The Essence of Leadership

In Management theory the search for essential leadership qualities continues to baffle practitioners and researchers of Management alike, as they all know that identifying the essence of leadership may solve many a leadership related issues. But the difficulty in that while it is well known that what leaders do, the qualities that make them to do what they do is a fudgy issue. One of the first leadership theories was the Great Man theory or the traits approach that suggested that there are certain inborn traits that gives people leadership ability. But the problem was to find out those traits. Which traits would make a great leader was the question that never got answered. There was lack of consistency and persons with contradictory characteristics made equally effective leaders. From Alexander to Chengis Khan, from Akbar to Aurangzeb, from Churchill to Roosevelt, the list is unending. If Alexander is was handsome, Chengis Khan was not all that good looking. If Akbar was diplomatic Aurangzeb was a hard liner. Both Churchill and Roosevelt had their failings yet both proved effective. Naturally, it was an intriguing issue and it was concluded that rather than the traits it was the behavior that made leaders effective or in other words it was the leadership style that become the touch stone of effective leadership. But another question cropped up. What was that style? Or in the other words was there a one – best style of leadership. There were researchers carried out that proved that different and mutually contradictory styles were equally effective, given the situation in which those styles were practiced. Thus, there was a situation in which autocratic style gave batter results, whereas there were situations in which the democratic style proved more effective. This finding led to yet another approach that is, the effectiveness of leadership style depends on the situation. Thus in certain situations there was need for one particular style but in certain other situations the opposite style would work. The question as to what was the essence of leadership remained unanswered. With context becoming an important determinant of leadership effectiveness leader qualities took a back seat. It is against this back drop that we need to find out if there are certain leadership qualities that have withstood the test of times. Or, in other words are there certain universal qualities that transcend cultures, time and religion. More so, in view of the fact that societies and organizations are becoming global, that is, multi-cultured and multi-religious. People from different cultures, religions and regions living together have to be led in such a way that the diversities are managed effectively. The leaders thus have to address the inherent contradictions. Be it the United States or India. Be it Canada or Venezuela. Be it Bihar or Uttar Pradesh. As homogeneity gives way to heterogeneity, the search for essential leadership qualities has to be carried out. Interestingly, despite contextual differences and accentuated diversities there have been leadership styles that have worked. Across ages, across cultures. The basics do not change. If Abraham Lincoln could find that in 19^th century “Mercy always bears richer fruits than strict justice, Prince Siddhartha (Buddha) way back in 5^th century BC had proved through his experience that the person who saves someone’s life is always greater than the person who tries to kill. Compassion and consideration have proved to be leadership qualities that have transcended time and space.