leader is a member of a group who is spontaneously promoted to the role of a non-formal
leader (Goudeau et al., 2021). This approach to understanding leadership is justified
when considering informal groups, but it is confusing when studying organizational
leadership. In many cases, the actual leadership behavior of a leader in an organization
is inseparable from the performance of his official functions. The formal and informal
position of the leader in the team are interconnected and influence each other (Bao,
2020). The approach in which leadership is presented as one of the management
functions seems quite fruitful. According to the supporters of this approach, four
managerial functions act as means of management: planning, organization, control and
leadership, the latter (leadership) being the leading one. If we compare this point of view
with the classical scheme: planning, organization, motivation, coordination and control,
we see that leadership takes the place of motivation and coordination. Supporters of this
approach believe that "the essence of leadership lies in the implementation of a targeted
influence on the part of the subject of activity on the performers by leading them towards
the established goal" (Kopcha et al., 2016; Subhash & Cudney, 2018).
However, this interpretation also narrows the understanding of leadership, since a leader
in various situations can act as a planner, as an organizer, and as a motivator, and as a
controller (Kirkwood & Price, 2013). Often leadership is seen as the opposite of coercion
and is presented as the ability to induce rather than force certain actions. At the same
time, instead of force and coercion, in the case of leadership, motivation and inspiration
are often considered. However, such a distinction only makes sense from the point of
view of ideal leadership. In fact, it must be recognized that an authoritarian management
style can also be effective when implemented by the leader in appropriate situations.
Each of the above models of understanding the phenomenon of leadership reveals only
one side of its nature. It can be argued that, highlighting certain aspects of leadership, the
researchers pursued various goals, for example: determining the object of observation for
empirical research in small groups; defining the form of practice; ensuring the theoretical
development of this problem, etc. As a result, a paradoxical situation has developed (Kim
et al., 2013). On the one hand, collectively developed in social science theories of
leadership seem to cover all aspects of the phenomenon of leadership, and on the other
hand, the existing disparate and heterogeneous elements of its understanding cannot be
combined into a holistic view.
In order to form, as far as possible, a systematic vision of leadership, we will single out
the general essential characteristics of this phenomenon, which will make it possible to
determine in each specific case whether we are talking about leadership or not.
1. The leader must have followers. This is the first thing that can be said with certainty.
It is the presence of followers that distinguishes leaders from non-leaders. The leader
is followed by followers loyal to him. Non-leaders don't. No one becomes a leader
before gaining followers. Followers are the element that underlies leadership and it is
its presence that gives a person the right to be considered a leader. Every leader
becomes a leader only when he gains followers. It is the followers that make the