The three readings for this class all relate to one another, as they each focus on the meaning of leadership and the role of history in leadership and the humanities. However, I am going to focus on the two Bass readings. I found Bass’ definition or lack therefore most interesting in his writing “The Meaning of Leadership”. He states that “leader” was a part of the English language hundreds of years before the word “leadership” was even recognized. This then relates to incorrect assumption that leadership is an innate ability that all leaders possess. Bass then unpacks this assumption and instead argues that actual definition of leadership can depend on the institution that it belongs to, thus always changing.
Bass goes on to list some of the many understandings of leadership: an exercise of influence, a personality trait, a differentiated role, a power relation, etc. While these definitions alone could help to define the concept, he emphasizes that most times it is a combination of these ideas that actually define a specific type of leadership. Personally, I have found it difficult to describe what Leadership Studies actually is when asked by peers and family members that are unfamiliar with the area of study. Bass has helped me to understand more easily how to accurately describe what I am learning to these skeptical people.
In Bass’ article titled “Concepts of Leadership,” he expounds on the idea that leaders are everywhere and are not necessarily what we would consider to be the “typical” leader. The “typical” leader being a king, priest, chief, etc. He states that with leadership comes responsibility and references Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind, where Hegel says that in order to be a successful leader, one needs to serve as a follower first. Subsequently, only then the follower becomes the leader and can understand his or her own followers. This idea stood out to me the most as it is the key to great leadership that many often do not consider.
In reading the articles, i tended to find the same things interesting, but specifically what you mentioned in the third article. I was truly fascinated by the point that to be a leader, one must also be a follower so he or she can better understand his or her followers. That is something that i have never thought about, or even considered throughout examples of leadership in my high school days, and i was fascinated by how true that idea really is. Moreover, that idea is so simple, yet is rarely ever mentioned or thought of when being a leader, which is why it stands out so much. Too often in todays climate, people try to be the leader, the guy, and the best at whatever they are doing. Specifically in sports, many parents tell their children, be a leader, but not enough tell their kids learn how to lead; and that is what should be being said.
I found the last point Bass made about Hegel interesting as well. He mentioned this strategy is used at West Point, which explains a lot about military power structures. In a structure so absurdly massive, leadership must extend to every layer of power. The chain of command theory could be studied in terms of leadership and its complexities, which might be a dynamic way of looking at a time-old power structure.
I completely agree and find Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind interesting as well. After reading the statement “in order to be a successful leader, one needs to serve as a follower first.” I feel like people frequently think that leaders always have been, and always will be leaders. I think this is one of the first times that I’ve truly recognized that often times leaders were followers and worked their way up that ladder. Delaney Demaret made a great point: referencing this idea of moving up the ladder to the military. I feel like if a person starts out as a follower, it gives them an advantage when eventually becoming a leader. As a follower, they have experienced things and events that move and captivated them. They understand what it takes to move an audience which in this case are the followers. Thus when becoming a leader, they already know what things to include in campaigns and speeches to help draw an audience and furthermore a following. In addition to that, if the leader was previously a follower then it gives him/her a connection with his/her followers because he/she once stood in their shoes.
I share your struggle to define what “leadership studies” is, which is why I was encouraged by Bass’ article, “Concepts of Leadership .” In referencing various different types of leaders over history, Bass’ reluctance to offer a concise definition of leadership provided some clarity for my understanding of the term. Rather than searching for a shortcut to understanding what it means to be a “leader,” Bass describes differences in character traits of leaders and how they are perceived by different groups. For example Machiavelli “believed that leaders needed steadiness, firmness, and concern for the maintenance of authority, power, and order in government,” whereas Odysseus was praised as shrewd and cunning (Bass 51).
I was also really taken back and struck by Bass’s comments about followership and how important it is for leaders to also be followers. I never thought about leadership that way and it also made me think about the “typical leader” point as well and how being a leader doesn’t necessarily mean that you are a leader all the time in every facet of life. Being an efficient and expert leader all the time is impossible and could be a sign of injustice and unfairness in a society or a smaller community. No one is good at everything and can rule in every single situation.