Talk:Leadership

message: Hi I am a student at York College and would like to make an edit on this page if you do not mind. The edit that I would like to add is on the like provided 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SRampersaud/Leadership
SRampersaud  01:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: === A new approach ===
I propose a new way forward on this.  I have contributed a short summary on leadership, which opens the path to separate articles on organisational leadership (House, Fiedler &c &c &c), and on leadership in other areas (eg military, sport). I hope this is helpful.  Deipnosophista 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not delete text without making at least a token effort to discuss and to reach concensus. I agree that the article is awful and needs serious work on it, but the talk page is where editors can discuss changes aimed at improving the article, and Wikipedia in general. --Technopat (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I propose a new way forward on this.  I have contributed a short summary on leadership, which opens the path to separate articles on organisational leadership (House, Fiedler &c &c &c), and on leadership in other areas (eg military, sport). I hope this is helpful.  Deipnosophista 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new approach 

message: Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, meaning the content should be Objective. Please guys, this is not a biography nor a place to spread your theories or what you think. Please, don't add a section starting with "According to John Smith", while you are, in fact, John Smith. Thanks for your understanding. This article is already very very bad right now it's almost unreadable. Thanks!
Is not an encyclopedia a place to look for "notble" theories and information. I have noted that there are many Biogrphies and Theories already included, John C Maxwell, Tom Peters, Ken Blachard. These are All Americans, I do Assume this is not just for Americans or for those only known to Americans.
Steve Coldwell (Malaysia) 211.24.170.130 09:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia 

message: In order to be a good leader, you must also get others involved in what you are doing.  There are several ways that you can get outsiders involved.  First you must publicize your event or meeting to draw those who are not involved in.  Also, you can provide incentives to attract those outsiders.  When they can get a reward for coming, they are more likely to get involved.  Once they have come and made the decision to get involved, you must give them responsibility.  Giving someone responsibility within your organization will make the person feel like they are a part of the bigger picture, and are really contributing.  Finally, you must give your members a chance to get others involved.  When someone gets involved, it makes it so much better for them when they can reach out and get others involved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgold007 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting Others Involved

message: This article is so poorly written as to defy description.  An article on leadership that makes no mention at all of its true
function, which is to manage the overall production of goods and services that enable the standard of living a society requires.  It is almost like this article was written in a "vacuum", a veritable "dream state" of contributors repeating what they read in some old book or magazine.  There is literally no thinking going on at all in the contributions to this article, they are just "cut and paste".  Just think about it, without production who needs leaders?  If as human beings we decided we weren't going to produce anything anymore, leadership would not be necessary except at the most basic tribal level for common defence.  Oh, by the way, those tribal leaders all got wiped out by leaders who oversaw the production of superior weapons.  So it is the volume and type of production that a leader oversees that they derive their power from.  Please make an effort
to write an article that has even the slightest bit of truth and analysis.  Oh, by the way, the "natural born leader" is one
who disagrees with everyone else, you can put that in too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.229.151 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not delete text without making at least a token effort to discuss and to reach concensus. I agree that the article is awful and needs serious work on it, but the talk page is where editors can discuss changes aimed at improving the article, and Wikipedia in general. --Technopat (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Scholarship 

message: This article on "Leadership" is a bit overwhelming. Shouldn't this be the "once over the world" view and then allow it to spin out into all the differing models and theorists. I believe that this article would be more beneficial if it provided a scholarly look at the study of leadership, allowing individual readers to pursue their own paths. This should be a topical outline of all things "leadership" and feed readers out to supporting articles. Just my opinion, but I volunteer if there is some consensus. --Bullock 07:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a Renewal

message: In our view (Stellenbosch MBA 2010 English Group 1), having reviewed this article, we found it to be somewhat lacking in regards to its distinction between what Leadership versus Management is.  Yes, it was briefly touched on but we still felt that further expansion on the subject would have added greatly to the discussion, hence our summation below:
MANAGEMENT VERSUS LEADERSHIP:
Many definitions of management and leadership do not provide clear distinction between the roles of “managers” and “leaders”. Often managers and leaders perform similar tasks but the two are not synonymous. Both managers and leaders have authority; utilise resources ; motivate people; provide direction; require good communication; create processes for work; have objectives and a strategy; deal with conflict resolution and negotiate (Oyedele, 2009). Both “lead” in a sense. Whilst leadership is an aspect of the management function, this may imply that being a leader derives automatically from becoming a manager. This is often not the case. The differentiator is in how managers and leaders go about their tasks.
We can use the term “manager” to describe individuals in a hierarchical structure, who have employees reporting to them . Here, the manager has some power vested in him/her by virtue of his/her position within the company. They have the authority to exercise direct influence over their subordinates, who are motivated to comply by the reward of payment, promotion or recognition (or some other psychological need). This style is what Burns (1978) refers to as transactional leadership. Essentially, management refers to the planning, organising, directing and controlling of subordinates’ activities in the pursuit of some set of goals. By implication, the tasks to be completed are the focus of the manager, rather than the employees completing those tasks - the “what” of the role, rather than the “how”.
Studies by Buckingham and Coffman (1999) demonstrate that “people join companies but leave managers”. These managers do not inspire performance and often use coercion and co-option as tools to deliver results (Beudeker and Nel 2009). Many have earned their promotion due to excellent performance as an employee (such as those they now manage), but have not developed the necessary skill and change in mindset required to be an effective manager – which is usually a function of leadership development. Charan, Drotter and Noel (2001) describe “leadership pipelines” and the challenges and changes that individuals need to undergo in order to perform at the next level up in the hierarchy. As individuals move higher up an organisation, their roles need to move increasingly into the leadership realm as opposed to their management positions. Drucker (1999) states that “one does not "manage" people; the task is to lead people. And the goal is to make productive the specific strengths and knowledge of each individual.” Therefore, what defines great managers is the leadership that they exhibit. This speaks to the “how” referred to earlier.
A “leader” is someone who is able to motivate, inspire and persuade people through collaboration and co-creation. A leader considers employees as colleagues and understands that “organisations In our view (Stellenbosch MBA 2010 English Group 1), having reviewed this article, we found it to be somewhat lacking in regards to its distinction between what Leadership versus Management is.  Yes, it was briefly touched on but we still felt that further expansion on the subject would have added greatly to the discussion, hence our summation below:are first and foremost human systems” (Beudeker and Nel, 2009). Thus, the focus of leadership is on the people. Leaders measure their success according to their contribution in unleashing people’s potential: their own, those they work with and their organisations and societies. A leader motivates their teams to be effective and efficient; and actively seeks and embraces change with a big-picture view to longer-term sustainability and success – what Burns (1978) terms transformational leadership (in contrast to transactional leadership described previously). Warren Bennis describes this as “managers are people who do things right; leaders are people who do the right thing”.
Nel (2010) asserts that “high impact leadership is, per definition, a team activity” and the further up you progress in the company hierarchy (managing increasingly diverse portfolios), the more ignorant and incompetent you become . What sets leaders apart is their acceptance of this reality as non-threatening and the manner in which they collaborate and engage with the teams that they work with to unlock the collective genius.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charityn27 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: if the following is not in here anywhere, it should be: true leaders figure out how to motivate people toward the goal. they learn how to energize a team. if someone on the team gives a leader trouble the leader must not take it personally and must continue to figure out how to motivate the team member and how to energize persons by way of those persons' membership within a team. A leader's demeanor must be steady. a leader's authority is only truly undermined when he/she cannot effectively motivate the team toward the goal. TheBridge 07:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  leaders 

message: Does anyone else think this article should be split into multiple articles on leadership? I think a history of leadership article and another on theories of leadership would make good splits. Thoughts? --Noetic Sage 04:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: The citation removed from this article (see history) may, if anybody finds it important, be inserted in Wikiquote instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The citation 

message: I had to move the following section "The embodiment of leadership" from the article to here, because of several issues, which need to be sorted out before reinsertion of anything of it:
* It's just a citation. To meet Wikipedia quality standards, the gist of it need to be found and reinserted.
* That "medical research" need citation before any reinsertion
* It needs more concrete, encyclopaedic explanation. As for now it's actually rather confusing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad quality standard section 

message: After some research, my partner and I think that there is room for elaboration in discussing task-oriented and relationship-oriented types of leadership. In section 1.6 Situational and Contingency Theories paragraph 3 ( on the Fiedler Contingency Model), the two aforementioned styles of leadership are briefly touched upon, but does not 1) fully convey the concepts, methods and processes involved in task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership, 2) expand on the benefits and disadvantages of each, and 3) discuss the outcomes of each. These two types of leadership are fundamental to understanding how leaders behave and act in a team, and how that affects the performance and efficiency of the team, and therefore warrants a more comprehensive explanation in the "Leadership" page.
Using research from various texts, and drawing from the meta-analysis "What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams?" (Burke et al., 2006), we plan to implement a new section under 2 Styles, named "Task-oriented and Relationship-oriented". This new proposed section will: 1) clearly define the two types of leadership, 2) give examples of each type, 3) mention the synonymous terms ("task-focused", "person-focused", etc), 4)  discuss the theories on each type, 5) and discuss the conclusions and results from the aforementioned meta-analysis.
If you have any relevant feedback please feel free to post them here or on my, or my partner's, talk page. 
Rkwok92 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a new "Task-oriented and relationship-oriented" section under Styles

message: Transformational Leadership (Bass; Kouzes & Posner) is a relatively new theory and deserves more lengthy treatment.ChrisTW (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Chris, lately I've been busy with Wiki-pt and Marketing, so I left Leadership aside. I will work on it as soon as I can. I will take a look at the material on Transformational leadership and include the text. Editor br (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked the article on Transformational leadership, and I have the Burns book at home. I can also check the other two references you cited when I go back, checking them out of the Univ's library. I am out of town, so I probably will read them early February. If I understood it correctly, transformational leadership as defined by Burns is still a follower-leader relationship (leader motivate follower, follower motivate leader), which would place within the scope of transactional theories. I favor Heifetz four schools of thought (as outlined above), as it is sucint, comprehensive enough and mutually exclusive (MECE). The problem is that I will only work on it late January, cannot promise working on more deepen research earlier than that... Editor br (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transformational leadership 

message: Isn't it about time this article, as well as the Mike Richards article, be put under semi-protection? --scottieISmad (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection 

message: This article is impoverished by being almost exclusively about company leadership as studied in US business schools.  Where is the reference to leadership as taught to Prussian officers or in the army of British India, or of the role of the mediaeval European or Japanese aristocracy?  
I propose to impose some context by adding at the start something like this:
"Humans are social animals, which has made leadership of some sort part of humanity from its beginning.  Ancient societies were keenly interested in leadership, and made studies of different leaders in an attempt to learn what made them successes or failuresSee for example the Parallel Lives of Plutarch.: the conclusion was that it was often character on the one handeg Theophrastus., or external influences such as luck or the gods on the othereg Homer.. Such debates became part of formal philosophical debate in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the idea that success in endeavours was largely due not to individual leaders but to external factors became very influential through the Encyclopedists, Hegel, Marx and twentieth-century communism, though since the fall of the Soviet Union there has been something of a reaction.  
"Leadership has been studied in political and military contexts, but most vigorously in recent years in the context of the leadership of organisations since the founding of management theory by Henri Fayol, Frederick Taylor and others.  This article focuses on organisational leadership."
Deipnosophista (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical context 

message: === List of leadership qualities without reference ===
As there is no references, this list has no encyclopedic value, so I removed. Any objections? --Editor br (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Materials removed 

message: As there is no references, this list has no encyclopedic value, so I removed. Any objections? --Editor br (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of leadership qualities without reference 

message: Checked this reference and this is a list of leadership qualities that the Bristow company looks for. Questionable and not according to Wikipedia standards. Reference is an internal journal. Any objections? --Editor br (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested qualities of leadership 

message: Books that are listed in the references, but no longer are cited in the text. I am keeping it here until I finish the restructuring of the article. Editor br (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: The text bellow is written in an essay-like manner, and seems original research. I kept the transformational/transactional part until I find time to rewrite them. Weber is an important theorist and I will reinsert this text once I improve it under the "Behavior & Style Theory" section. Editor br (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text that have citations but need strong revision 

message: 'Leadership has been described as the "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task'.
I would delete the word 'common' since the task itself might be only on the leader's list of objectives. The task would then only be 'common' in the sense that every follower helps deliver it. 
It is important to recall that people who are 'good' at leading may be evil or disturbed -  and are merely very skilled at leading their followers over a cliff.
Being good at leading is very different from being a good leader.
Historically an awful lot of so-called 'great' leaders, (maybe most of them) seem to have got their followers killed in very large numbers - and lots of other folk too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.92.240 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: There needs to be material on narcissistic leaders and leadership.--Penbat (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narcissistic leaders and leadership 

message: Ladies and Gentlemen,
After much thought and research, in reading many peoples theories on leadership, I have determined that the definition of Leadership is, "Guiding Intent with Integrity."  
In your own research, and on the discussion of Leadership, there primary theme is organizing people to reach a common goal.  Or, put another way, "Who is guiding who where, when, how and why for what reason and what purpose."  This algebraic expressing creates over 100,000 styles of leadership, that promote growth, retards growth, and / or maintains the status quo.
For clarity, it should be understood that Guiding, Intent and Integrity are ranges that run a scale from "100% for" - "0 / neutral" - "100% against".  They should never be expected to be in a positive aspect, as leaders can/will/do use subterfuge to achieve needed / wanted results. (this goes back to style).
To insure that this definition is solid, I have sent it to many people who have written books on leadership, and have posted a blog articles about it.  No one todate has refuted the definition.  However, I would like to make sure that there is agreement before I take command and update the page on leadership with the definition.  In the scientific community, if 3 scientists can reach the same conclusion about an experiment independently or through recreating ones experiment, then it moves from a hypothesis to a theory.  Moving to a law is more work that I choose to take on at this time.
I look forward to your comments.
71.202.46.180 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Leadership 

message: I think a good leader should have some characteristic which includes responsibility,motivation,
diversity and etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.121.23.152 (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leader 

message: "This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive and parsimonious picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. "
The word parsimonious is used completely incorrectly here.  It means extremely frugal or thrifty.  I doubt this person is saying that the research was inexpensive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.9.168 (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One could take it in the sense of 'using a minimal number of assumptions', but I agree that it seems like extraneous rhetoric and adds no real value to the sentence. I've removed it. Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Parsimonious" 

message: Hi,
I did not realise that you can't put links to your own site under wiki rules. I was therefore wondering if anyone here would see if they think that the blog helps the reader with leadership. There is no advertising or selling on the page that the link goes to, but it is a business website.
Ocinternational (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't link to blogs per WP:ELNO point 11. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submission for external link 

message: Hello! My name is Nika. I am a York College student working on a class assignment and I have intentions to edit this article on leadership. I invite you to please review my intended edit located in my sandbox. I will post the link below. Thank you. (MsNika349 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nika. there is already some coverage of transactional leadership in the article. Any edits pertaining to that topic should therefore be an improvement upon the current content. With this in mind, at this stage I would be concerned with the lack of references in your own writing. I would also be interested in how you see the content you propose as fitting in with the current Wikipedia article dedicated to transactional leadership. Cheers and best of luck with the assignment Andrew (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Hi Andrew, first and for most thank you for responding. Although there is some coverage on "transactional theory," I think that there is room for extra information on the transactional style of leadership, hence why I chose to make the edit to the leadership section. I think it gives somewhat of a better understanding on the specific of transactional leadership styles. Thank you for your wishes on my assignment as I now have to ask my peers to review my edit. Thank you again for your response. (MsNika349 (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Intended Edit from York College Student

message: Hi all. I am just looking at this section that has been added back into the article after recently being removed. Now the original removal was not explained, and so in terms of procedure I have no problem with MLKLewis's decision to add it back in (hi MLKLewis). In terms of content though, I am not sold on its appropriateness. Specifically, I am concerned that the paragraph a) is giving undue weight to a highly niche perspective, b) is a departure from the article topic (e.g. the definition raised essentially boils down to coordination rather than something resembling mainstream conceptions of leadership), c) has readability issues, and d) is an exercise in promotion. Do other editors share this concern? Or can other editors reassure me that the content is appropriate? In terms of the latter, it would be particularly reassuring to see evidence that this perspective on leadership has some substantial 'take up' in academic circles. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The ontological-phenomenological model for leadership?

message: removing this section from article as it's unreferenced, OR-ish and adds little. Bacchiad (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles emphasizing authority 

message: Charisma is an important aspect of leadership. I will ponder how to add this to the present article.  Meanwhile, how would one add to "See also" a reference to the "Personality charisma" section of the article on charisma? Pring (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Charisma]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Leadership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131101163340/http://ehis.ebscohost.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c5e54625-1ac1-4cb4-b934-0ca10456da86%40sessionmgr13&vid=6&hid=2 to http://ehis.ebscohost.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c5e54625-1ac1-4cb4-b934-0ca10456da86%40sessionmgr13&vid=6&hid=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Maybe the person that made the decision to cast this as psychology was abused by their boss. They're misguided to accuse their boss of insanity, but I don't really blame them for that. I would have accused that boss of feigning mental illness, as if in all the ways that are important there could be such a thing as mental illness. 203.215.118.62 (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha.  Good observation. But psychology concerns itself with all aspects of behavior and the mind, not just illnesses. SnailsSpace (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a psychology article. That's not a very nice thing to say about leadership. 

message: As a newcomer to wikipedia I tried to add a journal reference to this page as a small contribution and starting point. It was *  and it was removed by another editor who advised me on this talk page that it was not notable enough. The first sentence of this leadership article states that leadership is both a research area and practical skill yet the article seems to be mostly a compendium of theories. Wikipedia describes an encyclopedia as a compendium holding all branches of knowledge and in the knowledge article states that knowledge can either be theoretical or practical. The leadership article seems to miss the practical part. The journal reference I tried to add focuses on the practical elements of leadership. After reading some of the other journal references I noticed that When I click on House Robert it takes me to a blank wiki page. The first House article cited is a discussion of a theory that the author states shows promise and should be furthers tested. The second House article is a review of a theory from that one persons perspective. When I click on Vroom Victor it takes me to a page with very little content on a business school professor. The article cited is nothing more than a very general discussion on a page promoting the sale of the article. I replied to the editor with these observations and he suggested that I go to the talk page of this article and seek advice. Why was what I added not considered notable when other journal references that are already there seem to be even less so? I am a bit confused. Before trying to make any other contributions I thought it best to seek advice on this page. thanks AFHistoryBuff (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As all of those "journals" are contained in the references section of the article, they should be directly supporting material in the article itself and cited as such.  For example, the House works are cited in footnotes 40 and 41. There are probably stray books/references that have creeped in over time and we'd likely need to prune those. Why were you wanting to add a reference without any material? Kuru (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of a Journal Reference  

message: Im looking to add different styles of leadership, I do not really see a section for different styles.  Does anyone have any input?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaparralCote (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Im looking to add different styles of leadership 

message: Hello I would like to try to just clean up article.  One thought is to try to join common thoughts under different headings.  Any imput as to how to accomplish?  Also I found an article titled leadership styles my thought is that this article should be brought into the leadership article, it also needs some work, any thoughts?--ChaparralCote (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up over all article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leadership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170222013842/http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=256 to http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=256
*Added  tag to http://amj.aom.org/cgi/doi/10.2307/20159921
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by YW5634 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

message: — Assignment last updated by Ritalyo (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu