Evaluating Historical Views of Leadership Essay

How can a world attain the most efficient leadership? Moreover what is deemed effective leadership and who developed the theories around it?

These kinds of questions happen to be debated throughout the ages of postmodern and modern world. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from the infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (Wren, 1995, g. 50). 4 of the godfathers of what is considered modern leadership theory are Escenario, Aristotle, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli. Over the course of this kind of analysis, the leadership ideas of each of such titans will be evaluated.

Each view is made up of commonalities and disparities that offer conflicting views on the intricate topic of leadership over the ages of modern society. The goal is to broaden these views with critical analysis, vetted academic sources and well-reasoned judgments. The conclusion arrived at will offer improve awareness at the age old very debated problem; what is successful leadership? Bandeja vs Aristotle Plato and Aristotle were both giants of Ancient greek thought throughout the fourth century BCE Athens, and the two shared comparable experience and backgrounds. Partly this was mainly because Plato was Aristotle’s tutor.

Takala mcdougal of Avenirse on Management states “Ancient Greece (400 B. C. ) has been regarded as the house of methodical administrative considering; it has been viewed as the place where the Western administrative considering was born” (Takala, 98, p. 787). This simple fact cemented Plato’s title of godfather of recent leadership theory that offered a systematic personal and management model backlinks what lifestyle could be in an ideal condition (Takala, 1998). There are many parallels in Plato’s rhetoric that mirror modern day leadership issue. The most manifest is the emphasis on education and a class structured system that focuses on what he termed, just interpersonal order.

A” just cultural order” is defined as “one wherever order and harmony will be maintained simply by each category of individuals carrying out the duties for which they are really suited but not interfering together with the work of others” (Takala, 1998, p. 791). Plato in his most famous work the Republic talks to the importance of virtue created from knowledge. His top three credos for the unified and virtuous condition were: 1 . Know the great is to do the good. installment payments on your All the benefits boil down increasing wisdom or what he paraphrased the “unity of the virtues” (Takala, 1998).

3. In order to become completely happy in a fresh state advantage must be present. The second ti (symbol) of the three discussed can be Plato’s protégé the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle acquired many views that mirrored the landscapes of his mentor the most glaring being the dependence on education pertaining to laying the foundation for a refreshed society (Kodish, 2006). Wherever these two heads disagree comes down to the actions needed to secure leadership.

Aristotle poked slots in all with the three details above given by Plato is definitely these important ways: 1 ) Just knowing the good was not enough pertaining to Aristotle. The concept of free can was relatively recent, and this individual failed to view the need to practice being virtue. 2 . For that reason, although knowledge is the maximum form of advantage, it is don’t ever the key to possessing all virtues.

Basically, Aristotle forbids the oneness of the benefits. 3. Finally, Aristotle thinks that though virtue is important to the great life, that isn’t adequate. That is to say an individual can be positive but still be unhappy. In particular, does a person truly need good guy citizens to attain happiness (Kodish, 2006). One of the most general difference Aristotle and Plato held was a difference of values surrounding the human condition.

Aristotle saw the positives in society, and thus prescribed independence and equal rights; Plato found the downsides and prescribed various illiberal and discriminatory ideals (Wren, 1995). Lao-Tzu vs Machiavelli The third ti (symbol) of thought was Lao-tzu “an historical sage of the sixth 100 years and his publication the Tao Te Ching (how points work) utilized by personal leaders” of his time in history (Wren, 1995, l. 69). The forth ti (symbol) in Nicollo Machiavelli wonderful work the Prince is known as a classic on the pragmatic use of power in society (Wren, 1995). Aristotle and Escenario represent the western view of leadership during the regarding modern leadership theory.

To increase broaden our view of leadership theory and practice this research also is exploring eastern opinions through the sight of two more of history’s most influential minds. Lao-tzu’s theory can be fundamentally different mainly because of message of simplicity. This individual believed that a truly powerful leader must be loved by the individuals he/she business lead (Gerald, 2005).

Compared to additional scholars of that time period like Machiavelli who believed fearing an innovator was the simplest way to get results (Wren, 1995). In Machiavelli’s own phrases he had written “I reply that one should like to be both one particular and the other, but since it is hard to join them with each other, it is much safer to end up being feared than loved when one of the two must be lacking” (Machiavelli, 06\, p. 44). The differences between these two influential minds come from the relying (Lao-Tzu) or perhaps not having faith in (Machiavelli) the followers for making good choices. The Tao Te Ching efforts to foster leadership by simply stepping away from the era-specific tyrannical view of what motivates the human condition.

The forty sixth chapter of Tao Te Ching cafe these words: “There is no greater bad luck than looking more. ” If you are articles, Lao Tzu continues, “you will always have enough. ” Sadly for Westerners, our motto seems to be “more for me now” (Gerald, 2005, p. 48). Conclusion Over the above analysis, there have been parallels and disparities presented from your classic functions of four godfathers of modern leadership theory and practice. Each mind provides a customized view of what command should or perhaps could be in a modern society.

Whatsoever personal sights arise following reviewing these kinds of masterworks there are several truths furthering the argument that command theory is definitely an ever changing door and a burning pot of ideas based on many characters throughout background. The only constant is that there is absolutely no ideal way to lead; you will find only strategies that have gained results in their particular time and put in place history. References