Harvey’s article is interesting because he emphasizes leadership as a process rather than the expression of characteristics. When tasked with defining leadership, we often jump to characteristics that we associate with leaders (charisma, decisiveness, strategic thinking, etc). The “seven fundamental questions” method (Harvey 205) is better because it shows how the context of a situation and the makeup of a group are what actually dictate a leaders decisions, more-so than the traits of the leader themself.
On page 204, Harvey briefly discusses potential “substitutes for leadership”, and why they do not reliably occur. Among the substitutes is “heroism”, or the idea that a self-reliant and independent person can take agency and sort of do everything by themself on behalf of the group. Harvey points out that heroism only occurs in extraordinary circumstances, but that stories throughout history seem to be littered with heroic protagonists. This got me thinking about Dr. Bezio’s podcast, and the idea that popular culture (and any stories that we tell each other, really) have a profound impact on the way that we think. Why the disconnect, then, between the way that leaders really act, and the way that the idealized leader is portrayed in all of our stories? Perhaps the answer has to do with the lessons that a story is trying to teach. By exaggerating the role and individual influence of the leader, we encourage people to act. Or maybe it has more to do with the simplicity of assigning credit to one person. It’s easier to conceptualize the link between a person’s intrinsic properties and their actions than it is to account for the constant feedback cycle between a leader, their followers, and their environment.
I also really like how Harvey used methods instead of traits because I am also very much gravitated towards defining “leadership” and “leaders” by the traits you mentioned (charisma, decisiveness, etc.) when in reality leadership is probably best defined by how individuals handle situations they didn’t see coming, not necessarily the reputation or aura they build around themselves.
I think that this is so interesting, because popular culture is generally centered around the lives of individuals because their stories are easier to tell and are more easily relatable. People are more likely to connect themselves to another person than to an idea. When stories are told about events, they are generally focused on individuals rather than groups as a whole, people we have made our leaders in the stories we tell, regardless of their contribution.