When you approach the arduous task of defining leadership, a new appreciation develops for its complexity.   It is a complex phenomenon that can  be viewed from many perspectives.   For instance, you can talk about the different styles of leadership, such as transformational, charismatic, and transactional leadership, which focus on how the leader leads.  There are also different approaches to leadership called leadership theories.  An example would be Fiedler’s contingency theory which believed that effective leadership could be best achieved by matching the leader’s style with the organizational situation (Daft, Marcic, 2011).  You can look at leadership traits, which are distinguishing personal characteristics of leaders, such as honesty and intelligence.

Experts agree that leadership is both an art and a science.  It’s a science because it has been a field of much scholarly study.  It’s an art because it involves the practice of leadership.   Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2012) point out that leadership is both rational and emotional because it requires using logic and reason, but it also requires using inspiration and passion.   Contrary to what many may think, leadership is not just about leaders.  It involves the perspective of the leader, the followers, and the organizational situations.   It is not the same as management.  Management is typically described as doing things right, while leadership is described as doing the right things.   Leadership and management are functionally different, but yet with a great deal of functional overlap (Ginnett et al., 2012).

Having said all that, leadership is defined as, “the process of influencing an organized group toward achieving its goals” (Ginnett et al., 2012, p.35).

References

Daft, R.L., Marcic, D.  (2011). Understanding management 7th edition.  South-Western Cengage Learning.  Mason, OH.

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., Curphy, G.J. (2012). Leadership enhancing the lessons of experience seventh edition.  McGraw-Hill

Irwin.  New York, NY.