Evolution of Leadership? Does it Exist?

“Motivation is what gets you started. Habit is what keeps you going on.” – Jim Ryun

As time has progressed forward regarding how man has adapted his way of conforming to the ever so changing world, he has to adapt to how things are taking place. As theorists have in the past created ways for mankind to be lead, also new theorists that come into play have to change their methods in order to better adapt to the new environment. Even great theorists have changed their views over time where perceptiveness, justice, morality, inspiration, motivation and wisdom are concerned. As new technology and practices are formed, appropriate leaderships are put into place. For example. During the medieval ages, leadership was ruled by the hand of the sword and fear and honor were the motivating factors to follow that leader. And if we look at recent times, leadership is the exact total opposite, where motivation comes from achievement and tangible rewards. We see evolution of leadership as a way for mankind to adapt, not only physically but within a mental state of being also. As we might say that leadership has evolved we can say that much of leadership still hasn’t evolved and that were still clinging to some of our old methods. For example. We still use the great-man approach to leadership to date. But the problem is that with the new modern era no centralized new definition of theory has emerged yet. There is argument that many old theories have relevance and that the new ones still haven’t been fully substantiated or discredited where new practice is concerned.  As a result, the modern industry of leadership shows dominance over the study of leadership, and leadership enforcers pop new theories and training approaches that have gotten well ahead of what the existing body of knowledge support can offer or handle. If we look how it has changed over time, here are the observed leadership transformations:

-          Scholarly thinking and thought evolved from headship to the conceptual form of leaders and leadership. This change began as early as the 14th century but took proper hold and sunk in during the 18th century.

-          Mass communication became an established form. Back in the day, philosophers influenced only a few people and only in certain few areas. The disadvantage to mass communication is that, in the present, anybody can advance their radical or ludicrous leadership theory or worship a CEO with a book, Web site, or mass-market training session held anywhere in the world.

-          Leadership thinking shifted from a historical study of different leaders to the idea of leadership as a concept and design. This is justified by the emergence of trait theories around 1900.

-          The main idea of leadership thinking evolved from the philosophy of leadership to the practice of leadership. This change started taking place around 1950, when many important and relevant studies questioned the basic ideas of the trait theories, giving power and emergence to the behavioral period of research. However, we can assume that all this shifting and change could have begun much earlier than we think.

if  we look at the past leadership practices and theories, we can assume that they were of exemplary value and as people nonetheless great minds and thinkers of our time.

“What we do in this life echoes throughout eternity” – (Maximus, Gladiator (the movie), 2000)

As how leaders in the past have influenced us the above statement is true. As we look at all the leaders in the past and how their traits have influenced us, yes, I agree. What we do in the past echoes throughout eternity.  If we look at the leaders of the past, we can see that they followed mostly and autocratic leadership. Autocratic leadership is the least desired form of leadership when building trust and relationships amongst followers. This is duly because in autocratic leadership, the leader or one person has complete control over the group and no one is allowed to make any suggestions of any sort. No matter how beneficial it might be overall to the group. The benefits of autocratic leadership are that it requires a strong leader to guide the group, and without the strong leadership, no one gets the full understanding of what the leader might communicate or the outcomes of the goals are unclear. Autocratic leaders take charge, distribute the work accordingly and make sure that deadlines are met no matter what the cost. Due to lack of technology and some means, leaders in the past had to make due with what they had from paperwork and tangible data gathering and resources, thus making the workload even harder and more difficult to cope with along the way. This is also because of the fact that some group members might procrastinate and end up affecting the entire project and affecting the overall outcome because they decide to wait and let the other member do the work.  Also leaders of the past used a bureaucratic style of leadership. This leadership style is a way of ensuring safety or accuracy of the task at hand or the situation. The situations best applied when in the past were situations were hazardous or dangerous; a bureaucratic style of leadership was used. A natural bureaucratic leader would create detailed instructions for the other members of the group and make sure that they follow the procedures entailing the best results. Leaders like this are best suited for government positions. Examples of leaders like this would be, Julius Caesar, Machiavelli, and such leaders who follow a strict and ironclad but accurate style and form of leadership application that required results on time and properly done. So I believe that the leaders of the past were dominantly or at least most of them were either autocratic or bureaucratic leaders given the situations they were put in and wouldn’t be surprised if they were a hybrid mixture of both. 

The skills that a leader of today should have and something that the past leaders should possess are dependent on the times that are currently present.  First of all, the leaders of today should learn to see others as themselves. In the sense meaning that this should help them view and assess their strengths and weaknesses more accurately also because they are no different from the rest of the group that they are leading where rank is considered and that they should see that the tasks they give out to others should be appropriate enough and that they understand the difficulties of it so they can get a better grasp of the situation. Leaders nowadays should also learn to cultivate their social intelligence and skills. By this they should be able to learn how to assess and respond appropriately at the situation that is present before them. The inability to do so is a reason for many leaders to fail at what they are currently engaged and is an important factor that many overlook which results in the risk of failure.  Leaders nowadays for them is imperative that they become network and people savvy, by becoming as such it is important that they are socially well connected and build a relationship base that is not only strong and consistent with all of their peers and followers.

By building a good connection and viewing the environment as an organizational ecosystem instead of segregating by departments and separate groups, you are enabling a broader view or a “big picture” view for yourself which makes it easier to become more in tune with your followers. By being so well connected you are opening a better path for yourself and your followers to gain more valuable opportunities. Leaders nowadays should learn how to show leadership both vertically and horizontally where most necessary. Because of this they understand that managing or working with people isn’t a downward facing chain of command but a mix of both because not only do they become more successful that way, but at the same time they understand how to involve others in the goal process which in turns help them become their 

own leaders in the future. 

Using these attributes or skills, leaders of the past could have been more efficient and the leaders of today much more effective. As for how overall leadership has evolved, it is one of those attributes of management evolution that no one can properly objectify but instead personify. Every spectacular leader is a combination of either attribute if not more. It’s the difference of use amongst the leader is what makes him/her successful in the future.