Par 100 posts (V.I.P)

The word leadership can refer to:

1. the process of leading
2. the concept of leading
3. those entities that perform the act of leading.

One can categorise 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".

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. Several types of entities may provide or exhibit leadership, actual or potential, including:

* a person in the position or office of authority, such as a President [1]
* a person in a position of office associated with expertise, skill, or experience, as in a team leader, a chief engineer, or a parent
* a group or person in the vanguard of some trend or movement, as in fashion trend-setters
* a group of respected people, (called a "reference group" by sociologists) such as business commentators or union spokespersons [2]
* a product that influences other product offerings in a competitive marketplace

The term "leadership" can characterise the leadership given by an entity and also the period of the leadership, as in "During the 1940s Russia was under Stalinist leadership". In formal hierarchies the term can also serve to describe the position or relationships which allow and legitimize the exercising of leadership behavior.

"Leadership" can come from an individual, a collective group of leaders, or even from the disincarnate -- if not mystical -- characteristics of a celebrity figurehead (compare hero). Yet other usages have a "leadership" which does little active leading, but to which followers show great (often traditional) respect (compare the courtesy title reverend). Followers often endow the leader with status or prestige. Aside from the prestige-role sometimes granted to inspirational leaders, a more mundane usage of the word "leadership" can designate current front-runners that exercise influence over competitors, for example, a corporation or a product can hold a position of "market leadership" without any implication of permanence or of merited respect. (See also price leadership.) Note that the ability to influence others does form an integral part of the "leadership" of some but not all front-runners. A front-runner in a sprint may "lead" the race, but does not have a position of "leadership" if he does not have the potential to influence others in some way. Thus one can make an important distinction between "being in the lead" and the process of leadership. Leadership implies a relationship of power - the power to guide others.

In some languages the term for a leader and the term for the principle of leadership have very different meanings. Furthermore, note the different connotations of a synonym of the word "leader" adopted from the German: the word Führer, and its acompanying ideas on the Führerprinzip.

In would-be controlling groups such as the military, political parties, ruling élites, and other belief-based enterprises like religions or businesses, the idea of leadership can become a Holy Grail and people can come to expect transformational change stemming from the leader; such entities may encourage their followers and believers to worship leadership, to respect it, and to strive (whether realistically or not) to become proficient in it. Followers in such a situation may become uncritically obedient. Personal strategies that one can use to guard against the unrealistic expectations associated with belief in leaders include maintaining a questioning and skeptical attitude, and having confidence in one's own decision-making abilities. Within groups, alternatives to the cult of leadership include using decision-making structures such as co-operative ventures, collegiality, consensus, anarchism and applied democracy.

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 (auctoritas in Latin). In praising Oliver Cromwell's 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 can." [3]

From this viewpoint, leadership emerges when an 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. [4]

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, 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.

Leadership as a phase in human life-cycles

Some cultures, especially those with a reverence for age and wisdom, see leadership as a standard part of the life-cycle of a person: see . Just as a youth becomes initiated into adulthood, so an adult may gain initiation as a leader. Such societies may require special re-inforcement of the respect and kudos due to such senior members in order to maintain their position. If aged adults can no longer hunt or fight or play a full part in physical labor, for example, those adults' positions in society must rest on respect and implied wisdom and teaching roles, whether or not they show identified "leadership traits".

Titles emphasizing authority

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 flunkeys 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) emphasises the existence of a sole "true" leader. Cases include:

* Caudillos in Spanish-speaking countries, notably Spain's Francisco Franco, Chile's Augusto Pinochet or the Dominican Republic's Rafael Trujillo
* Conducător in Romania - Nicolae Ceauşescu
* Il Duce in Italy - Benito Mussolini
* Der Führer in Germany - Adolf Hitler
* The Dear Leader in North Korea - Kim Jong-il
* The Great Helmsman in China - Mao Zedong
* The Great Leader in North Korea - Kim Il-sung
* Poglavnik in Croatia - Ante Pavelić
* Vozhd in the Soviet Union - Joseph Stalin

The different etymologies of these titles suggest various images of leadership: that of a "driver" (Führer, Vozhd), of a "head" (Caudillo, Poglavnik), or of someone followed (Duce, Conducător).

Such titles, and even the personal names associated with them, may also appear with reference -- often jocular -- to heirs and would-be imitators. Thus people may continue to speak of little Hitlers in a workplace or refer to a non-collegial prime minister ironically as The Great Helmsman. Compare the way in which the personal family name Caesar and the adopted by-name Augustus became effectively titles or designations for successive heads of the Roman Empire.

The whole structure of military hierarchies and the idea and the titles of an officer corps tend to re-inforce the importance attached to leadership and to the chain of command in the military. Thus other ranks defer to Lieutenants who defer to Majors who defer to Colonels who defer to General who defer to Marshals. Similar elaborate structures of hierarchical leadership titles can occur in Christian churches (Deacon - Priest - Bishop - Archbishop - Cardinal) or in commercial enterprises (team leader - supervisor - line manager/middle manager - staff manager/senior manager - vice president etc).

Southern Pacific traditions of the "Big Man" express perhaps most succinctly the idea of leadership in all aspects of society, all bound up in a suggestively direct title.

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 special and revered. For examples and discussion, see symbols of leadership.

Leadership amongst primates

Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence present the empirical evidence that only humans and chimpanzees, among all the animals living on earth, share a similar tendency for violence, territoriality, and competition for uniting behind the one chief male of the land. [5] (Note the status of chimpanzees as humans' closest species-relatives: humans inherited 98% of their genes from the ancestors of the chimpanzees.

By comparison, bonobos, the second-closest species-relatives of man, do not unite behind the chief male of the land. The bonobos 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 bonobos, a female almost always exerts the strongest and most effective leadership.

Some have argued that, since the bonobo pattern inverts the dominant pattern among 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.[6] Admittedly, those 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 of a given situation, and ongoing leadership may become extrapolated from a series of such situations.

In cultural 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.

Leadership as a vanguard

Sometimes followership can occur without intentional leadership. A well-known (but probably mythical) example of this involves swarms of lemmings which follow the first lemming off a cliff. The animal kingdom also provides the 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.

Another example of followership without intentional leadership comes with the market leadership of a pioneering company, or the price leadership of a 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 distinction between "in the lead" and the process of leadership. Once again, leadership implies a relationship 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.

Scope of leadership

One can govern oneself, or one can govern the whole earth. In between, we may find leaders who operate primarily within:

* families
* bands
* tribes
* states and nations
* empires

Intertwined with such categories, and overlapping them, we find (for example) religious 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 organisation 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 tomorrow's city councillor, then take in (say) a mayordom before graduating to nation-wide politics. Compare the cursus honorum in ancient Rome.

Orthogonality 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 pyramidical 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. Similiarly, 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 followership. A more or less formal bureaucracy (in the Weberian 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 The 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: politcal 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.

Determining what makes effective "leadership"

In comparing various leadership styles in many cultures, academic studies have examined the patterns in which leadership emerges and then fades, 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, Adolf Hitler became a very effective leader - even if through delusional promises and coercive techniques. [7] 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. This may involve testing the results of leadership activities against a goal, vision, or objective.

James MacGregor Burns introduced a normative element: an effective Burnsian 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 more followers. [8] 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.

The functional leadership model conceives leadership as a set of behaviours 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:

* Talent and 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 rôle - 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 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 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).
* 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).

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 arrise in proving its tenets, and opponents frequently challenge this approach. The "strongest" versions of trait theory see these "leadership characteristics" as inate, 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 McClelland, a Harvard-based researcher in the psychology of power and achievement, saw leadership 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 psychographic profile of a leader exists. The situational leadership model of Hersey and Blanchard, for example, suggest four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of followership-development. In this model, leadership behaviour 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 Vroom and Yetton 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 behaviour, 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 Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and R. K. White identified three leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire, based on the amount of influence and power exercised by the leader.

The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader’s effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favourableness (later called "situational control").

Leadership and vision

No matter how one defines leadership, it typically involves an element of vision -- except in cases of involuntary leadership and often in cases of traditional leadership. A vision provides direction to the influence process. A leader (or group of leaders) can have one or more visions of the future to aid them to move a group successfully towards this goal. A vision, for effectiveness, should allegedly:

* appear as a simple, yet vibrant, image in the mind of the leader
* describe a future state, credible and preferable to the present state
* act as a bridge between the current state and a future optimum state
* appear desirable enough to energize followers
* succeed in speaking to followers at an emotional or spiritual level (logical appeals by themselves seldom muster a following)

For leadership to occur, according to this theory, some people ("leaders") must communicate the vision to others ("followers") in such a way that the followers adopt the vision as their own. Leaders must not just see the vision themselves, they must have the ability to get others to see it also. Numerous techniques aid in this process, including: narratives, metaphors, symbolic actions, leading by example, incentives, and penalties.

Stacey (1992) has suggested that the emphasis on vision puts an unrealistic burden on the leader. Such emphasis appears to perpetuate the myth that an organization must depend on a single, uncommonly talented individual to decide what to do. Stacey claims that this fosters a culture of dependency and conformity in which followers take no pro-active incentives and do not think independently.

Leadership's relation with management

Some commentators link leadership closely with the idea of management; some would even regard the two as synonymous. If one accepts this premise, one can view leadership as:

* centralized or decentralized
* broad or focused
* decision-oriented or morale-centred
* intrinsic or derived from some authority

Any of the bipolar labels traditionally ascribed to management style could also apply to leadership style. Hersey and Blanchard use this approach: they claim that management merely consists of leadership applied to business situations; or in other words: management forms a sub-set of the broader process of leadership. They put it this way: "Leadership occurs any time one attempts to influence the behavior of an individual or group, regardless of the reason. . . . Management is a kind of leadership in which the achievement of organizational goals is paramount." (Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. : 1982 : page 3)

However, a clear distinction between management and leadership may nevertheless prove useful. This would allow for a reciprocal relationship between leadership and management, implying that an effective manager should possess leadership skills, and an effective leader should demonstrate management skills.

Abraham Zaleznik (1977), for example, delineated differences between leadership and management. He saw leaders as inspiring visionaries, concerned about substance; while managers he views as planners who have concerns with process. Warren Bennis (1989) further explicated a dichotomy between managers and leaders. He drew twelve distinctions between the two groups:

* Managers administer, leaders innovate
* Managers ask how and when, leaders ask what and why
* Managers focus on systems, leaders focus on people
* Managers do things right, leaders do the right things
* Managers maintain, leaders develop
* Managers rely on control, leaders inspire trust
* Managers have a short-term perspective, leaders have a longer-term perspective
* Managers accept the status-quo, leaders challenge the status-quo
* Managers have an eye on the bottom line, leaders have an eye on the horizon
* Managers imitate, leaders originate
* Managers emulate the classic good soldier, leaders are their own person
* Managers copy, leaders show originality

Paul Birch (1999) also sees a distinction between leadership and management. He observed that, as a broad generalization, managers concerned themselves with tasks while leaders concerned themselves with people. Birch does not suggest that leaders do not focus on "the task." Indeed, the things that characterise a great leader include the fact that they achieve. The difference lies in the leader realising that the achievement of the task comes about through the goodwill and support of others, while the manager may not.

This goodwill and support originates in the leader seeing people as people, not as another resource for deployment in support of "the task". The manager often has the role of organizing resources to get something done. People form one of these resources, and many of the worst managers treat people as just another interchangeable item. A leader has the role of causing others to follow a path he/she has laid out or a vision he/she has articulated in order to achieve a task. Often, people see the task as subordinate to the vision. For instance, an organization might have the overall task of generating profit, but a good leader may see profit as a by-product that flows from whatever aspect of their vision differentiates their company from the competition.

Leadership does not only manifest itself as purely a business phenomenon. Many people can think of an inspiring leader they have encountered who has nothing whatever to do with business: a politician, an officer in the armed forces, a Scout or Guide leader, a teacher, etc. Similarly, management does not occur only as a purely business phenomenon. Again, we can think of examples of people that we have met who fill the management niche in non-business organisations. Non-business organisations should find it easier to articulate a non-money-driven inspiring vision that will support true leadership. However, often this does not occur.

Differences in the mix of leadership and management can define various management styles. Some management styles tend to de-emphasize leadership. Included in this group one could include participatory management, democratic management, and collaborative management styles. Other management styles, such as authoritarian management, micro-management, and top-down management, depend more on a leader to provide direction. Note, however, that just because an organisation has no single leader giving it direction, does not mean it necessarily has weak leadership. In many cases group leadership (multiple leaders) can prove effective. Having a single leader (as in dictatorship) allows for quick and decisive decision-making when needed as well as when not needed. Group decision-making sometimes earns the derisive label "committee-itis" because of the longer times required to make decisions, but group leadership can bring more expertise, experience, and perspectives through a democratic process.

Patricia Pitcher (1994) has challenged the bifurcation into leaders and managers. She used a factor analysis technique on data collected over 8 years, and concluded that three types of leaders exist, each with very different psychological profiles. She characterises one group as imaginative, inspiring, visionary, entrepreneurial, intuitive, daring, and emotional, and calls them "artists". In a second grouping she places "craftsmen" as well-balanced, steady, reasonable, sensible, predictable, and trustworthy. Finally she identifies "technocrats" as cerebral, detail-oriented, fastidious, uncompromising, and hard-headed. She speculates that no one profile offers a preferred leadership style. She claims that if we want to build, we should find an "artist leader"; if we want to solidify our position, we should find a "craftsman leader"; and if we have an ugly job that needs to get done (like downsizing), we should find a "technocratic leader." Pitcher also observed that a balanced leader exhibiting all three sets of traits occurs extremely rarely: she found none in her study.

Leadership by a group

In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this situation, more than one person provides direction to the group as a whole. Some organizations have taken this approach in hopes of increasing creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. Others may see the tradional leadership of a boss as costing too much in team performance. In some situations, the maintenance of the boss becomes too expensive - either by draining the resources of the group as a whole, or by impeding the creativity within the team, even unintentionally.

A common example of group leadership involves cross-functional teams. A team of people with diverse skills and from all parts of an organization assembles to lead a project. A team structure can involve sharing power equally on all issues, but more commonly uses rotating leadership. The team member(s) best able to handle any given phase of the project become(s) the temporary leader(s).

For example, the Orpheus orchestra has performed for over thirty years without a conductor -- that is, without a sole leader. As a team of over 25 members, it has drawn discriminating audiences, and has produced over 60 recordings for Deutsche Grammophon in successful competition with other world-class orchestras.[9]

Rather than an autocratic or charismatic conductor deciding the overall conception of a work and then dictating how each individual is to perform the individual tasks, the Orpheus team generally selects a different "core group" for each piece of music. The core group provides leadership in working out the details of the piece, and presents their ideas to the whole team. Members of the whole team then participate in refining the final conception, rehearsal, and product, including checking from various places in the auditorium how the sound balances and verifying the quality of the final recording.

At times the entire Orpheus team may follow a single leader, but whom the team follows rotates from task to task, depending on the capabilities of its members.

The orchestra has developed seminars and training sessions for adapting the Orpheus Process to business.[10]


As a compromise between individual leadership and an open group, leadership structures of two or three people or entities occur commonly. Ancient Rome preferred two consuls to a single king, and the Roman Empire grew to accommodate two Emperors - those of the East and of the West - simultaneously. The Middle Ages saw leadership divided between the secular and spiritual realms - between Emperor and Pope. Some groups - often left-wing or Green in orientation - employ a co-leader structure today.

Triumvirates have long served to balance leadership ambitions - notably in Rome in the first century BC, but also as recently as in the Soviet Union troikas of the 20th century. Compare the separation of powers (legislative, judicial and executive) formalised (for example) in the constitution of the United States of America.

Divided leadership

Whereas sometimes one can readily and definitively identify the locus of leadership, in other circumstances the situation remains obscured. Pre-modern Japan offers a classical example: the emperors provided symbolic and religious leadership, but the shoguns embodied virtually all political and administrative leadership.

Similar dichotomies appear in many places and in many periods. Any constitutional monarch has a potentially confusing relationship with the day-to-day leader (typically a prime minister) who remains (at least theoretically) subordinate - socially as well as politically. Regents may stand against monarchs (and their supporters) during the minority or absence of those monarchs. Heads of state may operate at cross-purposes with heads of government. Political leaders may or may not align closely with religious leaders. And in federal-type systems, regional leadership and its potentially different systems may cross swords with national leaders. Not to mention the potentially conflicting leadership manifestations of boards of directors and of Chief Executives.

Leader relationships with followers

Greiner’s study of the language of U.S. Presidents examined the relationship between leader and followers and observed that changes have taken place in the presidential use of words that define the leader and the community as one. Modern US presidents have an observed tendency to make more use of inclusive words like we, us and our in their inaugural speeches. The use of inclusive words may suggest an effort by these democratically selected leaders to make the community work together to solve problems collectively. (See ERIC document ED468083 [11])

Historical views on leadership

Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one's blue blood or genes: monarchy takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions against the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction: see the divine right of kings. Contrariwise, more democratically-inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals profiting from careers open to talent.

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.

Comparable to the Roman tradition, the views of Confucianism on "right living" relate very much to the ideal of the (male) scholar-leader and his benevolent rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial piety.

Within the context of Islam, views on the nature, scope and inheritance of leadership have played a major role in shaping sects and their history. See caliphate.

In the 19th century, the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into question. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back as the 19th century.) One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided resources - human and material - and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan. Compare servant leadership.

For a more general take on leadership in politics, compare the concept of the statesman.

Specific theories of leadership

Giorgio Agamben

In State of Exception (2005), Agamben reads Carl Schmitt's theory of sovereignty in the light of Walter Benjamin. Agamben traces Schmitt's definition of sovereignty as the power to decide the state of exception to the Roman concept of auctoritas - the power to declare justitium. In chapter 6 §8, Agamben writes:

"It is significative that modern specialists were so enclined to admit that auctoritas was inherent to the living person of the pater or the princeps. What was evidently an ideology or a fictio aiming to be the groundwork of auctoritas ' preeminence or, at least, specific rank compared to potestas thus became a figure of right's immanence to life. (...) Although it is evident that there can't be an eternal human type that would incarnate itself each time in Augustus, Napoleon, Hitler, but only more or less similar mechanisms {"dispositif", a term often used by Foucault} - the state of exception, justitium, the auctoritas principis, the Führertum - put in use in more or less different circumstances, in the 1930s - overall, but not only - in Germany, the power that Weber had defined as "charismatic" is related to the concept of auctoritas and elaborated in a Führertum doctrine as the original and personal power of a leader. In 1933, in a short article intending to define the fundamental concepts of national-socialism, Schmitt defines the Führung principal by the "root identity between the leader and his entourage" {"identité de souche entre le chef et son entourage"} (we shall note the use of Weberian concepts)." [10]

James MacGregor Burns

James MacGregor Burns (1978, p. 2) wrote that a study of the definition of the word leadership revealed 130 definitions. However, several generally-accepted variations on the definition appear in the management and leadership literature.

Burns concluded by presenting five characteristics of leadership, namely:

1. Leadership is collective (p. 452). James Burns regards the notion of one-person leadership as “a contradiction in terms”, because both leaders and followers must exist. Also, an organization may have multiple leaders all acting in consort with one another.
2. Leadership is dissension (p. 453). Burns claims that leadership coexists with dissent. Indeed, much of the growth of any organization centers on the management/leadership of dissent – except in times of war.
3. Leadership is causative (p. 454). True Burnsian leadership affects the motives of individuals and groups of peoples and alters the course of the organizational history. It causes positive change.
4. Leadership is morally purposeful (p. 455). Burns sees leadership as goal-oriented, with leaders and followers pointing the way to some future state of the organization with plans about how those goals might be met.
5. Transforming leadership is elevating (p. 455). Engagement between leaders and followers takes place on a moral – but not a moralistic - plane, as both leaders and followers rise to live more principled lives.

Ronald Heifetz

Ronald Heifetz described the difference between a descriptive view and a prescriptive view of leadership. A descriptive view describes leadership and how it occurs, and a prescriptive view suggests how it should occur. The notion of "adaptive work" forms a central concept of Heifetz’s prescriptive view. Heifetz pointed out (p. 37) that people fail to adapt to new and unsettling situations through six avoidance mechanisms:

1. blaming others
2. finding scapegoats (to the extent that this differs from blaming)
3. externalizing the enemy
4. denying that a problem exists
5. jumping to conclusions
6. finding a distracting issue

In a prescriptive view, the leader would squarely face the problem and avoid the six surface-level solutions of the non-leader. A true leader would help a community face reality and deal with the issues: finding solutions where none previously existed. Using the 1950s television character, the Lone Ranger, as an example, we see the Ranger in a weekly episode, moving from frontier town to frontier town, discovering problems wherever he goes, fixing the problems and riding off into the sunset. In this metaphor, the Ranger fixes the symptom, but not the problem. A Lone Ranger non-leader would catch fish to feed the poor while a true leader would teach the poor how to catch fish and would motivate them to do so. The true leader finds a way to help the community engage the problem and collectively find a solution. For more detail, see Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

George Terry

George Terry (Terry, G. 1960) has defined leadership as: "the activity of influencing people to strive willingly for group objectives". If we define leadership simply as "influencing others to some purpose" and we define followership as "becoming influenced by others to accept (willingly or un willingly) some purpose", then leadership and followership emerge as two sides of the same coin. In this scenario, leadership - whether successful or not - has not occurred until at least one follower joins in. Likewise, no followership exists without someone or something (not necessarily a leader) to follow. However, in this latter case, a "leader" need not exercise deliberate or even conscious leadership - that is, followers can follow someone who is not trying to lead. Some see "unconscious leadership" as a dubious concept, however. Many, using a different definition of leadership, would claim that it does not classify as leadership at all - simply because no deliberate intention to lead exists. Unconscious "leading by example" (as the phrase has it) may nevertheless exemplify such "leadership"

sheldon nailer

Sheldon Nailer


Imagine that you were living in the year 1915 when the whole country was distressed by the tortures inflicted by the British. Everybody wanted freedom but there was no unity and which made the British successful in ruling our country. At that time Mahatma Gandhi arrived from South Africa. He felt the need to unite the country towards its freedom struggle. Under his leadership the movement gathered momentum and ultimately India achieved freedom. The leadership of Mahatma Gandhi proved to be one of the major causes in achieving political freedom of the country.Leadership is a necessary part of the social process. Any group, association, organization or community functions the way its leader leads it. It is more true in the collectivistic cultures like India where people follow the path shown by the great people: In this lesson you will read about leadership, its characteristics, various approaches and types of leadership. From Mahatma Gandhi to Jack Welch and Martin Luther King to Rudolph Hitler, there are as many leadership styles as there are leaders. Fortunately, business people and psychologists have developed useful, shorthand ways of describing the main leadership styles that can help aspiring leaders to understand and adapt their own styles and leadership impact.

Evolution of leadership

There have been many theories of leadership, including those based on the assumption that leadership is an innate characteristic - i.e. that leaders are born - and those that assume that good leaders share a set of characteristics.

Most modern approaches reject both of these, to some extent at least, and argue that what makes for good leadership will vary, depending on the context.

What is Leadership?

Leadership is an integral part of work and social life. In fact in any given situation where a group of people want to accomplish a common goal, a leader may be required. Leadership behaviour occurs in almost all formal and informal social situations. Even in a non formal situation such as a group of friends some sort of leadership behaviour occurs wherein one individual usually takes a lead in most of the group activities. You may have observed this is the group of your friends too. Sometimes you may have also seen how the change of situation leads to emergence of a new leader in a group. You also know leadership behaviour occurs in political and organizational set-up, wherein the leaders may or may not be having formal authority but may exhibit leadership behaviour by influencing people to work towards Common goals.

Some characteristic of Leaders are:

a) Adaptable of situations
b) Alert towards social situation
c) cooperative
d) Decisive
e) Dependable
f) Assertive
g) Confident and persistent
h) Knowledge

Various theories have been propounded to explain the phenomenon of leadership. They have attempted to define leadership in various ways and have tried to identify the attributes and qualities of a successful leader. Leadership is often considered as the ability to influence a group of people toward the achievement of goals. Thus it is an activity – an influence Process – in which an individual gains trust and commitment of others with or without reliance on formal position or authority moves the group to the accomplishment of one or more tasks.

We can identify the key elements in any leadership situation as follows:

• Leadership is an activity or a process
• The leadership process involves such things as influence, exemplary
behaviour or Persuasion
• It involves actors who are both leaders and followers
• The leadership process has various outcomes – most obviously the
achievement of goals, but also commitment of individuals to such goals.

Categories and types of leadership

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 of leading and leadership. When learning and leadership coalesce, one could characterize this as "learnership".

Leadership can have a formal aspect or an informal one. Speaking of "leadership" (the abstract term) rather than of "leading" usually implies that the entities doing the leading have some "leadership skills" or competencies. Several types of entities may provide or exhibit leadership, actual or potential, including:

• A person in a position or office of authority, such as a President or a

• A person in a position or office associated with expertise, skill, or
experience, such as a team leader, a ship's captain, a chief engineer, a chief,
or a parent

Types of Leadership

There are many ways in which leadership can be categorized. Accordingly there are many types of leaders as given below.

Visionary Leader

Visionary leader is the one who has a long-term perspective, who is externally oriented and has a broad interest in industry,economy,regulations, and politics. His tasks include forming a mission statement, vision and values. He is supposed to transform and structure the organization to ensure survival and growth. Example of visionary leader can be a director, senior executive, chair and head of school, senior partner etc.

Integration Leader

Integration leader is the one who has medium-term perspective. He has an inside out orientation where his main focus is on his own organization. His main function is to develop organization’s systems and processes. He reconciles conflicting interests. He develops and champions a strong culture. He ensures effective running of whole organization by using and innovating corporate knowledge and recruiting and retaining talent.

Fulfillment Leader

Fulfillment leader is the one who has a short-term perspective. He is a knowledge expert who is result oriented and who has customer service thinking. He pleases the customer by delivering results on time. He makes continuous improvement by unlocking individual potential and optimum usage of resources.

Transactional Leader

Transactional leaders are the ones who take the initiative in offering some form of need satisfaction in return for something valued by the employees, such as pay promotion, improved job satisfaction or recognition. The leader sets clear goals, and is adept at understanding the needs of employees and selects appropriate, motivating rewards.

Transformational Leaders

Transformational leadership is the process of engaging the commitment of the employees in the context of the shared values and the shared vision. It is particularly relevant in the context of managing change. It involves relationship of mutual trust between the leaders and the followers. Transformational leadership has following components.

1. Idealized Influence: It involves having a clear vision and a sense of
purpose. Such leaders are able to win the trust and respect of the followers.
They build a base for future mission, which enables them to obtain extra
efforts from the followers.

2. Individual Consideration: It involves paying attention to the needs and potential for development of individual followers. It also involves delegating, coaching and giving constructive feedback.

3. Intellectual Stimulation: It involves soliciting new ideas and new ways of doing things.

4. Inspiration: It involves motivating people, generating enthusiasm, setting
an example, being seen to share the load.
An ideal example of transformational leadership would be what Mrs.
Kiran Bedi achieved with Tihar Jail inmates. She brought about a
complete transformation in the followers as well as the institutional

Charismatic Leader

Till now we have read about different types of leaders but some times it happens that we are awed by a leader and follow him/her blindly. The personal charm of the person influences us. These types of leaders are known as charismatic leaders. Mahatma Gandhi was also an example of charismatic leader. The charismatic leaders have the ability to carry the Masses the them. They have a great deal of emotional appeal. Swami Vivekanand was another charismatic leader. Some characteristic of charismatic leaders are –

– Followers accept the leader unquestioningly.
– Followers obey the leader willingly.
– Followers belief is similar to the leader’s beliefs.
– Followers trust the correctness of the leader’s belief.

Autocratic, Democratic and Laissez–Faire

Autocratic and democratic style of leadership is one of the classical distinctions made in Leadership behaviour. An autocratic leader takes decisions and imposes them on the group, expecting group members to put them in to effect without questioning the reasons for them. The democratic leader, on the other hand, encourages the members of his or her group to share the decision making process and sees himself as a coordinator of group
Effort, rather as the decision taker. A third type of leadership style has also been examined which is termed as the laissez-faire. This type of leader plays a passive role in group affairs, normally interacts with the group members only on their initiative. The classification described above is not exhaustive in any way. There are various other leadership styles as diverse as the situation in which the leadership behaviour occurs. The classification is also not mutually exclusive where various categories may have similarities.

We are all surrounded by leaders and potential leader exists in all of us. The need is to harness our leadership potential and the various theories and understandings would help us in doing so. Like in the game of cricket individual achievement may be lauded but winning as a team is much more
important. Same is going to be true for organizational, social and political arena. Leadership also needs to take into account the diversity and
They will act as stewards, coaches and mentors showing
Concern for followers, shareholders and customers. The era of future would be of greater flexibility and innovation characterized by ability to evolve meaningfully and adapting to newer and ever changing business and cultural environment.


In the past, leaders of multinationals from developed countries would come on deputation to India to build leadership. As a result, depending on which nation the Indian operation owed allegiance with, the culture of the parent company nation would mingle with that of the Indian company. Inevitably, the American, British, German or the Swedish culture left their imprints on entire organisations as it were. From performance appraisal systems to management development programs, the trend was influenced largely by the leaders from the parent multinational. Amongst a host of factors that explains the peculiarity of the country’s leadership behavior is its high-power distance. This has implications on how leadership as a dimension plays out in its culture. This indicates a largely supplicant attitude towards the boss. Underlying this construct is the concept of social inequality. Simply put, the Indian culture has in it features, that puts in place individuals who exert more power over others. These individuals are in a position to determine others’ behaviors; and rarely vice-versa.

Another consequence of this inequality principle is that often full grown adults are excessively dependent on superiors and are therefore unwilling to take decisions that they confront. This often slows down organizational response and does not free top management for strategic thinking and future developments. In fact, many a senior leader will find the self insecure, if not informed or taken into confidence on the smallest of work related issues.


Political leadership is a complex process by which persons in power influence their followers, civil society and wider public to accomplish societal goals.Political leaders are necessary for initiating as well as for hastening the Process of change in any society. It may be social and/or economic change, Constitutional change or political change. In all these processes of change, political leadership plays an important role. Political leaders carry out the process of change by applying their leadership attributes like politically relevant beliefs, socially adored values, generally approved character, wide knowledge and wisdom acquired through learning and experience. Political leaders are supposed to understand the hopes and aspirations of the people and identify the goals of the society. They may formulate a vision of the country’s future. They acquire or develop the capacity to mobilize the people to achieve the common societal goal. Further, the political leaders are expected to have certain attributes in order to be effective as leaders. They should have unimpeachable commitment to the cause or societal goal which they decide to fight for or achieve. They
should be prepared to render selfless service to the people at large. They should have the quality of inspiring their followers and even the common people. They should have patience and perseverance in pursuing the society’s goals, maturity and wisdom for taking sound and timely decisions and exhibit strength of character by setting example and mental toughness to face criticism when found wrong.

The success or failure of a leader is determined by many circumstances of which lack of some these attributes may also contribute.
Social scientists have advanced several theories of political leadership. Of
them four theories are considered relevant as they explain major types of
political leadership operating in the world. The first is the theory of traits,
which explains that some personality traits may lead some persons naturally
into leadership roles. The example of Subhas Chandra Bose who
possessed some personality traits which ultimately made him a leader rather
than a British Indian civil servant. The second theory is crisis or cause theory, which outlines that an important social or political event in a society may throw up an opportunity for a person or persons to rise to the occasion which brings out extraordinary leadership qualities in ordinary persons. The examples of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhai Patel whose leadership qualities were brought out by the freedom movement. The third

theory is that given equal opportunities, people may choose to become leaders by learning leadership skills. This is called transformational leadership. This is widely prevalent in most of the democracies. The fourth theory is the dynastic theory of leadership which is easy to understand. Leaders who emerge under one or the other type of leadership mentioned above try to groom their sons and/or daughters to become leaders to succeed them. This is common in traditional societies and much more widespread in India. The pros and cons of dynastic theory of political leadership is also currently debated in the country. But it is not unique to traditional or pre-modern societies. It operates even in developed and stable democracies like the USA where Bush family has shown the characteristics of dynastic leadership. Under this dynastic theory, wives or sons/ daughters or brothers /sisters may succeed the assassinated Leaders or those who are dead under tragic circumstances. In India Rajiv Gandhi succeeded her slain mother. In Indonesia Meghawati Sukarnoputri became president partly because of her father’s name. In Pakistan, in Bangladesh, the daughters of their slain fathers (who were political leaders) succeeded them on sympathy wave.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
(October 2, 1869 – January 30, 1948)

was a major political and spiritual leader of India and the Indian independence movement. In India, he is recognized as the Father of the Nation. October 2nd, his birthday, is commemorated each year as Gandhi Jayanti, and is a national holiday. He was the pioneer of Satyagraha—the resistance of tyranny through mass civil disobedience, firmly founded upon ahimsa or total non-violence which led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. Gandhi is commonly known in India and across the world as Mahatma Gandhi which led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. Gandhi is commonly known in India and across

the world as Mahatma Gandhi A British-educated lawyer; Gandhi first employed his ideas of peaceful civil disobedience in the Indian community's struggle for civil rights in South Africa. Upon his return to India, he organized poor farmers and laborers to protest against oppressive taxation and widespread discrimination. Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for the alleviation of poverty, for the liberation of women, for brotherhood amongst differing religions and ethnicities, for an end to untouchability and caste discrimination, and for the economic self-sufficiency of the nation, but above all for Swaraj—the independence of India from foreign domination. Gandhi famously led Indians in the disobedience of the salt tax on the 400 kilometer (248 miles) Dandi Salt March in 1930, and in an open call for the British to Quit India in 1942. He was imprisoned for many years on numerous occasions in both South Africa and India.
Throughout his life, Gandhi remained committed to non-violence and truth even in the most extreme situations. A student of Hindu philosophy, he lived simply, organizing an ashram that was self-sufficient in its needs. Making his own clothes—the traditional Indian dhoti and shawl woven with a charkha, he lived on a simple vegetarian diet. He used rigorous fasts, for long periods, for both self-purification and protest. Gandhi's life and teachings inspired Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Steve Biko and Aung San Suu Kyi and through them the American civil rights movement and the freedom struggles in South Africa and Myanmar respectively.

Lage Raho Munna Bhai

In this film, the second of the Munna Bhai series (the first was Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.) the central protagonist, Munna Bhai, meets the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi and learns the principles of Gandhian philosophy. Rather than following the traditional sequel format, each of the Munna Bhai films features the central characters (Munna Bhai portrayed by Sanjay Dutt and Circuit portrayed by Arshad Warsi) in a story which is comprehensive unto itself and is not continued or referred to in another film in the series. The series also stars Boman Irani as the antagonist of each film and Jimmy Shergill as a secondary character who is rescued by Munna Bhai.
Thanks to Lage Raho Munna Bhai, Sanjay Dutt has emerged a hero. A man who wears his discovery of Gandhi on his sleeves. A new-age Gandhian who has created a new wave of awareness about the father of nation.

Lage Raho Munna Bhai revolves around the comic adventures of Munna Bhai a Tapori in the Mumbai underworld(the word bhai can mean either "gangster" or "brother" in Bambaiya Hindi, a colloquial version of Hindi spoken in Mumbai) portrayed by Bollywood superstar Sanjay Dutt, and his sidekick Circuit (Arshad Warsi). Munna is in love with the voice of Jhanvi (Vidya Balan), a radio jockey and devises a plan to meet her when she announces a contest on the life and beliefs of Mahatma Gandhi set for October 2. Munna Bhai (who does not know the significance of this date) is informed by Circuit that October 2 is "Dry day" (since alcoholic drinks are not sold on this day). Upon further investigation, Circuit discovers that "Dry Day" is observed because of Gandhi Jayanti, a national holiday which celebrates the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi (or "Bapu," as he is referred to in the film).
Circuit helps Munna win the contest by kidnapping and then bribing a group of professors. As the winner, Munna is granted an interview with Jhanvi. He lies to her, presenting himself as a professor of history and a Gandhi specialist. Jhanvi subsequently asks Munna to present a lecture on Gandhi to a community of senior citizens who live in her home, called the Second Innings House. In order to prepare for this event, Munna engages in a period of intense study of the life and works of Gandhi. It is during this period that the image of Mahatma Gandhi (who is referred to by his nickname, "Bapu", or "father") appears offering help and advice to Munna. Indeed, Gandhi continues to appear each time Munna sings Raghupathi Raghava Rajaram (a song often sung in Gandhi's memory).
Lucky Singh (Boman Irani), an unscrupulous businessman who employs Circuit and Munna Bhai to conduct "underworld" activities, is negotiating his daughter Simran's (Dia Mirza) marriage to the son of a very wealthy man named Kkhurana (Kulbhushan Kharbanda). Lucky wishes to present the Second Innings House as a wedding present to Kkhurana. Thus, he sends Munna, Jhanvi, and the elder residents of the house on a holiday in Goa and orders Circuit to seize the house. When Munna threatens to take the house back through violent means, Lucky threatens to reveal the fact that Munna is a gangster to Jhanvi. Turning to Gandhi for help, Munna learns about Satyagraha (the path of truth). In turn, Munna encourages the residents of Second Innings to use Gandhigiri in an attempt to regain their home. However, when Munna divulges the fact that he can see Gandhi to Lucky Singh, Lucky uses this information in a press conference to show that Munna is mentally disturbed.

As Gandhi guides Munna Bhai in the cultivation of a new life based upon Gandhism, particularly non-violence and truth (which Munna Bhai calls Gandhigiri), anyone who comes into contact with Munna is transformed. If in the last film Dutt's real life father the late Sunil Dutt played his reel life father, this time he shares screen space with the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi, played by Dilip Prabhavalkar. This time around, Munnabhai loses his weapon of violence after an encounter with Bapu himself and is mentored by Gandhi himself in using the weapons of love and non-violence.
The result?
If Munnabhai as a doctor won hearts, then this time around he comes back with an even bigger heart…
The film is about finding the Gandhi in all of us, but never sounds didactic or preachy. Rather, it makes you laugh and cry through the whole journey during which it touches various issues of parental neglect, stagnation of the older generation, corruption, evil builders, bad manners, superstitions... the works! Gandhi's sudden popularity among all ages and cultures in India brings to an end a long period in which his fame and influence had faded. While Hollywood holds a similar significance in people's lives as Mumbai-based Bollywood, the most popular branch of the Indian film industry, and has more money, resources, and global reach, it has not been able to create the same kind of response as Bollywood was able to generate for a historical figure.

Mangal Pandey

Mangal Pandey (born: July 19, 1827, died: 8 April 1857),
also known as Shaheed Mangal Pandey (Shaheed means martyr in Arabic and Hindustani), was a sepoy (soldier) in the 34th Regiment of the Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) of the British East India Company. Mangal Pandey who is known for his role as a leader in the Indian rebellion of 1857 which led to the downfall of the British East India Company.
Pandey was born in the village of Nagwa in district Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. There is some dispute over his exact place of birth. One account (Misra, 2005) claims that Mangal Pandey was born in a Bhumihar Brahmin family to Divakar Pandey of Surhupur village of Faizabad district’s Akbarpur Tehsil.He joined the British East India Company forces in 1849 at the age of 22, as per this account. Pandey was part of 5th Company of the 34th BNI regiment. He is primarily known for attacking his British officers in an incident that sparked what is known to the British as the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 and to Indians as the First War of Indian Independence.
The 1857 Incident
Pandey's actions towards his British officers was not a result of personal grudges, but rather driven by ideological (religious/patriotic) motives. For this reason, Pandey is widely considered in India to be the First Warrior in India's long struggle for independence from the British rule. Some contemporary accounts suggest that Pandey was under the influence of bhang (cannabis) at the time of this incidence. This claim however should be treated with a certain degree of reservation as it is not based on independent accounts. Moreover, this claim, even if true, does not rule out the possibility that Mangal Pandey could have been harbouring a general grudge against the

British rule in India that came to fore while under the influence of a drug. A further proof of his non-personal motives is delivered by accounts of British officers present at the scene. They recorded in numerous books that Pandey used four-letter words for the British in general and incited his comrades to rise against the company rule.
The primary motivation behind Mangal Pandey's behavior is attributed to a new type of bullet cartridge used in the Enfield P-53 rifle introduced in the Bengal Army that year.
The cartridge was rumoured to be greased with animal fat (primarily pig and cow fat, which are not consumed by either Hindus or Muslims, the primary religions of members of the Bengal Army).The cartridges had to be bitten to remove the cover, and that was abhorrent to the soldiers. The general feeling was that this was intentional on the part of the British, to defile their religions.
Commandant Wheler of the 34th BNI was known as a zealous Christian preacher, and this may also have impacted the Company's behaviour. The husband of Captain Wilma Halliday of 56th BNI had the Bible printed in Urdu and Nagri and distributed among the sepoys, thus convincing them that the British were intent on converting them to Christianity.Also, the 19th and 34th Bengal Native Infantry were stationed at Lucknow during the time of annexation of Awadh (anglicised to Oudh) under the Doctrine of Lapse on February 7, 1856. The annexation had another implication for sepoys in the Bengal Army (a significant portion of whom came from that princely state). Before the annexation these sepoys had the right to petition the British Resident at the Awadh in Lucknow for justice - a significant privilege in the context of native courts. As a result of the annexation they lost that right, since that state no longer existed. Moreover, this action was seen by the residents of Awadh as an upfront by the British, as the annexation was done in violation of an existing treaty.
The Enfield Rifle and Cartridge
The P-53 was officially known as the Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle Musket. Introduced in the British Army by the War Department during 1854 in the Crimean War, they proved very effective at a range of 50 to 300 yards. It was introduced in the Bengal Army by the East India Company in early-1857.

The rifle used a Metford-Pritchitt cartridge that required the use of a heavy paper tube containing 2½ drams (68 grains) of musket powder and a 530-grain, pure lead bullet. As the bullet incorporated no annular grease rings like the French and American minié ball bullets introduced in 1847, it was wrapped with a strip of greased paper to facilitate loading. The cartridge itself was covered with a thin mixture of beeswax and mutton tallow for waterproofing.
To load his rifle, the sepoy had to first bite off the rear of the cartridge to pour the powder down the barrel. He then inverted the tube (the projectile was placed in the cartridge base up), pushed the end-portion into the muzzle to the approximate depth of the bullet and tore off the remaining paper. The bullet could then be easily rammed on top of the charge.
Since Hindus consider cows as sacred and Muslims regard pigs as dirty, native sepoys could be expected to have reservations in its usage. The company therefore kept this fact a secret. Thus, when it came out as a rumour, it had an even more damaging effect, as all kinds of rumors started spreading. For instance, it was thought that the British planned to make their sepoys outcaste in the society in order to force them to convert to Christianity. Another rumour said the British had manipulated the wheat flour distributed to the sepoy with bones of cows. The matters could have been worsened by the fact that an overwhelming number of sepoy in the Bengal Native Infantry was made of Brahmin sepoys from Awadh. As Brahmins are generally vegetarians and are not supposed to eat or touch meat, the resistance was even stronger.

THE RISING – Ballad of Mangal Pandey
Mangal Pandey: The Rising (Indian Title) or The Ballad of Mangal Pandey (International Title) (released in India on August 12, 2005) is an Indian movie based on the life of Mangal Pandey who is known for his role as a leader in the Indian rebellion of 1857 which led to the downfall of the British East India Company.
Aamir Khan, a leading Bollywood actor, plays the lead role of Mangal Pandey. Mangal Pandey was a sepoy who helped spark the Indian rebellion of 1857. Subsequently the mutiny was called "The Sepoy Mutiny" or "The Sepoy Rebellion" by most of the English-speaking world, while Indians referred to it as the "First War of Independence".

1857 AD. The entire Indian sub continent is ruled by the British East India Company, the most successful business enterprise in history. A truly colonial enterprise, it follows its own commercial and administrative laws, arrogating the right to pillage and exploit the country's natural and human resources with total impunity. In order to control the population, it creates its own army, composed of native soldiers, Hindus and Muslims, who are called "sepoys". The Company controls the destiny of one fifth of humanity.
During a fierce battle in one of the Afghan wars that the Company fought in the mid-century, Mangal Pandey (Aamir Khan), the heroic sepoy, saves the life of his British commanding officer William Gordon (Toby Stephens). Gordon is indebted to Mangal and a strong friendship develops between them, transcending consideration of rank and race.
The friendship is soon challenged by the introduction of a new rifle called the Enfield. The new rifle has come with a new cartridge which is rumored to be coated with the grease of cow and pig fat. The new cartridge has to be bitten before it is loaded, which ignites anger and resentment among the Indian sepoys. The cow is sacred to the Hindus, the pig forbidden to the Muslims. They will not touch such a kartoos (gun cartridge), it would defile them.
Mangal Pandey becomes the leader of the rebellion, although he has to sacrifice his relationship to the beautiful courtesan Heera (Rani Mukherjee) and his friendship with Captain William Gordon.
Set in one of the most beautiful countries on earth, told across the divides of time, THE RISING tells the tale of friends, lovers and enemies, exploiters and exploited, and the growth and awareness of a man and a nation. It is a story of one man and his dream of freedom. This sweeping epic is based on real historical events, seen as a trigger for Indian independence.
The Rising - Ballad of Mangal Pandey is an epic tale of friendship, betrayal, love and sacrifice set against the backdrop of what the British called the sepoy mutiny but which for the Indians was the First War of Independence. "Company Raj" as it was known, had been plundering the country, treating the locals unjustly and causing widespread resentment. After a hundred years of subjugation, the Indian consciousness is rising through the revolutionary prospect of change and self-rule.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)

Adolf Hitler Was a German political and military leader and one of the 20th century's most powerful dictators. Hitler converted Germany into a fully militarized society and launched World War II in 1939 He made anti-Semitism a keystone of his propaganda and policies and built the Nazi Party into a mass movement. He hoped to conquer the entire world, and for a time dominated most of Europe and much of North Africa. He instituted sterilization and euthanasia measures to enforce his idea of racial purity among German people and caused the slaughter of millions of Jews, Sinti and Roma (Gypsies), Slavic peoples, and many others, all of whom he considered inferior.

Early Years
Adolf Hitler was born in Braunau am Inn, Austria-Hungary, in 1889, the fourth child of Klara and Alois Hitler. Hitler’s father worked his way up in the Austrian customs service to a position of considerable status, and as a result Hitler had a comfortable childhood. Hitler began school in 1900, and his grades were above average. It was decided that he would attend Realschule, a secondary school that prepared students for further study and emphasized modern languages and technical subjects. However, Hitler and his father strongly differed about career plans. His father wanted him to enter the civil service; Hitler insisted on becoming an artist. As a result, Hitler did poorly in Realschule, having to repeat the first year and improving little thereafter.During this time, Hitler began to form his political views: a strong sense of German nationalism, the beginnings of anti-Semitism, and a distaste for the ruling family and political structure of Austria-Hungary. Like many German-speaking citizens of Austria-Hungary, Hitler considered himself first and foremost a German.
The death of Hitler’s father in January 1903 changed the family. The survivors' income was adequate to support Hitler, his mother, and his sister, but the absence of a dominant father figure altered Hitler's position in the family. He spent much time playing and dreaming, did poorly in his studies, and left school entirely in 1905 after the equivalent of the ninth grade.
Hitler - A Great Leader
Being a good leader firstly he should be able to take full advantage of favorable circumstance, able to rule the country under a chaotic situation. Besides he made attractive promises to gain popular support, skilled in using of propaganda, amoral. Moreover he should have the organizational ability and has the ambition to make his country powerful in the world. In addition, he could use his words to twist and manipulate the minds of people into believing that what he was saying. Using this power, he could get people to do anything for him, which prove his amorality. He should be skillful in carry out successful policy to bring the country to economic prospect, since economy is very important to a country.

Adolf Hitler is one. Adolf Hitler was one of the 20th century’s most powerful dictators. He was responsible for World War II and the death of millions. Hitler saw a nation in despair and used this as an opportunity to gain political power. He saw a nation of unemployed and hungry citizens and promised them economic prosperity in return for absolute power. Someone once said “The Nazis rose to power on the empty stomachs of the German people”. Although he did not live a very long life, during his time he caused such a great deal of death and destruction that his actions still have an effect on the world nearly 50 years later. I am sure that he is a great leader.
Adolf Hitler joined a small political party in 1919 and rose to leadership through his emotional and captivating speeches. He encouraged national pride, militarism, and a commitment to the Volk and a racially "pure" Germany. Hitler condemned the Jews, exploiting anti-Semitic feelings that had prevailed in Europe for centuries. He changed the name of the party to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, called for short, the Nazi Party. By the end of 1920, the Nazi Party had about 3,000 members. A year later Hitler became its official leader further. From this, we can see his potential of being a leader and his development in his propaganda.
In about 1923 Adolf Hitler's attempt at an armed overthrow of local authorities in Munich, known as the Beer Hall Putsch, failed miserably. Hitler, were subsequently jailed and charged with high treason. However, Hitler used the courtroom at his public trial as a propaganda platform, ranting for hours against the Weimar government. Hitler was released from prison after one year. Other Nazi leaders were given light sentences also. While in prison, Hitler wrote volume one of Mein Kampf. This shows how he good at making speech to the people. After Hitler was released from prison, he formally resurrected the Nazi Party. Hitler began rebuilding and reorganizing the Party, waiting for an opportune time to gain political power in Germany. At that time, Germany was already suffering a post-war depression and was greatly affected. Hitler used the suffering of the masses to gain political support. He gained a strong following from the middle class, the workers and the unemployed by promising to improve the economy. As economic conditions worsened, the Nazis gained more support. Hitler staged

huge rallies and parades. His speeches called for a strong and proud Germany. He attacked the Jews, making them the scapegoats for all of Germany’s economic troubles. His energy on stage and his motivational style of speaking made the masses believe that they were the master race and destined to rule the world. With the fall of Stresemann, the Nazi party became the largest party in the Reichstag. In1933, Hitler was appointed as the Chancellor. This is the evidence of getting people support although there were still many opponents. He promised stability, glory, economic security, the suppression of communism and employment. He satisfied the need of different classes. Actually he is able to take full advantage of favorable circumstances created by the WWI.
After he became the Chancellor, he controlled the mass media and the textbook, all German books, plays, film and art were strictly censored. Also at that time, all German youth had to join the Hitler Youth Movement to learn Nazi ideas. On the other hand, the German workers were forced to join the German Labour Front instead of trade unions. Other religious beliefs were all banned. Moreover, Hitler formed the Gestapo to supervise the life of the German ordinary people. Complaints against the government were illegal. Under Hitler’s rule, Germany became a police state. From the above,we can see he could use his words to twist and manipulate the minds of people into believing that what he was saying.With Hitler such amoral people and willing to do anything, he would do what he could to benefit his countries, Germany. He started with suspended all civil liberties and used violence to crush all opposition. He actually started to carry out his promise of economic recovery by employing people in war industries as Germany prepared for war. He introduced pupil project schemes like housing scheme, road construction to absorb the unemployment. The Nazi removed the Jews, Communism and other enemies from their present employment to create vacancies for the German. Besides, he promised to rebuild the Glorious Germany of the past. First he started to build up the Wehrmacht. Germany was not allowed to have more than 100,000 men, but Hitler broke the treaty and gave orders to increase that number. Factories started putting out weapons and people now had jobs. To the Germans this was a very good sign. Mass rallies were held, where Hitler continued to use his powers of speech on the German people. Hitler succeeded in making his countries strong once again, at least for a while and he was skillful in carry out successful policy to bring the country to economic prospect.

Adolf Hitler was a great leader; his overall success must be attributed to the conditions, which existed in Post War Germany, and Hitler's great talent as a speaker and a politician. His rise to power was not inevitable, it must be noted that he greatly used the conditions of the time in his favor. The power that he held was total .he was gifted in the ability to use propaganda and brainwash people, which in turn proves that he was unethical, and desired to make his countries better and stronger. As Germany can recovered so soon after the WW1 and joined the WWII, Hitler contributed a lot. Therefore, he was a great leader as he was not self interested and always considered the country first. He want to expand Germany in order to raise the nation status of Germany, he carried out the aggressive expansionist policy. Germany withdrew from the League of Nation and began to violate the Versailles Settlement by rearming the country in secret. In 1936, Italy and Germany jointly intervened in the Spanish Civil War. Later on, Hitler and Mussolini signed the Berlin-Rome Axis with Italy. In March 1938 German troops occupied Austria, which was a German speaking state. In march1939, another German-populated area, the Stdetenland of Czechoslovakia, was occupied by Germany.

sheldon nailer

Sheldon Nailer
Imagine that you were living in the year 1915 when the whole country was distressed by the tortures inflicted by the British. Everybody wanted freedom but there was no unity and which made the British successful in ruling our country. At that time Mahatma Gandhi arrived from South Africa. He felt the need to unite the country towards its freedom struggle. Under his leadership the movement gathered momentum and ultimately India achieved freedom. The leadership of Mahatma Gandhi proved to be one of the major causes in achieving political freedom of the country.Leadership is a necessary part of the social process. Any group, association, organization or community functions the way its leader leads it. It is more true in the collectivistic cultures like India where people follow the path shown by the great people: In this lesson you will read about leadership, its characteristics, various approaches and types of leadership. From Mahatma Gandhi to Jack Welch and Martin Luther King to Rudolph Hitler, there are as many leadership styles as there are leaders. Fortunately, business people and psychologists have developed useful, shorthand ways of describing the main leadership styles that can help aspiring leaders to understand and adapt their own styles and leadership impact.


New member
now thats a very good post. keep it up buddy. thanks a lot buddy. keep up the good work. thanks once again.