Qualities of Leadership the Concept

¶ … Qualities of Leadership

The concept of leadership is an extremely complex one. Chemers (1997) has defined leadership as "a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task." President Lincoln used his political strength to defeat the Confederation, while President Kennedy used his leadership to negotiate with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, in a way that retained the U.S. position on most topics of interest on the bilateral and international agenda.

This paper looks at the concept of leadership from different perspectives, both through historical and literary characters. It aims to show that few leaders encompass all characteristics of leadership, but that all are successful in integrating good communication and social skills in their objective to drive people towards a common objective.

As studies have shown, leadership differs from sector to sector. Most leaders had vision and charisma, but not all showed integrity and, at the same time, some were political leaders, others economic or social leaders and many others in history were military leaders.

For example, President Lincoln delegated military attributions to his generals, although he was in direct contact with them and understood development in the field of operations. Ultimately, he was the one who appointed Grant to lead the Armies in the North, but it was more his political leadership than his military leadership that won the war. In the same manner, President Kennedy made the final decisions regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he had no real military competency the way Napoleon or Caesar would.

With this in mind, a leadership workshop would need to be customized and look at different characteristics that leaders have, as well as different leadership approaches. As such, President Lincoln and President Kennedy could be the best representatives of political and national leaders. They lead an entire nation towards a commonly recognized objective, whether that is resisting to the Soviet pressure or reuniting the nation during the Civil War.

On the other hand, Lieutenant Jimmy Cross should be an example of both military leadership and personal leadership. His mission is to lead his men in a complex and difficult environment during the Vietnam War. As the text tells, this is a terror environment, where you understand "what terror was: you're not human anymore. You're a shadow. You slip out of your own skin, like molting, shedding your own history and your own future, leaving behind everything you ever were or wanted to believed in" (O'Brien, 1990). Ultimately, he should be able to create advantages for his men in competition with the enemy, which is his role as a military leader.

However, even if a leader needs to take care of his men and he fails to do so. He is a weak leader primarily because his training to become a leader is wrong: he is never prepared to face the conditions in the field of operations. Beyond this, by focusing on Martha rather than on his platoon and its protection, he has failed to take his men from one place to another safely through the jungle.

A very interesting aspect is that, although he is a weak leader, as previously discussed, Jimmy Cross understands why that it. As the text mentions, "when a man died, there had to be blame. Jimmy Cross understood this" (O'Brien, 1990). Although ultimately one could blame anything, from God to decision makers, the ultimate responsibility is only that of the direct leader.

As such, one could conclude that one of the most important characteristics of a good leader is responsibility for his men. This can be debatable in the context of historical characters. One can accept the fact that one of the greatest leaders of the world was Napoleon Bonaparte. However, one cannot say that he was taking responsibility and trying to protect his men. In fact, historical facts showed that his battles were some the bloodiest of all history.

However, that doesn't seem to make him less of a leader, particularly since his soldiers would literally follow him blindly into battle. So, in some case, leadership does not necessarily link with responsibility for the men, but rather with the relationship with the persons who are led. Napoleon was able to concentrate the energies of his men in a way that served his best interests.

This links with Raymond Carver's story, in the sense that good leadership is also about good communication, about the ability of passing the appropriate message. The main theme of his story is that of communication (or lack of), namely of finding the right words to pass on to the others. The right words are fundamental, because they help connect individuals and fostering this relationship is perhaps the most important part of good leadership.

The most important point in "Cathedral," from a leadership perspective, is when the husband finds himself at a loss of words when trying to describe the cathedral to Robert. He is, throughout the story in fact, a bad communicator. Robert, on the other hand, connects well with his wife particularly because, since he is blind, and, as such, other forms of communication skills have developed. He is also a good leader, so he is also able to connect with the husband, including in the process of drawing a cathedral. The end of the story shows a process in which the blind man leads with concrete directions, but also personal communication: "We're drawing a cathedral. Me and him are working on it. Press hard" (Carver, 1983), but also "You didn't think you could. But you can, can't you" (Carver, 1983). The latter phrase shows the motivational skills that the blind man has, another important component of leadership skills.

Comparing this with the Napoleon example previously mentioned, the blind man shows himself as an excellent communicator, finding the right words to motivate his people. President Lincoln was also a great communicator, just as President Kennedy. One can remember, for example, The Gettysburg Address, in Lincoln's case, or the famous speech that Kennedy made in Berlin (and the famous words "Ich bin ein Berliner"- I am also a Berliner, which immediately attracted German sympathy). So, a conclusion for this part can be that good leaders are also excellent and motivational communicators.

It is difficult to concretely link leadership and integrity. Everyone will likely prefer a leader who has integrity rather than one who has not. Certainly, a leader should not make his followers do things that lack integrity. However, unfortunately, history shows that this is not always the case. Hitler, one has to say, is an example of good leadership. Following what has been previously discussed, he was also an excellent communicator: there is still footage with his discourses and impressive crowds. However, his leadership was anything other than linked to integrity.