It is probable that without leadership no group can produce worthwhile action in the direction of its goals. But what is leadership? This word, like democracy, means many things to many people.
Just as our concept of democracy is a growing and expanding one, so is there a parallel growth and development of the meaning of leadership. The expansion of the democratic principle has demanded that new types of leadership arise.
It is easy to credit a leader with both the successes and failures of a group. Perhaps the true virtues, or faults, were those of the group itself. Many believe that the leader casts his personality over the group, but more frequently the opposite situation occurs. Much of this vagueness arises from the looseness of the meaning of the term leader in the English language. It is used to designate both one who commands and one who guides. In actual practice these may be as widely at variance as the chairman of the P.T.A. meeting and a Marine platoon leader in combat. Yet both are leaders.
The myth of the “born leader” is one common idea of the past which will not stand up under modern research. It was no doubt perpetuated by those with hereditary authority and was given support by the frequency with which sons succeeded fathers as leaders. One must remember that these sons were given training in leadership almost from birth. It was no accident that Aristotle went from Athens to Macedon to instruct the young Alexander. It was planned that way. In the early days of our culture, leadership was of necessity confined to the few, since knowledge and freedom from superstition were only available to a few.
Frazer, in The Golden Bough, states that the rise of despotic leaders was a necessary concomitant to emergence from savagery, since in primitive societies there was no mechanism by which large numbers of persons could become simultaneously enlightened. Hence history is replete with stories of the military leader who seized power and subsequently affected great civil and economic reforms. So the “great man” theory of history arose, culminating in the eulogies of Carlyle in the nineteenth century. Only more recently have historians begun to question this concept and to consider whether leaders might have automatically arisen in response to forces at play too complex for man to control. Even Toynbee – popular protagonist for the interplay-of-forces idea of history – concedes Frazer’s point that leaders must arise, and at least in the emergence from savagery to civilization they must be despotic.
Many great leaders of the past were military leaders. The military leader functions in a predetermined organization so complete that all the duties and responsibilities of each level of leadership are spelled out in advance. The “chain of command” is inviolate, and within such a framework an individual with very few qualities of leadership may function efficiently and even effectively. This is the entire basis of the bureaucratic organization. Many organizations follow this pattern, though the military one is the most characteristic. The leader of such a group has been very aptly termed the bureaucratic leader. In our modern organizations, particularly governmental, he often seems to be the indispensable man, even when ostensibly and basically other philosophies of leadership should prevail.
Another type has been termed the passive leader. He has developed a following because he happens to possess certain talents, skills, or traits which are much admired, not by any deliberate effort toward leadership on his part. Contemporary examples of such leadership might include Mickey Mantle in sports or Pablo Picasso in the world of art.
The leader who achieves his role almost entirely through personal magnetism has attracted the most interest in the writing of the past and still dominates some of the most fascinating chapters in history. He has been called the personal power or charismatic leader. All the great religions were founded by leaders of this ilk and many political leaders have possessed the same ability. Most dictators begin as this kind of leader, though it soon becomes necessary for them to solidify their power by developing a bureaucracy. They are followed because of their original attractiveness or “charisma” and most of their followers soon become convinced that such leadership will maximize the ends which they seek.