Leadership is a means of directing. A leader’s actions are devoted to helping a group to attain its objectives.

Leadership is the ability of management to induce subordinates to work towards group goals with confidence and keenness. Leadership also implies that the leader accepts responsibility for the achievement of the group objective and it is, there-fore, essential for trust and cooperation from both sides to be in evidence — all the time.

It must be noted that leadership is not synonymous with administrative ability and that numerous attempts have been MADE to analyse the nature of leadership. One is to contrast authoritarian and democratic leadership.

The authoritarian leader gets others to do things by giving them little scope to influence decisions. He uses fear, threats, rewards, and his authority and personality to get his way. His policy is the ‘stick and carrot’ policy — as used for mules!

The democratic leader seeks to persuade and considers the feelings of persons and encourages their participation in decision-making.

Studies have shown that the democratic METHOD gives followers greater job satisfaction and enables them to cooperate better, but there is DOUBT as to whether decisions taken, under this sort of leadership are better. Recent studies are more doubtful about democratic leadership because OUTSIDE INFLUENCES, e.g., government and consumers, exert pressure and, if a leader becomes too employee-centered, production may suffer and morale fall.

Leadership can be formal i.e., having delegated authority, and can exert great influence. Informal leaders can initiate action, but do not have the same authority. The choice of leader, therefore, should be based on an accurate diagnosis of the environment, i.e., its reality, noticing that effec-tive leadership depends upon many conditions.

Leadership is a means of directing. A leader’s actions are devoted to helping a group to attain its objectives.

Leadership is the ability of management to induce subordinates to work towards group goals with confidence and keenness. Leadership also implies that the leader accepts responsibility for the achievement of the group objective and it is, there-fore, essential for trust and cooperation from both sides to be in evidence — all the time.

It must be noted that leadership is not synonymous with administrative ability and that numerous attempts have been made to analyse the nature of leadership. One is to contrast authoritarian and democratic leadership.

The authoritarian leader gets others to do things by giving them little scope to influence decisions. He uses fear, threats, rewards, and his authority and personality to get his way. His policy is the ‘stick and carrot’ policy — as used for mules!

The democratic leader seeks to persuade and considers the feelings of persons and encourages their participation in decision-making.

Studies have shown that the democratic method gives followers greater job satisfaction and enables them to cooperate better, but there is doubt as to whether decisions taken, under this sort of leadership are better. Recent studies are more doubtful about democratic leadership because outside influences, e.g., government and consumers, exert pressure and, if a leader becomes too employee-centered, production may suffer and morale fall.

Leadership can be formal i.e., having delegated authority, and can exert great influence. Informal leaders can initiate action, but do not have the same authority. The choice of leader, therefore, should be based on an accurate diagnosis of the environment, i.e., its reality, noticing that effec-tive leadership depends upon many conditions.