This is Google's cache of http://test.789chan.org/psy/res/143.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 23, 2012 22:43:44 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

Text-only version
 
-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

HEY EVERYONE YOU SHOULD CHECK OUT THIS THREAD, AND THIS ONE, AND THIS ONE!


[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 143)
Message
File
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5883 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 76 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2012-03-22 Show/Hide Show All

File 13258850637.png - (1.12KB , 90x28 , bobmad.png ) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
143 No. 143
Leadership

What is it? There are countless theories surrounding who a leader is, what a leader does, how a leader thinks, acts, what their personality is like, even theories based around leaders being the consequence of psychological problems.

The question still remains however, what is leadership? We know that to be a leader you must have followers, and literature regarding followership is scant, but growing, as more people pick up the torch of people like Kelley and Kellerman. But to know that leaders need followers still does not answer the question of what is leadership? Some underlying questions I ponder are whether leadership is a personal, interpersonal or group phenomenon. Literature has attempted to answer this question, but there is no clear consensus.

Writers such as Keith Grint have approached leadership from sociological backgrounds, and come to the conclusion that the more they learn about leadership, the less they know about it. Could it be that the entire construct of leadership is fundamentally flawed? Something that is desired to exist by the few with power to legitimize their power and something reinforced by the masses who wish to be the next to gain the role of leader?

I am starting to come to understand leadership as actually a process. A process where someone attains some sort of power. They then use this power to attract followers towards them and then use reinforcements as a way to urge them into conformity. I believe that Robert Kelley's studies on followership can be useful in further understanding the relationship between the leader and the follower, in determining the magnitude of the follower's energy in following as well as their ability to critically think. I believe that when power is shared that there is an exchange where both the leader and the follower develop a relationship of constantly giving power back and forth to one another. The power between the leader and the follower is almost communal. When power is not shared, but rather it is exchanged, then the relationship becomes economical, and it is natural for one another to hold things back from one another and only given when they perceive the return will be greater than what is being given. This relates to Burns' theory on transactional and transformational leadership, but it too relates to what Graen puts forth in vertical-dyad linkages, or later leader-member exchange theory.

I really want to know what others here this leadership is.


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  




Inter*Chan Imageboard Top List