Historical views::Leadership


First::leader    Journal::leaders    Title::group    Their::theory    Pages::members    Volume::issue

Historical views {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Refimprove section |date=__DATE__ |$B= {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Refimprove |date=__DATE__ |$B= {{#invoke:Message box|ambox}} }} }}

Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince argues that it is better to be feared rather than to be loved.

Sanskrit literature identifies ten types of leaders. Defining characteristics of the ten types of leaders are explained with examples from history and mythology.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=book }}</ref>

Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one's "blue blood" or genes. Monarchy takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions against the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction (see the divine right of kings). Contrariwise, more democratically inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals profiting from careers open to talent.

In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman pater familias. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may object to such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance, which is sometimes associated with matriarchies.

Comparable to the Roman tradition, the views of Confucianism on "right living" relate very much to the ideal of the (male) scholar-leader and his benevolent rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial piety.

Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline ... Reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness. Exercise of humaneness alone results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in folly. Dependence on the strength of courage results in violence. Excessive discipline and sternness in command result in cruelty. When one has all five virtues together, each appropriate to its function, then one can be a leader. — Sun Tzu<ref> The 100 Greatest Leadership Principles of All Time, edited by Leslie Pockell with Adrienne Avila, 2007, Warner Books</ref>

Machiavelli's The Prince, written in the early 16th century, provided a manual for rulers ("princes" or "tyrants" in Machiavelli's terminology) to gain and keep power.

In the 19th century the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into question. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back as the 19th century.) One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely provided resources—human and material—and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan. Compare servant leadership.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=book }}</ref>

For a more general take on leadership in politics, compare the concept of the statesperson.

Leadership sections
Intro  Theories  Styles  Performance  Traits  The ontological-phenomenological model for leadership  Contexts  Historical views   Myths   Action-oriented environments  Critical thought  Executives   See also    References   

Historical views
PREVIOUS: ContextsNEXT: Myths