Revisiting Leadership [1]

People seem to agree that leadership is something worthwhile. The problem is that there exists numerous theories and ideas about what leadership is all about. Leadership ‘experts’ and gurus seem to have their own individual ‘theory’ regarding leadership. Indeed, there are so many variant views on what leadership is, or means, that the term itself is rendered practically meaningless.

You could say that the idea of leadership has lost its power in the welter of ‘management speak’ as well as in political and organisational jargon. Leadership and Learning Pathways (LLP) sees as one of its principle tasks as rescuing leadership from the purveyors of the latest management fads, and as Simon Caulkin writing in some time ago in the ‘Observer Business’ sector states: “The question is: Is it leadership they are referring to? And although they probably think so, nevertheless it is highly unlikely. They are confusing leadership with management, or authority, in the sense of having control over others.”

The exercise of leadership is not prone to the whims or understandings of individuals or groups. Instead, it is a particular way of going about things. It is not susceptible to changing interpretations, to fashion. Leadership is not intrinsically linked with individual values and beliefs. It is about the totality, the oneness of social and organisational life. If it is not understood as such its positive impact in bringing about necessary change is certainly diminished.

Any discussion of leadership must be based on four interlocking pillars of human understanding. They are the philosophical, psychological, empirical and the common-sense. From the philosophical perspective one must endeavour to ensure that the word ‘leadership’ has clarity, coherence, is free of any ambiguity, or contradiction, and reflects a meaning that has universal accord. It must reflect the nature of man thus must be based on our best understanding of what it is to be human. It must also take account of the nature of the world we inhabit, and it must be based in common sense corresponding to the world we live and work in. Otherwise, it is just a word devoid of meaning, of power, of the capability to change for the better the lives of people, their societies and organisations.

 

Advertisement