Evaluating Historical Views of Leadership Essay

How does a civilization reveal the most effective lead? More importantly what is considered effective leading and who developed the theories surrounding it? These questions ar debated through the ages of post current and modern civilization. bass voice (1974) wrote that, from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of attractions (Wren, 1995, p. 50). Four of the godfathers of what is considered modern leadership theory are Plato, Aristotle, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli. Over the course of this analysis, the leadership theories of to each one of these titans go outside(a) be evaluated. Each view contains commonalities and disparities which offer conflicting perspectives on the decomposable topic of leadership throughout the ages of modern society. The goal is to broaden these views with vital evaluation, vetted scholarly sources and well-reasoned judgments. The conclusion arrived at go out offer heighten sensation at the age old highly debated question what is eff ective leadership?Plato vs AristotlePlato and Aristotle were some(prenominal) titans of Greek thought during the fourth century BCE Athens, and both divided up similar experience and backgrounds. Partly this was because Plato was Aristotles teacher. Takala the author of Plato on leaders raises Ancient Greece (400 B.C.) has been regarded as the home of systematic administrative thinking it has been seen as the place where the Western administrative thinking was born (Takala, 1998, p. 787). This fact cemented Platos title of godfather of modern leadership theory that presented a systematic governmental and administrative model linking what life could be in an ideal state (Takala, 1998). in that location are many a(prenominal) par allels in Platos rhetoric that reverberate contemporary leadership debate.The most glaring is the emphasis on discipline and a class based system that focuses on what he termed, dependable social order. A just social order is defined as one where orde r and harmony are maintained by each class of citizens carrying out the tasks for which they are suited and not interfering with the produce of others (Takala, 1998, p. 791). Plato in his most famous tame the Republic speaks to the importance of truth derived from k at a timeledge. His top three credos for a unified and virtuous state were1. love the honourable is to do the good.2. All the virtues boil down gaining intelligence or what he paraphrased the unity of the virtues (Takala, 1998).3. In order to become happy in a new state virtue must be present. The flake titan of the three discussed is Platos protg the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle had many views that mirrored the views of his mentor the most glaring being the dependence on education for laying the foundation for a modernized society (Kodish, 2006). Where these ii minds disagree comes down to the action needed to secure leadership. Aristotle poked holes in all of the three points above given by Pl ato is these fundamental ways 1. solely knowing the good was not enough for Aristotle. The concept of free leave alone was relatively new, and he failed to see the need to practice being virtue. 2. For this reason, although wisdom is the highest form of virtue, it is by no means the key to possessing all virtues. In other voice communication, Aristotle denies the unity of the virtues. 3. Finally, Aristotle thinks that although virtue is necessary to the good life, it isnt sufficient.That is to label a person can be virtuous but tranquilize be unhappy. In particular, does a person sincerely yours need good fellow citizens to achieve happiness (Kodish, 2006). The most general difference Aristotle and Plato held was a difference of values surrounding the human condition. Aristotle saw the positives in society, and because prescribed freedom and equality Plato saw the negatives and prescribed various illiberal and discriminatory ideals (Wren, 1995).Lao-Tzu vs MachiavelliThe thi rd titan of thought was Lao-tzu an ancient sage of the sixth century and his book the Tao Te Ching (how things work) was used by political leaders of his time in history (Wren, 1995, p. 69). The forth titan in Nicollo Machiavelli and his work the Prince is a classic on the pragmaticuse of power in society (Wren, 1995). Aristotle and Plato represent the western view of leadership during the age of modern leadership theory. To further broaden our view of leadership theory and practice this analysis also explores eastern views through the eyes of 2 more(prenominal) of historys most influential minds. Lao-tzus theory is fundamentally different mainly due to its message of simplicity. He believed that a truly effective leader should be love by the people he/she lead (Gerald, 2005). Compared to other scholars of the time like Machiavelli who felt fearing a leader was the best way to get results (Wren, 1995).In Machiavellis own words he wrote I reply that one should like to be both one and the other, but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than loved when one of the two must be lacking (Machiavelli, 2006, p. 44). The differences between these two influential minds stem from the trusting (Lao-Tzu) or not trusting (Machiavelli) your pursuit to make good choices. The Tao Te Ching attempts to foster leadership by stepping away from the era-specific tyrannical view of what motivates the human condition. The 46th chapter of Tao Te Ching bares these words There is no greater misfortune than wanting more. If you are content, Lao Tzu continues, you will always have enough. Unfortunately for Westerners, our motto seems to be more for me now (Gerald, 2005, p. 48).ConclusionThroughout the above analysis, at that place have been commonalities and disparities presented from the classic kit and caboodle of four godfathers of modern leadership theory and practice. Each mind brings a modified view of what leadership should or could be in a modern society. Whatever personal views arise after reviewing these masterworks there are some truths furthering the argument that leadership theory is an ever evolving door and a melting pot of ideas derived from many figures throughout history. The and constant is that there is no ideal way to lead there are only methods that have garnered results in their own time and place in history.ReferencesGerald, W. P. (2005, April 9). A look at thoughts from Tao-Te-Ching. Kingston Whig, 1-48. Retrieved from http//search.proquest.com/docview/352713307?accountid=458 Kodish, S. (2006). The Paradoxes of loss leadership The Contribution of Aristotle.Leadership, 2 451, 451-458. http//dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742715006069175 Machiavelli, N. (2006). Qualities of the Prince. rude(a) York Bedford/St Martin in World of Ideas. Takala, T. (1998, May). Plato on Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 785-798. Retrieved from http//www.jstor.org/stable/25073123 Wren, T. J. (1995). The Leaders Companion Insights on Leadership Through the Ages. New York NY The withdraw Press.