In a group of equals working together to solve a mutual problem, another type of leadership will emerge. Ideally, and most commonly in actual practice, this will be democratic leadership.
The democratic leader evolves out of the group of which he is a part, rather than by creating a following of his own. There are inevitably those whose ideas influence the others more than theirs are in turn influenced by others. In such a group a tradition builds up that certain individuals are the most capable for certain tasks. When a crisis arises the membership turns to these individuals more readily than to untried personnel. These members are leaders, and they are democratic leaders.
In general, a leader of a democratic group is one who epitomizes the values and norms of his group. The group considers that his judgment is most in line with that of the membership, that the alternatives which he proposes fit in with the value system of the group. Often it may be said that he usually puts the well-being of the group ahead of his own desires where they conflict.
The democratic leader has the ability to perceive the direction in which the group is moving and to move in that direction more rapidly than the group as a whole. His foresight into the means and ends which will help the group is superior and for this reason he is chosen, or becomes a leader.
Democracy moves slowly. One of the reasons for this is that a democratic leader is seldom one who is far superior to his group. Groups which form tend originally to be made up of peers, or equals. If such a group happens to consist largely of average citizens, it is unlikely that they will select a member who has far superior qualifications as their leader. They will select one who is somewhat ahead of them in qualifications, but if the gap is too great they fail to communicate and thus fail to make use of this leadership material which exists within their group. In our general culture the distrust of one of superior ability is anti-intellectualism, and it pervades all levels of group behavior. This tendency has made some persons impatient with democracy, but as expressed in the previous chapter, the alternatives are worse in the long run. Someone has expressed the problem like this: “In a democracy the ideal solution to a problem is almost never achieved, but some solution is eventually reached, and it is a solution with which everyone can live.”
Pure types of leadership seldom exist. An historical anecdote may help to point up this fact. In the summer of 1832 there was a minor Indian uprising along the Mississippi known as the Black Hawk War. As was customary at the time a company of volunteers was raised and according to the custom of those more democratic days they held an election and chose their captain. Thus the young man selected was obviously a democratic leader, but by virtue of the military organization now became a bureaucratic leader. The interesting speculation is whether or not the soldiers of that company really recognized the personal magnetism of the man who was to become one of the greatest “charismatic” leaders in American history, Abraham Lincoln.
Up to this point the personalized term leader and the abstraction leadership have been more or less intermingled without regard to certain subtle differences. Paul Pigors, in his book Leadership or Domination, says: “Leadership is a process of mutual stimulation, which by successful interplay of relevant individual differences, controls human energy in pursuit of a common cause.” If this is a logical definition, then a leader is anyone whose ideas are helping to give direction toward the common goals of the group. Or to paraphrase once more: An individual is a leader in any social situation in which his ideas and actions influence the thoughts and behavior of others.
It may readily be seen that acceptance of this concept de-emphasizes the leader and emphasizes leadership. And in the highest development of the democratic group leadership is not concentrated, but is diffused throughout the membership. The greater the degree of this diffusion, the more effectively democratic is the group.
Such a view of leadership has little to do with the formally elected leaders of the small democratic group, the chairmen, presidents, and other officers. In a group of this kind these officers recognize that their formal leadership is situational and that other group members may perform functions equal to or superior to their own.
If leadership is, as we have said, the process of influencing people by ideas, then there is no limit to the number of leaders that can function within a group. In fact the more the better because the very act of leadership, in whatever form observed, develops initiative, creativity, and mature responsibility.
Furthermore, leadership of this kind is not a mystic something or other that one individual has and another has not. It is learned behavior and anyone can improve himself in it by proper study and application. Such leadership is also situational and in the ideal group will shift from person to person depending upon the task at hand.
In a truly democratic group, leadership is diffused.
Every member is a leader whenever he contributes an idea that is needed at a particular time. Leadership passes from person to person as each member contributes something needed in the process of achieving group goals.
It has been stated that the democratic group succeeds on the assumption that people, given the necessary facts, can make better decisions than others can make for them. One of the weaknesses of group democratic action is embodied in the phrase “if given the facts.” All too often decisions are made emotionally, on a basis of ignorance. This raises another point. Since every member of a democratic group is a leader or a potential leader it becomes his duty to inform himself regarding the problems of that group. If he is to make intelligent decisions and suggestions for action which will provide leadership for his group he must accept responsibility. Responsibility calls for knowledge: knowledge of the group and its goals, knowledge of alternate means by which the goals may be sought, and general knowledge of the area in which the group operates. Thus we come full circle in pointing up the relationship between democracy and education.
Proper answers must often be sought beyond the group – from experts and resource people. Willingness to seek outside information is often a true mark of maturity in either an individual or a group. The anti-intellectual approach tends to belittle special knowledge and ability, to the loss of everyone.
Democracy is vitally important in American life. Many of the decisions which culminate in national policy begin at the “grass roots,” where ideas tend to originate. If we are to have maximum benefits from this fact every individual should have some insight into the processes of leadership. He should recognize the great importance of having every group member feel himself a leader, or at least a potential leader, with a willingness to accept the responsibilities this entails.