There are many varieties of leaders in action, both good and bad. Not everyone is given a chance to be a leader, not every leader is good. How to be a good leader or what is the essence of being a good leader? How to be a role model?
What must be the qualities of being a good leader? what are the characteristics a good leader should possess? If I am Ask to define what a leader is I would define it as the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $10
Lately, I have really been focused on what true leadership actually is. Many times when I come across the word leader I see the word follower attached. In my opinion, leadership is not about attracting others to follow.
To me, at least, this conveys a sense of power, authority, and control that might serve well in the short term by getting others to fall into line through conformity, but it doesn’t create the conditions necessary for sustaining change. I believe the definition and resulting perception of the term leader needs a makeover.
“The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things”. (Reagan, R.2017)
Great leaders don’t tell people what to do, but instead, take them to where they need to be. There is no agenda to create a harem of followers or disciples. True leaders know that their success is intimately tied to the work of the collective. One person doesn’t win a war, election. It is a team approach where each person in the organization knows that he or she has an important role to play.
I can also say with certainty that one person doesn’t single-handedly build a successful business. This same principle definitely applies to schools and districts. As I have written in the past, leadership is all about action, not position.
The command and control types who closeted themselves in their ivory towers – ruling by fear and intimidation – were the worst to work with or for. They were also the most ineffective. They usually didn’t know what was really going on in their organizations.
They didn’t learn and grow from their experiences. And their organizations inevitably suffered from low morale, poor productivity, and high turnover. Being A leader is a great opportunity but not every leader has good characteristics and for that, it is a big challenge for him. Being a good leader is the one who serves and not to be served.
Being a good leader is the one who takes risks for the benefit of others but at the same time listens to his Subordinate’ opinions. No leader can do everything by himself or herself. Everything can change in a heartbeat. As such, leaders must embrace a sense of flexibility and openness to change accordingly in certain cases. The ability to adapt to an array of situations, challenges, and pressures is pivotal to accomplish goals.
As leaders adapt they evolve into better leaders. The basic essence of leadership is its purpose. You will never be a good leader if you don’t know how to lead and if you don’t know what’s your purpose in leading. A great leader leads from the front and never asks others to do what he is not willing to do himself.
Yet all too often we expect determination, reliability, focus, accountability, integrity, and a host of other qualities in others without first making sure we have these traits in ourselves. The best leaders do not lead by coercion or persuasion.
“Leadership is not about a title or a designation. It’s about impact, influence, and inspiration. Impact involves getting results, influence is about spreading the passion you have for your work, and you have to inspire team-mates and customers”. I agree with this quotation said by (Sharma, R. 2010)
Because it’s true leadership isn’t just about the title it’s about the impact you can give to others, it’s about how you influence them to do better or how to influence them to fulfill the goal or advocacy of the team. It’s about giving them inspiration that anyone can be a leader, an inspiration to never give up on that certain goal, an inspiration that everyone will remember.
Being a leader doesn’t mean that you command and command and command being a leader is you do it together with your team and you are the motivator of the team. As a leader, you should stand up for the team.
I think talent is better than personality because if you don’t have the talent how would you lead your team. If you don’t have the talent how can you influence your team to strive harder, how would you influence others to be better and how would you motivate your team to give the best they can.
Also if you don’t have the talent how would you preach your advocacy to others if you yourself can’t do what you are preaching. I chose talent because you can learn how to be nice to others by just joining them and I believe that everyone has a good heart. Also, there is no leader that is selfish and always think about themselves only. Having talent is a great advantage to other leaders.
Also being a leader means being transparent. Transparent in a way that you can fit into the people in your team, understanding their flaws and shortcomings. Being a leader means you dedicate your life and yourself to your goal, advocacy, and team.
Being a leader means loyalty. Leadership is not about how many trophies you have won, it’s not about how many creditable acts you have made. Leadership is about how you achieve the advocacy of the team, the friendship and family you have created but most important is the lesson you’ve got while achieving the goal.
If you want to be an effective leader, study and learn about your best leadership tool; yourself. Reflect upon the impact your interactions have on others. Listen to the feedback others offer on your behavior and style. Ask for candid feedback on your leadership.
Take every opportunity to conduct assessments of your personality and style through the use of valid instruments. Working to understand and develop yourself will pay huge dividends when you are put into that leadership role.
My idea of leadership is being able to inspire others, motivate, set a vision, communicate, respect others, and of course, lead by example. A leader must have an honest understanding of who they are, what they know, and what they are capable of.
To be a successful leader, you have to be able to convince your followers, not just yourself or your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed. In my opinion, this can build confidence in their followers to have faith in you, in order to be able to lead.
I strongly believe that good leaders are made rather, and not born. If you have the desire and willpower, you can become an effective leader. Good leaders are developed through a never-ending process of self-study, education, training.
The way in which I communicate either builds or can harm the relationship between my soldier and I. When an important moment of discussion arises, I am always prepared to appropriately handle the situation at hand.
More than anything else, I believe as a leader it is always important to have great social skills in order to be communicative with clarity and objectiveness and to have a good relationship with the ones I lead. As a leader, I understand the meaning of recognition and praise when one is doing a good job, which too is significantly important.
A leader is not always the first to have an idea but should be the one who is always seeking out new solutions. One way of being a productive leader is discovering new ways to accomplish a set of tasks while maintaining a positive attitude. If a soldier is demonstrating a bad attitude because he feels that he can not accomplish a task then my job as a leader would be to steadily encourage that soldier to work at being all that he can be.
A leader to me does not need to always know the answer but believes it to be important to have the initiative to make an answer appear. One form of bad leadership would be an NCO performing or demonstrating a task that he knows nothing about in front of his soldiers. As a result of the NCO not performing or demonstrating the task at hand correctly, the soldiers then become incapable of knowing the proper ways of that task.
To me, leadership means finding an objective more important than myself and engage with other people in a reciprocal manner trusting that all I have is what I give.
Leadership often demands to deal with uncertainty and to take decisions hoping that other people will follow. Success in leadership does not come from role and title but from clear purpose, passion and self-awareness. Here is a three-step approach which defines this:
1. Build trust – Trust is hard to build and easy to lose in this era of social media tools where you are constantly exposed. Trust is the conviction that the leader means what he says.
As Peter Drucker said, “It is a belief in something very old-fashioned, called integrity.”
2. Be mindful – Mindfulness is the process of noticing new things that places you in the present allowing you to take advantage of opportunities and situations which result in no longer having people applying yesterday’s solutions to today’s challenges.
3. Have faith – Faith creates room for good things to happen. It gives you the strength to make the decisions that you think are right. It helps you to tell the truth about yourself, your company, your circumstances and makes your vision manifest.
As Abraham Lincoln once said, “to believe in the things you can see and touch is no belief at all; but to believe in the unseen is a triumph and a blessing.”
Leadership is one of the most crucial choices that can be made in life and it requires courage, awareness and flexibility as you continuously evolve as an individual. Corporate results and success will be based on the leader’s ability to be authentic, to act with integrity and to respond to their own needs and the needs of others with vision, creativity, and the sense of unity with the people they lead.
Concept of Leadership
Leadership – what is it? Many definitions have been offered, cultural stereotypes abound, numerous programs focus on leadership development, but the question remains. In fact, leadership is many different things to different people in different circumstances. When we think of leadership, we often think first of famous individuals.
We may think of great political leaders: Washington, Churchill, Roosevelt. We may think of the leaders of social movements: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Caesar Chavez. We may think of spiritual leaders: Jesus, Mohammed, Mother Theresa. Do we also include in our definition some of the infamous leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, or David Koresh? Obviously, leadership is not always or automatically good in and of itself. We are quickly reminded of the notion that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
An exploration of leadership also quickly takes us beyond the lists of the famous when we consider the examples of leadership in our own lives: family members, friends, teachers, ministers, and others who by their lives and examples have influenced and led us in various ways. When we look at leadership in communities we see many leaders who may never become famous but whose leadership is essential to the life of the community. We begin to see leaders all around us.
Leadership is the ability to influence individuals or groups toward the achievement of goals. Leadership, as a process, shapes the goals of a group or organization, motivates behavior toward the achievement of those goals, and helps define group or organizational culture. It is primarily a process of influence.
Leadership is a dynamic or changing process in the sense that, while influence is always present, the persons exercising that influence may change. Possession of influence depends upon the situation and upon the relevancy of the individual’s skills and abilities to the situation. For example, if a particular individual has the expertise that is required to solve a problem, then that individual may be assumed to have some degree of influence over others.
Although some managers are able to influence followers to work toward the achievement of organizational goals, the conferring of formal authority on a manager does not necessarily make that individual a leader. Yes, that individual has authority, but whether or not they are able to influence their subordinates may depend on more than just that authority.
Not all leaders are managers, and similarly, not all managers are leaders. Within a team environment, managers and leaders are simply roles taken on by members of the team. Most teams require a manager to “manage” — coordinate, schedule, liaise, contact, organize, procure — their affairs.
The functions of this role may well be quite different from those of the leader. Management roles need not presuppose any ability to influence. A leader, on the other hand, must have the ability to influence other team members.
A leader must, by definition, have followers. To understand leadership, we must explore the relationship leaders have with their followers.
One view of leadership sees it as a transactional process whereby leaders respond to subordinates’ basic lower level and security needs. Similar to the exchange theory discussed previously, leaders and subordinates may be viewed as bargaining agents whose relative power regulates an exchange process as benefits are issued and received.
Thus, a follower may follow a leader so long as that leader is perceived to be in a position to “deliver” some important needs. In some cases, the followers of a political leader may be very fickle; if the desired needs of the followers are not met by the policies enacted by that leader’s government, these followers may readily give their vote — follow another — at the next election.
“All leaders have the capacity to create a compelling vision, one that takes people to a new place, and the ability to translate that vision into reality” (Bennis, 1990). Current leadership literature frequently characterizes the leader as the vision holder, the keeper of the dream, or the person who has a vision of the organization’s purpose.
In Leadership Is an Art (1989), De Pree asserts that “the first responsibility of a leader is to define reality”. Bennis (1990) writes that leaders “manage the dream”. Vision is defined as “the force which molds meaning for the people of an organization” by Manasse (1986).
According to Manasse, this aspect of leadership is “visionary leadership” and includes four different types of vision: organization, future, personal, and strategic. Organizational vision involves having a complete picture of a system’s components as well as an understanding of their interrelationships. “Future vision is a comprehensive picture of how an organization will look at some point in the future, including how it will be positioned in its environment and how it will function internally” (Manasse, 1986).
The personal vision includes the leader’s personal aspirations for the organization and acts as the impetus for the leader’s actions that will link organizational and future vision. “Strategic vision involves connecting the reality of the present (organizational vision) to the possibilities of the future (future vision) in a unique way (personal vision) that is appropriate for the organization and its leader” (Manasse, 1986). A leader’s vision needs to be shared by those who will be involved in the realization of the vision.
An important aspect of vision is the notion of “shared vision.” “Some studies indicate that it is the presence of this personal vision on the part of a leader, shared with members of the organization, that may differentiate true leaders from mere managers” (Manasse, 1986). A leader’s vision needs to be shared by those who will be involved in the realization of the vision. Murphy (1988) applied shared vision to previous studies of policymakers and policy implementation; he found that those studies identified gaps between policy development and its implementation and concluded that this gap also applies to current discussions of vision.
He stressed the need for the development of a shared vision. “It is rare to see a clearly defined vision articulated by a leader at the top of the hierarchy and then installed by followers” (Murphy, 1988). Whether the vision of an organization is developed collaboratively or initiated by the leader and agreed to by the followers, it becomes the common ground, the shared vision that compels all involved. “Vision comes alive only when it is shared” (Westley & Mintzberg).
Valuing Human Resources
Leaders go beyond the development of a common vision; they value the human resources of their organizations. They provide an environment that promotes individual contributions to the organization’s work. Leaders develop and maintain collaborative relationships formed during the development and adoption of the shared vision. They form teams, support team efforts, develop the skills groups and individuals’ needs, and provide the necessary resources, both human and material, to fulfill the shared vision.
Who will lead a group, team, or organization? Leadership emergence depends to a large extent on group members’ perceptions. Groups generally require leaders when interpersonal processes need improvement or the efforts of individual members must be better coordinated.
The emergence of a leader depends on team members’ perceptions with respect to the need for a leader and on the qualities of the individuals available to fill that role.
The number of factors may determine who emerges as a group’s leader:
(1) physical characteristics such as height, weight, age, and gender;
(3) personality traits;
(4) task abilities; and
(5) participation rates.
Why do followers Follow
Although the number of reasons followers follow may be as numerous as the number of followers, we may generalize by saying that followers expect their needs to be satisfied. If the leader somehow provides the follower with the means by which he or she may satisfy needs, then it is likely that the leader will have followers. This assumption is consistent with Maslow’s assumptions about motivation.
Followers are motivated to follow — to do whatever is requested of them by the leader — if they are in a position to satisfy their own, dominant needs. Similarly, Expectancy Theory assumes that people are motivated — will see a reason to follow — if there exists a perceived expectation that their efforts (the following) will lead to positive job outcomes and, finally, positive rewards.
Transactional leadership is based on the notion of social exchange; leaders control followers’ behaviors by imposing authority and power on the one hand and satisfying followers’ needs on the other. That is, leaders offer organizational resources in exchange for followers’ compliance and responsiveness.
Unlike transformational leadership, in this transactional relationship, the leader makes no particular effort to change followers’ values or involve them in a process by which they internalize organizational values.
In times of crisis, people become sensitive to the adequacy of their leadership. If they have confidence in it, they are willing to assign more than usual responsibility to the leader. However, if they lack that confidence, they are less tolerant of the leader than usual.
Furthermore, people are more likely to follow and to have critical decisions made by the leader if they feel that somehow they, the followers, are taking part in the decision-making process.
Although the formal definition of leadership given above will serve us in our future discussions of leadership, Warren Bennis suggests a definition which is also interesting.
Leadership, Vision, Communication
If leadership is to be pro-active, it requires vision. This vision is a shared image of a desirable objective, shaped and defined by the leader and the followers.
However, the vision itself is not enough. In order to get others — followers — to move in the direction of the desired goal (the vision), the leader must also be able to communicate that vision and the followers must be motivated to follow.
Ideally, the followers will internalize and fulfill this shared vision. If the followers are inclined to act on reasoned argument, then communication will serve to convey the rationale for the vision. On the other hand, the act of communicating may also touch the followers in an emotional way.
What makes a Leader
It is generally accepted that good leadership is essential to the functioning of an organization. This begs the question: What makes a good leader? It may be useful to think of the leadership process as the interaction between the situation, the leader, and the followers. Beh
Behavior and Personality
Since leadership is a behavior, it must, by definition, be, among other things, a function of the leader’s personality. Personality is defined as those relatively stable characteristics derived from culture, unique experiences, and biological makeup. If the leader’s skills, and motivations to fulfill certain felt needs, are combined with his or her personality, then we might conclude that these factors contribute to leader behavior.
Task Orientation, Relationship Orientation, and Influence
Much of the leading research has reduced leader behavior to task orientation, relationship orientation, and the attempt to influence others (note the similarity between these behaviors and McClelland’s needs — the need for achievement, need for affiliation and need for power). Behavior thus influences the net result of the leadership process.
Leader Behaviors, Influence, and Power Leader behavior is also a function of the power of the leader. Power (as per French and Raven) may be derived from a number of sources:
Leader Behaviors and Situational Variables In an organizational context, the leader’s behavior invariably interacts with the environment. Thus, situational variables come into play. The type of job, technology, organizational politics, and the formal authority afforded the manger may influence the power available to the leader.
The role of leadership in management is largely determined by the organizational culture of the company. It has been argued that managers’ beliefs, values, and assumptions are of critical importance to the overall style of leadership that they adopt.
There are several different leadership styles that can be identified within each of the following Management techniques. Each technique has its own set of good and not-so-good characteristics, and each uses leadership in a different way.
The autocratic leader dominates team-members, using unilateralism to achieve a singular objective. This approach to leadership generally results in passive resistance from team-members and requires continual pressure and direction from the leader in order to get things done. Generally, an authoritarian approach is not a good way to get the best performance from a team.
There are, however, some instances where an autocratic style of leadership may not be inappropriate. Some situations may call for urgent action, and in these cases, an autocratic style of leadership may be best. In addition, most people are familiar with autocratic leadership and therefore have less trouble adopting that style. Furthermore, in some situations, sub-ordinates may actually prefer an autocratic style.
The Laissez-Faire Manager
The Laissez-Faire manager exercises little control over his group, leaving them to sort out their roles and tackle their work, without participating in this process himself. In general, this approach leaves the team floundering with little direction or motivation.
Again, there are situations where the Laissez-Faire approach can be effective. The Laissez-Faire technique is usually only appropriate when leading a team of highly motivated and skilled people, who have produced excellent work in the past.
Once a leader has established that his team is confident, capable and motivated, it is often best to step back and let them get on with the task since interfering can generate resentment and detract from their effectiveness. By handing over ownership, a leader can empower his group to achieve their goals.
The democratic leader makes decisions by consulting his team, whilst still maintaining control of the group. The democratic leader allows his team to decide how the task will be tackled and who will perform which task.
The democratic leader can be seen in two lights:
A good democratic leader encourages participation and delegates wisely, but never loses sight of the fact that he bears the crucial responsibility of leadership. He values group discussion and input from his team and can be seen as drawing from a pool of his team members’ strong points in order to obtain the best performance from his team. He motivates his team by empowering them to direct themselves and guides them with a loose rein.
However, the democrat can also be seen as being so unsure of himself and his relationship with his subordinates that everything is a matter for group discussion and decision. Clearly, this type of “leader” is not really leading at all.
In the 1920’s and 1930’s, leadership research focused on trying to identify the traits that differentiated leaders from non-leaders. These early leadership theories were content theories, focusing on “what” an effective leader is, not on ‘how’ to effectively lead. The trait approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical, social, and personal characteristics are inherent in leaders.
Sets of traits and characteristics were identified to assist in selecting the right people to become leaders. Physical traits include being young to middle-aged, energetic, tall, and handsome. Social background traits include being educated at the “right” schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile. Social characteristics include being charismatic, charming, tactful, popular, cooperative, and diplomatic.
Personality traits include being self-confident, adaptable, assertive, and emotionally stable. Task-related characteristics include being driven to excel, accepting of responsibility, having initiative, and being results-oriented.
Trait theories intended to identify traits to assist in selecting leaders since traits are related to leadership effectiveness in many situations. The trait approach to understanding leadership supports the use of tests and interviews in the selection of managers.
The interviewer is typically attempting to match the traits and characteristics of the applicant to the position. For example, most interviewers attempt to evaluate how well the applicant can work with people.
Trait theory has not been able to identify a set of traits that will consistently distinguish leaders from followers. Trait theory posits key traits for successful leadership (drive, desire to lead, integrity, self-confidence, intelligence, and job-relevant knowledge) yet does not make a judgment as to whether these traits are inherent to individuals or whether they can be developed through training and education.
No two leaders are alike. Furthermore, no leader possesses all of the traits. Comparing leaders in different situations suggests that the traits of leaders depend on the situation. Thus, traits were de-emphasized to take into account situational conditions (contingency perspective).
The behavioral theorists identified determinants of leadership so that people could be trained to be leaders. They developed training programs to change managers’ leadership behaviors and assumed that the best styles of leadership could be learned.
Theory X and Theory Y
Douglas McGregor described Theory X and Theory Y in his book, The Human Side of Enterprise. Theory X and Theory Y each represent different ways in which leaders view employees. Theory X managers believe that employees are motivated mainly by money, are lazy, uncooperative, and have poor work habits. Theory Y managers believe that subordinates work hard, are cooperative, and have positive attitudes.
Theory X is the traditional view of direction and control by managers.
- The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid if he or she can.
- Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives.
- The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all.
Theory X leads naturally to an emphasis on the tactics of control – to procedures and techniques for telling people what to do, for determining whether they are doing it, and for administering rewards and punishment.
Theory X explains the consequences of a particular managerial strategy. Because its assumptions are so unnecessarily limiting, it prevents managers from seeing the possibilities inherent in other managerial strategies. As long as the assumptions of Theory X influence managerial strategy, organizations will fail to discover, let alone utilize, the potentialities of the average human being.
Theory Y is the view that individual and organizational goals can be integrated.
- The expenditures of physical and mental effort in work are as natural as play or rest.
- External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing out effort toward organizational objectives.
- Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement.
- The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but also to seek responsibility.
Good leaders are made not born. If a person has the desire and willpower, he can become an effective leader. Good leaders develop through a never-ending process of self-study, education, training, and experience.
To inspire workers into higher levels of teamwork, there are certain things a leader must be, know, and, do. These do not come naturally, but are acquired through continual work and study. Good leaders are continually working and studying to improve their leadership skills; they are NOT resting on their laurels.
Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills.
Leadership and organizational learning
In the field of organizational learning, leadership entered the discussion as a proxy for the organization. Initial concepts of leadership in organizational learning were based on the notion of the dominant coalition. Organizational learning theorists had suggested that the senior management team, or dominant coalition, was in fact the organization level of organizational learning.
Five Leadership constructs affecting each of the five organizational learning constructs shown in SLAM. The leadership of individual and group-level learning relates to the ways in which the leader supports or undermines learning at that level. The leadership of the organization level refers to the more typical domain of strategic management.
The leadership of the feed-forward flow represents the degree that the leader ensures that the nonhuman elements of the organization, such as procedures, routines, and systems, support learning at the individual and group levels.
There are 14 behaviours of effective leaders, supporting, consulting, delegating, recognizing, rewarding, motivating, managing conflicts and team building, developing, clarifying, planning and organizing, problem-solving, informing, monitoring, representing, and networking.
In conclusion, leadership has a high correlation with all elements of the organizational learning system and it is a means to leverage knowledge through organizational learning.
Example #6 – Interesting ideas
Leadership is the ability to show a high level of commitment with a clearer vision, taking individual abilities into accounts, and harnessing all resources to derive the maximum benefits towards the achieve set goals.
Leadership is surrounding yourself with people who have the character to do what’s right. Successful leadership isn’t an ability, it’s a choice. You can train nearly anyone to complete certain tasks and nearly anyone can be a “leader”. You cannot, however, train people to have a character or to follow their moral compass. The best leaders know how to choose “like minds” as subordinates and end up being the most successful.
Leadership is all about having a vision of where you, personally, want to go, and the desire to get there.
Everything else, trustworthiness, hard work, etc., follows naturally.
The clearer the vision, the easier it is for the leader to convey that vision to others, the more likely those others are able/willing to follow the leader to the vision.
The leader will go the vision, regardless of obstacles or even followers. This dedication inspires followers, but as I said, they aren’t required.
If the leader betrays his vision, starts twisting it for his own purposes, his followers will know, and in turn, feel betrayed. How long the followers stay, then, becomes a function of the TOOLS of leadership (inspiration, communication, compensation), but not leadership itself.
To me, leadership means something very basic and simple. Leadership could be defined as setting the example yourself. This is a philosophy that should apply to all so-called “leaders.”
Setting an example means to step up to the plate and do it yourself. For example, if you are concerned about the poor, you should literally give your time and money to help alleviate poverty. This might take the form of giving a large portion of your income and time. In other words, it’s putting your actions where your mouth is.
Think of a boy scout leader. You take charge of a group you are going to train and guide. You earn their trust, you teach them and you care for them. Hopefully, you will pour your skills into them and make them leaders like yourself. You become a role model if you are a good leader.
- In a family, usually, the Grandparent is the leader.
- In a church, the Pastor is the leader.
- In a job, the boss is the leader.
- In Government, your elected officials are the leaders.
In life, one should try to be a leader, not a follower. Followers often follow the lead sheep off a cliff. The one who thinks for himself often avoids tragedy. I think of the pilot who landed in the Hudson River and saved the whole planeload of people.
He was a good leader/thinker. He did not follow the lead to land at an airport strip. He said, “We are going into the Hudson”. So he did and everyone survived. THAT is a leader.
A leader is one who possesses the ability to inspire others to follow and do the same (or better) than he or she does. A leader makes clear what is to be done, and shows the way to do it. Most leaders are servant-minded.
Leadership is a noble trait shown by such a person.
Cite this page
This content was submitted by our community members and reviewed by Essayscollector Team. All content on this page is verified and owned by Essayscollector Team. All comments and user reviews are moderated by Essayscollector Team. In the case of any content-related problem, you can reach us through the report button.