Friday, August 10, 2007


Leaders have been engaged to a wide range of lexis, which encompasses varying definitions from different views. These sound explanations have attempted to instill in our minds the significance, the relevance, the essence and the truest soul of what they call “leadership”. Many scholars have already fostered the fitted words to describing a leader. They have structured a firm and satisfying descriptions about leaders. It envelopes the characterization and the projection real leaders should possess. They tried to designate leaders in the most sensical and dynamic approach, but it remains that defining leadership requires enormous thoughts and giving justice to such is a stiff mission to accomplish.

A leader is a person who is in a position to influence others to act and who has, as well, the moral, intellectual, and social skills required to take advantage of that position (Schlochty 1990). People who occupy positions of top authority in organizations have more opportunities to lead but unfortunately not all have the capacity to influence others. The only way these people can get others to act is through the exercise of their authority. Leadership potentials can be found in all levels of the organization down the bottom of the hierarchy (Duque 1999).

On the other hand, leadership is described as the process (act) of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement. Leadership to exist has certain factors to be considered. There must be a group (two or more persons); a common task (for goal-oriented activities) and differentiation of responsibilities (some of the members have different duties) (Stogdill 1950). Leadership has seldom been simply a function of personal charisma. Charisma can help one a mass power and authority, but charisma alone will not get the job done.

No comments: