Nienbar (2010), concludes that management and leadership are virtually the same based on
his research and several other’s research, however he does state that the “information
presented so far suggests that nothing much has changed since the early origins and first
records of management and leadership”. This in a way contradicts Gibson and Tesone (2001)
that states management fads come and go over the decades. Looking at the bigger picture
yes possibly nothing has changed from the beginning till now. The ultimate goal is still the
same. However looking at the course, there have been several changes and this is identified
in the Gibson and Tesone (2001) article.

Gibson and Tesone (2001) state that management fads come around constantly, however
most of them are discarded after a few years only to reappear as a new management
practice. The article states that management need to be aware of these trends and act
quickly otherwise they will be left behind by the competitors. The article discusses
Management by Objectives (MBO) and how after 1996 only “hardcore” believers of the
practice still implemented it. However that practice is still very valid in most organisations
today. Most jobs today offer incentive based bonuses to entice better workers. The article
states Sensitivity Training lost it lustre in 1980, however in Australia’s multicultural
environment, Sensitivity Training has taken a new form and all staff are now trained to be
aware of their own prejudices and be more sensitive towards others. The focus on
counselling and Human Resources in organisations has never been more important. Another
fad they discuss is Quality Circles and Self-Managed Teams that originated in the late 1970s.
This is another form of empowerment that exists and is highly encouraged today. This is also
discussed in the Hunt and Dodge (2001) article. Some of these fads however existed in
different forms hundreds of years ago and have been passed down through the generations
in different formats. The article does raise a very valid point in saying that these fads have
now become normal management practice. The article to some extent also supports the
theory raised in Nienbar (2010) that leadership and management are one of the same.

Hunt and Dodge (2001) argue that contemporary leadership researchers tend to neglect the
historical–contextual antecedents of the field and as a result are developing many theories
that reflect little more than a form of “academic amnesia” and “leadership déjà vu”.
Traditional leadership theories concentrated on the differentiation of leaders and followers.
The leader possesses power (authority, influence, control), either through his or her
personal traits, style, or position. In contrast, dispersed leadership blurs the boundaries
between leader and follower.

The greatest challenge for leaders today is to be able to both differentiate themselves (so as
to exist) and empower others (de-differentiate themselves) at the same time.

In conclusion the articles analysed each have a differing view on leadership and
management. Washbush (2005) states that after 30 years of research he has come to the
conclusion leadership doesn’t exist and leadership is just good management. Neinbar (2010)
supports that theory to some extent by stating Management and Leadership are one of the
same. Gibbons and Tesone (2001) state that management should pay close attention to the
latest fad to ensure they stay ahead of the competition. Hunt and Dodge 2001 go on to say
that we need to learn from history and empowering staff and closer working relationships is
the way forward.

At the end of the day the debate will rage on. What is leadership? What makes a good
leader? Is a leader born or made? And what qualities does a good leader posses? My
thought is no matter how strong a leader is they are only as strong as the team they lead. A
leader has to trust their team to do the job and the team has to trust their leader to do the
right thing by them.
Northouse, G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice (3rd ed.) Thousand Oak, London, New
Delhe, Sage Publications, Inc.

Carlyle, Thomas (1841). On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic History. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 140694419X

Galton, F. 1869. Hereditary Genius. London: Macmillan.

Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L., & Alliger, G.M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leader perceptions: An application of validity generalization
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.

Arvey, R.D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of
leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1-
20.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780

Washbush, J.B. (2005). ‘There is no such thing as leadership, revisited’. Management

Gibson, J.W. and Tesone, D.V. 2001. ‘Management fads: emergence, evolution, and
implications for managers’. Academy of Management Executive, vol. 15, no. 4, pp 122-133

Nienaber, H. 2010. ‘Conceptualisation of management and leadership.’ Management

Hunt J.G. and Dodge, G.E. 2001. “Leadership déjà vu all over again”. Leadership Quarterly,
vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 438-458