Lincoln and Leadership

¶ … Lincoln and leadership" in the Economist discusses Lincoln's leadership skills, showing how, occasionally, in American -- and general history a leader arose who had unconventional leadership skills and was, indeed, an outsider to the system. Sometimes, in fact -- and extraordinarily as it was -- the outsider was better than the insider: more skilled, knowledgeable. He could see it with a fresh eye.

Schumpeter (2012) therefore proposes that it may be this very skill of the outsider: the ability to see the situation with a certain freshness that enables him to succeed and makes him so fitting for the task. Lincoln was one of these outsiders In May 1860, candidates for the presidency included two very experienced politicians called William Seward and Salmon Chase. Instead, a one-term congressman who had failed to win a Senate seat for his native state, Illinois was chosen. And Lincoln more so suffered from debilitating depressions.

The nation took a risk, but it did not regret its choice. He made a series of moves that no 'insider' leader would have made such as sending ships to supply Fort Sumter, thereby forcing the South to fire the first shot of the civil war. And he delivers speeches that went down in national annals forever. At the time they were unpopular, but Lincoln stood outside his nation, outside history and marked it.

Gautam Mukunda, in his book "Indispensable" ponders whether insiders or outsiders make better leaders or managers, before the financial crisis, the pendulum swung to insiders but then so many insiders made a mess of things, so those involved and observers decided that perhaps outsiders -- t hose with a fresh perspective, had a better handle on things. It may be that outsiders are unafraid of taking risks and see things in a new way. The fact that Lincoln succeeded may have been due to his outsider perspective.

It may be that the country in that time and point needed someone who could see the situation with a fresh eye, possessed fresh energy, and the will to go it in a new way. It may be also that the people were simply ripe for change and needed someone different to inspire and move them. Hard times call for change and this needs'thinking out of the box' Bass (1998) mentions that there are three key types of leadership.

These types of leadership -- with modifications -- are relevant both in business, in life, in nation-building, and in military. They are: 1. Transformational leadership Transformational leaders are proactive and motivate and actually change their followers to achieve their goals. They have an enduring impact on their followers.

Transformational leadership is actuated by the following manifestations: (a) Idealized influence (attributed) - referring to whether the leader is perceived as being confident and powerful, and whether he is focusing on higher-order ideals and ethics; (b) idealized influence (behavior) -- referring to leader centering on values, beliefs, and a sense of mission; (c) inspirational motivation - referring to the way that the leader energizes her followers; (d) intellectual stimulation -- referring to the way that the leader appeals to follower's rational capacities such as logic and analysis or creative-thinking in order to problem solve, and, (e) Individualized consideration - referring to leaders who care and pay attention to their followers encouraging and allowing them to develop and self-actualize.

(Bass, 1997; 1985). a. Transactional leadership This refers to the reciprocal relationship between leader and followers and refers to followers acting whilst the leader regulates their work.

It is composed of three factors (a) Contingent reward leadership (i.e., constructive transactions) - leader behaviors that are focused on clarifying and rewarding role and task requirements in a material or psychological manner; (b) management-by-exception active (i.e., active corrective transactions) - the active vigilance of a leader who ensures that his standards are met; and (c) management-by-exception passive (i.e., passive corrective transactions) - leaders only intervene in cases of passivity or when mistakes have already happened. b.

Nontransactional laissez-faire leadership Generally considered the most ineffective and passive form of leadership where the leader abdicates his leadership role in favor of allowing his followers to make their voluntary decision and take all action Leadership consists of various types of power ranging from coercive to reward or power achieved by fact of expertise (Management theory: practice and application). Leadership includes the need to possess drive, integrity, motivation, self-confidence, knowledge of the business; and haste to respond to and recognize the needs of others. Leadership, therefore, necessitates effective communication.

A good leader has to be able to communicate and be with as well as attempt to understand his employees from their perspective (Hunt, 1991). He has to be humble recognizing that he exists for his followers rather than the reverse. He is able to deal with change and flexible and able to lead his subordinates through change too. Also important is that the effective leader leads per example. Leadership requires keeping employees enthused about their work, motivates them. Leadership possesses the following characteristics: Empowerment; Risk-taking; Participation; and Development.

A leader also has to be constantly learning, reflective and calm (Hunt, 1991). And Different times call for different forms of leadership. Times of change for nation or for organization call for an active leader -- not merely someone who is transactional. It calls for someone to step in, to take the reins, to influence his followers, to provide new and heady direction and spur his followers in a new direction.

Lincoln was a leader in that he reached out for what people wanted, focused on what they wanted and needed, and set about supplying that. He looked far into the future and predicated its patterns. In that he was visionary. He was charismatic in that he knew what he wanted and achieved it regardless of others negation and criticism. He imported his belief in his nation and persona to his followers. In that way, he was transformational. He had an utter confidence in himself and in his company.

Lincoln, too, knew what had to be done. An inside person may have feared to take these steps due to incurring unpopularity, but Lincoln assessed the situation and set out to free the slaves. During periods of unrest and change, the country needs someone active who is willing to take the responsibility on himself and has the courage and fortitude to lead. The thing is Lincoln has all of these. 'Regular' leadership may be the transactional style.

This is detrimental in times of change where you need someone to take risky stance particularly since you are dealing with risk. This is.