There has been an obvious transformation regarding peoples’ ideas about leadership over the past eighty years. “Leadership” has a multitude of homographs in that it has many different definitions. It is almost impossible to prevaricate about what leadership is, as it is a constantly evolving thing. Events in a period of time can influence society’s sentiments about leadership. For instance, when considering the gap of time between the twenties and fifties, one should expect that views of leadership will adapt to the era in which it is being defined. It is only fitting that leadership was defined as “…an ability to persuade or direct men…” during the forties. The arduous tasks that needed to be performed by not only the men going to war, but by the women who needed to substitute their husbands in the workforce attests to the fact that leaders needed to be persuasive. The propaganda which emanates from this time is another convincing factor that proves people had to adopt new ideas. Thoughts needed to be instilled and emotions evoked, which consequently provoked people to undertake these onerous tasks. Concepts of leadership warrant questions to be asked. Which people are in leadership roles? Namely, which people occupy the highest positions? (I.e. president, vice president, secretary of state, etc…) Is the country in a stable position financially? Is a war going on? Definitions of leadership, whether they are eradicated definitions or definitions which have recently been ushered into the forefront of modern society’s perception of the subject, one thing is certain:
There is no paradigm style of leadership, and the consensus about what leadership is at a particular point in history can reveal a considerable amount of information about that period of time.
When we delve into the fifties, we find that America is in a state of opulence. It was not by avarice that we liberated ourselves from a crippled condition, but by hard work and cooperation between our citizens. Now that America is no longer confronted with paucity and the hindrances that debilitated it only a decade earlier, the leaders of this time can finally retire from trying to coerce people and instead adopt plans aimed at coalescing the country. The fact that the leader’s authority was described as being “…spontaneously accorded him by his fellow group members” during this time gives us a reason to assume that team work was beginning to formulate the backbone of the resilient network we know today.
While leadership has undergone a myriad of transformations, it is still being cultivated. All over the world, multiple forms of leadership are being practiced. There are the menial in spirit, such as Joan of Arc, those who refuse to show fidelity to the law, such as Henry VIII, those who behave profligately, such as Catherine the Great, the stentorian, such as Adolf Hitler, those with seemingly infinite resource and sagacity, such as King David and those who are cunning and brutal, such as Attila the Hun. Even today, we can turn on the television and witness for ourselves the plethora of leadership styles which have sprouted from the past. President Obama is delivering his State of the Union later this evening. I have no doubt that thousands will listen. Leadership has captivated people for centuries, and will until the end of time.
