ACCORDING TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, THERE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF LEADERS, TRANSFORMATIONAL, STRUCTURAL AND S FORTH. HOWEVR, THEIR ROLES ARE THE SAME, ONLY TGHE RESULTS TELL US WHAT TO REFER TO A CERTAIN LEADER. LEADERS ARE, TRUE NOT THE PEOPLE, THEY ARE WHAT RESULTS FORM THEI ROLE IN LEADERSHIP. THROUGH OUR LEADERSHIP ROLES,WE GAIN THE STATUS WE DESIRE AND ULTIMATELY OUR SOCIETY ALSO GAINS STATUS.

RALF DAHRNEDROF, A SOCIOLOGIST, STATED THAT INEREST IS NOT IN THE,BUT IN THE CONFLICT THAT IS VESTED IN THE POSITION. THAT MEANS LEADERS ARE DEFINED BY THEIR OUTPUT, CONFLICT CAN ALSO BE POSITIVE, IT’S NOT ALWAYS NEGATIVE. WE FIND, FOR EXAMPLE, I GET A JOB, WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AND TO THE COUNTRY’S SUPRISE I EMANCIPATE THE SPECIFIC SOCIETY AND OTHER ONES OUT OF MY POWER. THAT IS CONFLICT AS MY POWER HAS A LIMITED JURISDICTION FOR MY OUTPUT.

GOING BACK TO LEADERS, WE NEED LEADERS THAT WILL NOT LEAD US TO GROUP THINK, GROUP/SOCIETIES THAT MAKES PREPOSTROUS AND LUDECROUS DECISIONS. LEADERS CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PHENOMENON IN MANY WAYS. TO MENTION A FEW; DIRECTIVENESS, POWER ABUSE AMONG MANY MORE FACTORS. BEING UNDER PRESSURE TO REACH A CONCLUSION OR MAKE DCISIONS ALSO ENFORCES GROUP THINK AND DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP. THE CONCEPT OF PRESSURE TO DECISDE ALSO TELLS US THAT INDIVIDUALS SHOULD AVOID SOCIAL LOAFING, AS IT , AT SOME POINT LEADS TO A LEADER BEING DIRECTIVE, ESPECIALLY IF MAJORITY OF THE GROUP/SOCIETY IS SOCIAL LOAFERS.

THERE ARE ROLES THAT LEADERS ARE SUPPOSE TO FULFILL. LEADERS MUST BE EMOTIONAL AND MORAL BOOSTERS OF SOCIETY MEMBERS, THEY MUST BE FORM THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY AND SHOULD BE THE PINNACLES OF THE SOCIETY THEY REPRESENT. LASTLY, THEY MUST BE THE TECHNICAL STRUCTURE OF THE SOCIETY OR GROUP.

LEADERSHIP IS NOT A ROLE IT’S CONTRIBUTION TO YOUR OWN PURPOSE, WHTETHER YOU ARE LEADING OR BEING LEAD AND A LEADER SHOULD NEVER BE FOUND IN THE FRONT OF THE HERD, BUT RIGHT AMONG THE HERD.