Talk:Leadership

Criticism

A new approach

I propose a new way forward on this. I have contributed a short summary on leadership, which opens the path to separate articles on organisational leadership (House, Fiedler &c &c &c), and on leadership in other areas (eg military, sport). I hope this is helpful. Deipnosophista 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a better way to start would be to define Leader objectively, since it is an easier word to define, e.g., one who directs or influences the actions of others. Then proceed to define leadership very sparsely, e.g. a character trait or ability that makes a leader effective. Adding any more to this definition would not be objective, since it is a matter of opinion as to what exactly makes a leader effective or good. This article should include a representative list of official roles that are considered leaders, e.g. kings, generals, coaches, executives, etc. and the corresponding "others" that they lead. There could also be a list of famous individuals that are considered to have had great leadership ability historically, although that would of course be a matter of opinion. Napoleon and Roosevelt come to mind. Probably also a mention that people can lead without having any officially given title, like Joan of Arc or Martin Luther King, Jr. Lay the foundation with cold facts, then y'alls can get into your theories about what makes a good leader. I think the theories mentioned should preferably be those that have had the most influence on society, not necessarily what people believe to be most accurate, since again, the very nature of leadership is extremely subjective, hence the terrible state of this article. Plato's Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince seem like good candidates. Maybe Sun Tzu's Art of War. I'm not familiar with more modern theories since it seems like the waters are muddied with a bunch of hacks just trying to sell books.--Edwardstirling (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How to Be a Leader in a Crowd, Not a Follower

Technique (Lead the Listeners): No matter how prominent the big cat behind the podium is, crouched inside is a little scaredy-cat who is anxious about the crowd’s acceptance. Big winners recognize you’re a fellow big winner when they see you leading their listeners in a positive reaction. Be the first to applaud or publicly commend the man or woman you agree with (or want favors from).

• • How to Make All the Right Moves

Technique (The Great Scorecard in the Sky): Any two people have an invisible scorecard hovering above their heads. The numbers continually fluctuate, but one rule remains: players with lower score pays deference to player with higher score. The penalty for not keeping your eye on The Great Scorecard in the Sky is to be thrown out of the game. Permanently

Big winners-before putting pen to paper, fingers to keyboard, mouth to phone, or hand to someone else’s to shake it-do a quick calc ulation. They ask themselves “Who has the most to benefit from this relationship? What has each of us done recently that demand deference from the other?” And what can I do to even the score 05/2023>https://kizlonji.wordpress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrakiz17 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, meaning the content should be Objective. Please guys, this is not a biography nor a place to spread your theories or what you think. Please, don't add a section starting with "According to John Smith", while you are, in fact, John Smith. Thanks for your understanding. This article is already very very bad right now it's almost unreadable. Thanks!

Is not an encyclopedia a place to look for "notble" theories and information. I have noted that there are many Biogrphies and Theories already included, John C Maxwell, Tom Peters, Ken Blachard. These are All Americans, I do Assume this is not just for Americans or for those only known to Americans.

Steve Coldwell (Malaysia) 211.24.170.130 09:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

i agree, why should leadership gurus be exclusive to the perseption of americans. there are many influential leadership gurus in asia also, and not political ones who make a difference for better leadership in multinational companies. we asians have oppinions too, but it not agreed by all americans. Lily 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perspective of leadership

IMHO, the front article has mainly dealt with

• Transformational perspective
• Competency perspective

It could be good if we mention something about these other perspectives

• Romance perspective
• Behavioral perspective
• Contingency perspective

Oh, and some guy Fred Fiedler that success of a leader depend on how well matched his natural leadership style matches the situation on hand, kind of go against the path-goal leadership theory. Some lame tools Leadership Grid may fall somewhere in the article

It might make more sense to lay the page out by the major schools of leadership theory:

• Trait/Skills
• Behavior
• Contingency
• Relational
• Principled
• Ethical
• Transformational/Transactional

Then move to leadership in an applied setting:

• Business settings
• Small Teams and Groups
• Military
• Political

Getting Others Involved

In order to be a good leader, you must also get others involved in what you are doing. There are several ways that you can get outsiders involved. First you must publicize your event or meeting to draw those who are not involved in. Also, you can provide incentives to attract those outsiders. When they can get a reward for coming, they are more likely to get involved. Once they have come and made the decision to get involved, you must give them responsibility. Giving someone responsibility within your organization will make the person feel like they are a part of the bigger picture, and are really contributing. Finally, you must give your members a chance to get others involved. When someone gets involved, it makes it so much better for them when they can reach out and get others involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgold007 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Scholarship

This article is so poorly written as to defy description. An article on leadership that makes no mention at all of its true function, which is to manage the overall production of goods and services that enable the standard of living a society requires. It is almost like this article was written in a "vacuum", a veritable "dream state" of contributors repeating what they read in some old book or magazine. There is literally no thinking going on at all in the contributions to this article, they are just "cut and paste". Just think about it, without production who needs leaders? If as human beings we decided we weren't going to produce anything anymore, leadership would not be necessary except at the most basic tribal level for common defence. Oh, by the way, those tribal leaders all got wiped out by leaders who oversaw the production of superior weapons. So it is the volume and type of production that a leader oversees that they derive their power from. Please make an effort to write an article that has even the slightest bit of truth and analysis. Oh, by the way, the "natural born leader" is one who disagrees with everyone else, you can put that in too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.229.151 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "its true function, which is to manage the overall production of goods and services that enable the standard of living a society requires."

You are wrong. 198.251.52.192 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The section on "Primate Leadership" is a regurgitation of Feminist Critical Thinking 101. And what Chomsky has to say, in the grand tradition of Marx and Freud, is completely irrelevant. Chomsky has expertise in certain areas of language and syntax. Otherwise he is about as scholarly as a newspaper editorial. I am chopping some of this out.

Please do not delete text without making at least a token effort to discuss and to reach concensus. I agree that the article is awful and needs serious work on it, but the talk page is where editors can discuss changes aimed at improving the article, and Wikipedia in general. --Technopat (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for a Renewal

This article on "Leadership" is a bit overwhelming. Shouldn't this be the "once over the world" view and then allow it to spin out into all the differing models and theorists. I believe that this article would be more beneficial if it provided a scholarly look at the study of leadership, allowing individual readers to pursue their own paths. This should be a topical outline of all things "leadership" and feed readers out to supporting articles. Just my opinion, but I volunteer if there is some consensus. --Bullock 07:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E.w.bullock (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.w.bullock (talk • contribs) 07:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Gender and leadership

I am planning significant revisions to a related page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_leadership, as described in that page's Talk, and plan to revise this article's section on gender and leadership (and link between this section and that page) after finishing that. Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I have completed revisions to Sex and gender differences in leadership and am turning my eye to this page. Planning to change the section "Leadership differences affected by gender" to "Leadership and gender" and expand the coverage to include not only the leader's gender, but also the gender of followers and the gendered nature of organizations, cultures, and context. Gender affects the leadership dynamic in many ways besides just what the leader's gender is. I plan to rely on the Sex and gender differences in leadership page for the bulk of that discussion, and to write a paragraph or two about the other two areas, which have received less attention from scholars. Some of the content under "Barriers for non-western female leaders" is already covered in Sex and gender differences in leadership but these are important ideas to raise up on this page, too -- but again, it's more than just the leader that's relevant, here. The cultural context is important for group / follower gender dynamics as well as the gendered nature of organizations and industries. Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding "Leadership differences affected by gender" , I have put the old section text here, and added comments about how and why I've revised it. Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Neo-emergent theory

This section is non-sensical. I have no clue what it is trying to say. 198.251.52.192 (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 4499.w04

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2025 and 27 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NexoftheNight (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ShannonMR88 (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)