This essay will approach types of power such as; to utilize and influence
others, to either reward or punish, to confirm by role of an organization, and
to identify with a leader such as rock or film personality. This essay will
cover six categories of power and these interlink with each other and brings a
better focus on theories of power. The functions of leadership are many and
varied, depending upon the basic problem with a group must deal with, and the
type of leadership style in action, which is dependent on the leaders basis of
power. Power, in the case of leadership, is divided into six categories,
however, each can be linked with another, as they are inter-related. Expert and
Informational power are concerned with skills, knowledge and information, of
which the holders of such abilities, are able to utilize, to influence others ie
technicians and computer personnel. Reward and Coercive power, differ from the
previously mentioned, as they involve the ability to either reward or punish
persons being influenced, in order to gain compliance. Legitimate power, is
power which has been confirmed by the very role structure of the group or
organization itself, and is accepted by all as correct and without dispute, such
as in the case of the armed forces or the police force. Referent power, on the
other hand, involves those being influenced, identifying with the leader, ie.
rock or film personalities using their image to enter the political arena. Most
leaders make use of a combination of these six types of power, depending on the
leadership style used. Authoritarian leaders, for example, use a mixture of
legitimate, coercive and reward powers, to dictate the policies, plans and
activities of a group. In comparison, a democratic or participative leader would
use mainly referent power, involving all members of the group in the
decision-making process. LEADERSHIP THEORIES Leadership itself, has been
accompanied throughout time, by numerous theories, all claiming to answer the
question, Are leaders born or made? Those who accept the verdict, that leaders
are born and not made, maintain, "... that there are certain inborn
qualities such as initiative, courage, intelligence and humour, which altogether
pre-destine a man to be a leader ... the essential pattern is given at
birth" (Adler, 1991, p. 4) Two leadership theories which concentrate on
this point, are the Great man/great woman and theTrait theories. The great
man/great woman theory, accordingly to Wrightsman, involves its followers
believing that major events, both nationally and internationally, are influenced
by those persons in power. "A sudden act by a great man could, according to
this theory, change the fate of the nation" (Wrightsman, 1977, p. 638) The
trait theory expands further on this conjecture, by concentrating on the
personal characteristics of the leader. The theory, which until the mid-1940s
formed the basis of most leadership research, cited traits believed to be
characteristic of leaders, the list of which grew in length over the years, to
include all manner of physical, personality and cognitive factors, including
height, intelligence and communication skills. However, few traits emerged to
conclusively differentiate leaders from non-leaders. The traits an individual
has may, increase the probability that a person will become a leader, though
whether such leadership is guaranteed, is uncertain. Nevertheless, it can be
seen to be true that some people are more likely than others to assume
leadership positions. "The research on trait theories of leadership has
shown that many other factors are important in determining leader success, and
that not everyone who possesses these traits will be a leader" (Adler,
1991, p. 267) As interest in the trait approach to leadership declined,
researchers focused their attention on the leader's actions rather than their
attributes, which led to the emergence of the behaviourist theories. The most
widely publicized exponent of this approach was Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's
Managerial Grid, which attempted to explain that there was one best style of
leadership, by various combinations of two factors regarding a concern for
production and people. Due to the disillusionment with the fore-mentioned trait
theory, the situational approach suggested that the traits required of a leader
differed, according to varying situations. The situational approach, which
predominated in the 1950s, held that whether a given person became a leader of a
group, had nothing to do with his/her personality, but had everything to do with
such factors as the flow of events and circumstances surrounding a group. To put
it simply, the leader was a person who was in the right place at the right time.
"Rather than a great man causing a great event to happen, the situational
approach claims that great events are the product of historical forces that are
gong to happen whether specific leaders are present or not " (Adair, 1984,
p. 8) Unfortunately, this theory still didn't answer, why one member of a group
emerged as the leader, rather than another, or why one particular leader proved
to be a better leader in some situations than another. The emergence of a
related theory, the interactionist approach, attempted to explain the existing
anomalies. The interactionist theory proposed that both the characteristics of
the individual, and the situation in which the group found itself, accounted for
whom would become the leader. Resulting from this theory, was the view that
leaders are both born and made, due to the leader requiring certain abilities
and skill, but as the situation and the needs of the group changed, so to the
person acceptable as leader changed. Developing such abilities and skills
requires no position of authority but does require commitment to self,
commitment to the organization and its employees, action, and thoughtful,
on-going self-assessment. Such a program of personal development, ideally begun
as a part of the formal education process, can assist significantly in learning
how to influence others, up, down, and across the organization. Thus, one can
learn how to become what Cohen (1990) has called an "uncrowned
leader," a person who exerts influence over others but lacks positional
authority. SUMMARY The functions of a Leader are many and varied. Its hard to
say the one theory is better than the other because as my research shows, it
takes more than one approach to accomplish a task with overall proficiency. Each
situation, each environment, and each group of people requires a different
approach. If a leader is trainable to understand that different approaches are
needed for different situations, then an leader can succeed. However if a born
leader hasn't had the exposure to an array of situations, then he/she will not
be effective. It stands to reason regarding a leader is born is that a leader
may be born but if that person isn't exposed to an array to various situations
and factors, the that born leader will become a failure. However I agree a
leader may be born and a follower is a follower but a follower can influence
other followers especially if that person has charisma such as wiser experience,
cultured education, and mature personality. So a leader may be born but a
follower by my own experience I've seen followers who are leaders and assist
leaders to perform their best. Therefore sometimes a leader and follower can
complement each other thus strengthening the environment. Therefore my own
observations show that there are ranks of leaders and ranks of followers. Each
side of the line can have leadership.

BibliographyAdair, J. (1984) The Skills of Leadership., Gower, Aldershot Kants, England
Adler, R.B. & Rodman, G. (1991) Understanding Human Communication., Holt
Rhinehart & Winston., Fort Worth, Texas Cohen, W. A. (1990). The art of the
leader. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Wrightsman, L.S. (1977) Social Psychology., 2nd
Edn., Brooks/Cole., Monteray, California Zaleznik, A. (1992) "Managers
& Leaders: Are they different?"in / Harvard Business Review,
March/April 1992., p. 126-135.