Please read:

A personal appeal from

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
[Hide]

Leadership
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Leader" redirects here. For other uses, see Leader (disambiguation).
For other uses, see Leadership (disambiguation).
This article needs
additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(September 2009)

Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in

which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the
accomplishment of a common task”.[1] Definitions more inclusive of
followers have also emerged. Alan Keith of Genentech states that,
"Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute
to making something extraordinary happen."[2] According to Ken "SKC"
Ogbonnia [3], "effective leadership is the ability to successfully
integrate and maximize available resources within the internal and
external environment for the attainment of organizational or societal
goals."
Leadership remains one of the most relevant aspects of the
organizational context. However, defining leadership has been
challenging and definitions can vary depending on the situation.
According to Ann Marie E. McSwain, Assistant Professor at Lincoln
University, “leadership is about capacity: the capacity of leaders to
listen and observe, to use their expertise as a starting point to
encourage dialogue between all levels of decision-making, to establish
processes and transparency in decision-making, to articulate their own
values and visions clearly but not impose them. Leadership is about
setting and not just reacting to agendas, identifying problems, and
initiating change that makes for substantive improvement rather than
managing change.”
The following sections discuss several important aspects of leadership
including a description of what leadership is and a description of
several popular theories and styles of leadership. This article also
discusses topics such as the role of emotions and vision, as well as
leadership effectiveness and performance, leadership in different
contexts, how it may differ from related concepts (i.e., management),
and some critiques of leadership as generally conceived.
Contents
[hide]

• 1 Theories of leadership
o 1.1 Trait Theory
 1.1.1 Early History
 1.1.2 The Rise of Alternative Leadership
Theories
 1.1.3 The Reemergence of the Trait Theory
 1.1.4 Current Criticisms of the Trait Theory
 1.1.5 Leader Attribute Pattern Approach
o 1.2 Behavioral and style theories
o 1.3 Situational and contingency theories
o 1.4 Functional theory
o 1.5 Transactional and transformational theories
o 1.6 Leadership and emotions
o 1.7 Environmental leadership theory
• 2 Leadership styles
o 2.1 Kurt Lewin's Leadership styles
 2.1.1 Dictator Leaders
  2.1.2 Autocratic or Authoritarian Leaders
 2.1.3 Participative or Democratic Leaders
 2.1.4 Laissez Faire or Free Rein Leaders
• 3 Leadership performance
• 4 Contexts of leadership
o 4.1 Leadership in organizations
o 4.2 Leadership versus management
o 4.3 Leadership by a group
o 4.4 Leadership among primates
• 5 Historical views on leadership
• 6 Action Oriented Team Leadership Skills
• 7 Titles emphasizing authority
• 8 Critical Thought on the concept of leadership
• 9 See also
• 10 References

• 11 External links

[edit]Theories of leadership
Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits [4],
situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values [5],
charisma, and intelligence among others.
[edit]Trait Theory
Trait theory tries to describe the characteristics associated with
effective leadership.
[edit]Early History
The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been
ongoing for centuries. History’s greatest philosophical writings
from Plato’sRepublic to Plutarch’s Lives have explored the
question of “What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?”
Underlying this search was the early recognition of the
importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is
rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This
idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as
the “trait theory of leadership.”

This view of leadership, the trait theory, was explored at length

in a number of works in the previous century. Most notable are
the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works
have prompted decades of research. In Heroes and Hero
Worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical
characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton’s
(1869) Hereditary Genius, he examined leadership qualities in
the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of
eminent relatives dropped off when moving from first degree to
second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was
inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both
of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that
leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader.

For decades, this trait-based perspective dominated empirical

and theoretical work in leadership[6]. Using early research
techniques, researchers conducted over a hundred studies
proposing a number of characteristics that distinguished leaders
from nonleaders: intelligence, dominance, adaptability,
persistence, integrity, socioeconomic status, and self-confidence
just to name a few[7].
[edit]The Rise of Alternative Leadership Theories
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of
qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940[8]; Stogdill,
1948[9]; Mann, 1959[10]) prompted researchers to take a
drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership.
In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that
while some traits were common across a number of studies, the
overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one
situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations.
Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an
enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see
alernative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can
be effective in certain situations, but not others. This approach
dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the
next few decades.
[edit]The Reemergence of the Trait Theory
New methods and measurements were developed after these
influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait
theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For
example, improvements in researchers’ use of the round robin
research design methodology allowed researchers to see that
individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of
situations and tasks[11]. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical
advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in
which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the
findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait
theorists to create a comprehensive and parsimonious picture of
previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative
reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership
researchers revealed the following:

 Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety

of situations and tasks[12]
 Significant relationships exist between leadership and such
individual traits as:

 intelligence[13]
 adjustment[14]
 extraversion[15]
 conscientiousness[16][17][18]
 openness to experience[19][20]
 general self-efficacy[21][22]

[edit]Current Criticisms of the Trait Theory

While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained
popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a
corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual
frameworks[23].
Specifically, Zaccaro (2007)[24] noted that trait theories still:

1. Focus on a small set of individual attributes such as

Big Five personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive
abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and
problem-solving skills
2. Fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple
attributes
3. Do not distinguish between those leader attributes
that are generally not malleable over time and those that
are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences
4. Do not consider how stable leader attributes account
for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective
leadership

[edit]Leader Attribute Pattern

Approach
Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above,
several researchers have begun to adopt a different perspective
of leader individual differences - the leader attribute pattern
approach[25][26][27][28][29]. In contrast to the traditional approach, the
leader attribute pattern approach is based on theorists’
arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on
outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an
integrated totality rather than a summation of individual
variables[30][31]. In other words, the leader attribute pattern
approach argues that integrated constellations or combinations
of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both
leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that
explained by single attributes, or by additive combinations of
multiple attributes.
[edit]Behavioral and style
theories
Main article: Managerial grid model
In response to the early criticisms of the
trait approach, theorists began to
research leadership as a set of
behaviors, evaluating the behavior of
'successful' leaders, determining a
behavior taxonomy and identifying broad
leadership styles.[32] David McClelland,
for example, Leadership takes a strong
personality with a well developed positive
ego. Not so much as a pattern of
motives, but a set of traits is crucial. To
lead; self-confidence and a high self-
esteem is useful, perhaps even
essential. [33][Kevin Mick]

A graphical representation of the managerial

grid model

Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph

White developed in 1939 the seminal
work on the influence of leadership styles
and performance. The researchers
evaluated the performance of groups of
eleven-year-old boys under different
types of work climate. In each, the leader
exercised his influence regarding the
type of group decision making, praise
and criticism (feedback), and the
management of the group tasks (project
management) according to three styles:
(1) authoritarian, (2) democratic and (3)
laissez-faire.[34]Authoritarian
climates were characterized by leaders
who make decisions alone, demand strict
compliance to his orders, and dictate
each step taken; future steps were
uncertain to a large degree. The leader is
not necessarily hostile but is aloof
from participation in work and commonly
offers personal praise and criticism for
the work done. Democratic climates were
characterized by collective decision
processes, assisted by the leader. Before
accomplishing tasks, perspectives are
gained from group discussion and
technical advice from a leader. Members
are given choices and collectively decide
the division of
labor. Praise and criticism in such an
environment are objective, fact minded
and given by a group member without
necessarily having participated
extensively in the actual work. Laissez
faire climates gave freedom to the group
for policy determination without any
participation from the leader. The leader
remains uninvolved in work decisions
unless asked, does not participate in the
division of labor, and very infrequently
gives praise.[34]The results seemed to
confirm that the democratic climate was
preferred.[35]
The managerial grid model is also based
on a behavioral theory. The model was
developed by Robert Blake and Jane
Mouton in 1964 and suggests five
different leadership styles, based on the
leaders' concern for people and their
concern for goal achievement.[36]
[edit]Situational
and
contingency theories
Main articles: Fiedler contingency
model, Vroom-Yetton decision
model, Path-goal theory, and Hersey-
Blanchard situational theory
Situational theory also appeared as a
reaction to the trait theory of
leadership. Social scientists argued that
history was more than the result of
intervention of great men
as Carlyle suggested. Herbert
Spencer (1884) said that the times
produce the person and not the other
way around.[37] This theory assumes that
different situations call for different
characteristics; according to this group of
theories, no single optimal psychographic
profile of a leader exists. According to the
theory, "what an individual actually does
when acting as a leader is in large part
dependent upon characteristics of the
situation in which he functions."[38]
Some theorists started to synthesize the
trait and situational approaches. Building
upon the research of Lewin et al.,
academics began to normatize the
descriptive models of leadership
climates, defining three leadership styles
and identifying in which situations each
style works better. The authoritarian
leadership style, for example, is
approved in periods of crisis but fails to
win the "hearts and minds" of their
followers in the day-to-day management;
the democratic leadership style is more
adequate in situations that require
consensus building; finally, the laissez
faire leadership style is appreciated by
the degree of freedom it provides, but as
the leader does not "take charge", he can
be perceived as a failure in protracted or
thorny organizational problems.[39] Thus,
theorists defined the style of leadership
as contingent to the situation, which is
sometimes classified as contingency
theory. Four contingency leadership
theories appear more prominently in the
recent years: Fiedler contingency model,
Vroom-Yetton decision model, the path-
goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard
situational theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the
leader’s effectiveness on what Fred
Fiedler called situational contingency.
This results from the interaction of
leadership style and situational
favorableness (later called "situational
control"). The theory defined two types of
leader: those who tend to accomplish the
task by developing good-relationships
with the group (relationship-oriented),
and those who have as their prime
concern carrying out the task itself (task-
oriented).[40] According to Fiedler, there is
no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and
relationship-oriented leaders can be
effective if their leadership orientation fits
the situation. When there is a good
leader-member relation, a highly
structured task, and high leader position
power, the situation is considered a
"favorable situation". Fiedler found that
task-oriented leaders are more effective
in extremely favourable or unfavourable
situations, whereas relationship-oriented
leaders perform best in situations with
intermediate favourability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip
Yetton (1973)[41] and later with Arthur
Jago (1988),[42] developed a taxonomy for
describing leadership situations,
taxonomy that was used in a
normative decision model where
leadership styles where connected to
situational variables, defining which
approach was more suitable to which
situation.[43] This approach was novel
because it supported the idea that the
same manager could rely on
different group decision
making approaches depending on the
attributes of each situation. This model
was later referred as situational
contingency theory.[44]
The path-goal theory of leadership was
developed by Robert House (1971) and
was based on the expectancy
theory of Victor Vroom.[45]According to
House, the essence of the theory is "the
meta proposition that leaders, to be
effective, engage in behaviors that
complement subordinates' environments
and abilities in a manner that
compensates for deficiencies and is
instrumental to subordinate satisfaction
and individual and work unit
performance.[46] The theory identifies four
leader behaviors, achievement-
oriented, directive, participative,
andsupportive, that are contingent to the
environment factors and follower
characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler
contingency model, the path-goal model
states that the four leadership behaviors
are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any
of the four depending on what the
situation demands. The path-goal model
can be classified both as a contingency
theory, as it depends on the
circumstances, but also as
a transactional leadership theory, as the
theory emphasizes the reciprocity
behavior between the leader and the
followers.
The situational leadership
model proposed by Hersey and
Blanchard suggests four leadership-
styles and four levels of follower-
development. For effectiveness, the
model posits that the leadership-style
must match the appropriate level of
followership-development. In this model,
leadership behavior becomes a function
not only of the characteristics of the
leader, but of the characteristics of
followers as well.[47]
[edit]Functional theory
Main article: Functional leadership model
Functional leadership theory (Hackman &
Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a
particularly useful theory for addressing
specific leader behaviors expected to
contribute to organizational or unit
effectiveness. This theory argues that the
leader’s main job is to see that whatever
is necessary to group needs is taken
care of; thus, a leader can be said to
have done their job well when they have
contributed to group effectiveness and
cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991;
Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman
& Walton, 1986). While functional
leadership theory has most often been
applied to team leadership (Zaccaro,
Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been
effectively applied to broader
organizational leadership as well
(Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing
literature on functional leadership (see
Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al.
(2001), Hackman and Walton (1986),
Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson
(2005)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao
(2006) observed five broad functions a
leader performs when promoting
organisation's effectiveness. These
functions include: (1) environmental
monitoring, (2) organizing subordinate
activities, (3) teaching and coaching
subordinates, (4) motivating others, and
(5) intervening actively in the group’s
work.
A variety of leadership behaviors are
expected to facilitate these functions. In
initial work identifying leader behavior,
Fleishman (1953) observed that
subordinates perceived their supervisors’
behavior in terms of two broad categories
referred to as consideration and initiating
structure. Consideration includes
behavior involved in fostering effective
relationships. Examples of such behavior
would include showing concern for a
subordinate or acting in a supportive
manner towards others. Initiating
structure involves the actions of the
leader focused specifically on task
accomplishment. This could include role
clarification, setting performance
standards, and holding subordinates
accountable to those standards.
[edit]Transactional
and
transformational theories
Main articles: Transactional
leadership and Transformational
leadership
Eric Berne[48] first analyzed the relations
between a group and its leadership in
terms of Transactional Analysis.
The transactional leader (Burns, 1978)
[49]
is given power to perform certain tasks
and reward or punish for the team’s
performance. It gives the opportunity to
the manager to lead the group and the
group agrees to follow his lead to
accomplish a predetermined goal in
exchange for something else. Power is
given to the leader to evaluate, correct
and train subordinates when productivity
is not up to the desired level and reward
effectiveness when expected outcome is
reached.
The transformational leader (Burns,
1978)[49] motivates its team to be effective
and efficient. Communication is the base
for goal achievement focusing the group
on the final desired outcome or goal
attainment. This leader is highly visible
and uses chain of command to get the
job done. Transformational leaders focus
on the big picture, needing to be
surrounded by people who take care of
the details. The leader is always looking
for ideas that move the organization to
reach the company’s vision.
[edit]Leadership and emotions
Leadership can be perceived as a
particularly emotion-laden process, with
emotions entwined with the social
influence process[50]. In an organization,
the leaders’ mood has some effects on
his/her group. These effects can be
described in 3 levels[51]:

1. The mood of individual group

members. Group members with
leaders in a positive mood
experience more positive mood
than do group members with
leaders in a negative mood.The
leaders transmit their moods to
other group members through the
mechanism ofemotional
contagion[51].Mood contagion may
be one of the psychological
mechanisms by
which charismatic leaders influence
followers[52].
2. The affective tone of the
group. Group affective
tone represents the consistent or
homogeneous affective reactions
within a group. Group affective tone
is an aggregate of the moods of the
individual members of the group
and refers to mood at the group
level of analysis. Groups with
leaders in a positive mood have a
more positive affective tone than do
groups with leaders in a negative
mood [51].
 3. Group processes like
coordination, effort expenditure,
and task strategy. Public
expressions of mood impact how
group members think and act.
When people experience and
express mood, they send signals to
others. Leaders signal their goals,
intentions, and attitudes through
their expressions of moods. For
example, expressions of positive
moods by leaders signal that
leaders deem progress toward
goals to be good.The group
members respond to those signals
cognitively and behaviorally in
ways that are reflected in the group
processes [51].

In research about client service, it was

found that expressions of positive mood
by the leader improve the performance of
the group, although in other sectors there
were other findings[53].
Beyond the leader’s mood, his behavior
is a source for employee positive and
negative emotions at work. The leader
creates situations and events that lead to
emotional response. Certain leader
behaviors displayed during interactions
with their employees are the sources of
these affective events. Leaders shape
workplace affective events. Examples –
feedback giving, allocating tasks,
resource distribution. Since employee
behavior and productivity are directly
affected by their emotional states, it is
imperative to consider employee
emotional responses to organizational
leaders[54]. Emotional intelligence, the
ability to understand and manage moods
and emotions in the self and others,
contributes to effective leadership in
organizations[53]. Leadership is about
being responsible.
[edit]Environmental leadership
theory
The Environmental leadership model
(Carmazzi) describes leadership from
a Group dynamics perspective
incorporating group psychology and self
awareness to nurture “Environments” that
promote self sustaining group leadership
based on personal emotional gratification
from the activities of the group. The
Environmental Leader creates the
psychological structure by which
employees can find and attain this
gratification through work or activity.
It stems from the idea that each
individual has various environments that
bring out different facets from their own
Identity, and each facet is driven by
emotionally charged perceptions within
each environment… The Environmental
Leader creates a platform through
education and awareness where
individuals fill each others emotional
needs and become more conscious of
when, and how they affect personal and
team emotional gratifications. This is
accomplished by knowing why people
“react” to their environment instead of act
intelligently.
“Environmental Leadership is not about
changing the mindset of the group or
individual, but in the cultivation of an
environment that brings out the best and
inspires the individuals in that group. It is
not the ability to influence others to do
something they are not committed to, but
rather to nurture a culture that motivates
and even excites individuals to do what
is required for the benefit of all. It is not
carrying others to the end result, but
setting the surrounding for developing
qualities in them to so they may carry
each other.” Carmazzi
The role of an Environmental Leader is to
instill passion and direction to a group
and the dynamics of that group. This
leader implements a psychological
support system within a group that fills
the emotional and developmental needs
of the group.
[edit]Leadership styles
Leadership styles refer to a leader’s
behaviour. It is the result of the
philosophy, personality and experience of
the leader.
[edit]Kurt Lewin's Leadership
styles
Kurt Lewin and colleagues identified
different styles of leadership [55]:

 Dictator
 Autocratic
 Participative
 Laissez Faire

[edit]Dictator Leaders
A leader who uses fear and threats to get
the jobs done. As similar with a leader
who uses an autocratic style of
leadership, this style of leader also
makes all the decisions.
[edit]Autocratic or Authoritarian
Leaders
Under the autocratic leadership styles, all
decision-making powers are centralized
in the leader as shown such leaders are
dictators.
They do not entertain any suggestions or
initiative from subordinates. The
autocratic management has been
successful as it provides strong
motivation to the manager. It permits
quick decision-making as only one
person decides for the whole group, and
keeps it to themselves until they feel it is
needed by the rest of the group. An
autocratic leader does not trust anybody.
[edit]Participative or Democratic
Leaders
The democratic leadership style favors
decision-making by the group as shown,
such as leader gives instruction after
consulting the group.
He can win the cooperation of his group
and can motivate them effectively and
positively. The decisions of the
democratic leader are not unilateral as
with the autocrat because they arise from
consultation with the group members and
participation by them.
[edit]Laissez Faire or Free Rein
Leaders
A free rein leader does not lead, but
leaves the group entirely to itself as
shown; such a leader allows maximum
freedom to subordinates.
They are given a freehand in deciding
their own policies and methods. Free rein
leadership style is considered better than
the authoritarian style. But it is not as
effective as the democratic style.[citation
needed]

[edit]Leadership performance
Main article: Leadership Performance
In the past, some researchers have
argued that the actual influence of
leaders on organizational outcomes is
overrated and romanticized as a result of
biased attributions about leaders (Meindl
& Ehrlich, 1987). Despite these
assertions however, it is largely
recognized and accepted by practitioners
and researchers that leadership is
important, and research supports the
notion that leaders do contribute to key
organizational outcomes (Day & Lord,
1988; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). In
order to facilitate successful performance
it is important to understand and
accurately measure leadership
performance.
Job performance generally refers to
behavior that is expected to contribute to
organizational success (Campbell, 1990).
Campbell identified a number of specific
types of performance dimensions;
leadership was one of the dimensions
that he identified. There is no consistent,
overall definition of leadership
performance (Yukl, 2006). Many distinct
conceptualizations are often lumped
together under the umbrella of
leadershipperformance, including
outcomes such as leader effectiveness,
leader advancement, and leader
emergence (Kaiser et al., 2008). For
instance, leadership performance may be
used to refer to the career success of the
individual leader, performance of the
group or organization, or even leader
emergence. Each of these measures can
be considered conceptually distinct.
While these aspects may be related, they
are different outcomes and their inclusion
should depend on the applied/research
focus.
[edit]Contexts of leadership
[edit]Leadership in
organizations
An organization that is established as
an instrument or means for achieving
defined objectives has been referred to
as a formal organization. Its design
specifies how goals are subdivided and
reflected in subdivisions of the
organization. Divisions, departments,
sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make
up this work structure. Thus, the formal
organization is expected to behave
impersonally in regard to relationships
with clients or with its members.
According to Weber's definition, entry
and subsequent advancement is by merit
or seniority. Each employee receives a
salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that
safeguards him from the arbitrary
influence of superiors or of powerful
clients. The higher his position in the
hierarchy, the greater his presumed
expertise in adjudicating problems that
may arise in the course of the work
carried out at lower levels of the
organization. It is this bureaucratic
structure that forms the basis for the
appointment of heads or chiefs of
administrative subdivisions in the
organization and endows them with the
authority attached to their position.[56]
In contrast to the appointed head or chief
of an administrative unit, a leader
emerges within the context of
the informal organization that underlies
the formal structure. The informal
organization expresses the
personal objectives and goals of the
individual membership. Their objectives
and goals may or may not coincide with
those of the formal organization. The
informal organization represents an
extension of the social structures that
generally characterize human life — the
spontaneous emergence of groups and
organizations as ends in themselves.
In prehistoric times, man was
preoccupied with his personal security,
maintenance, protection, and survival.
Now man spends a major portion of his
waking hours working for organizations.
His need to identify with a community
that provides security, protection,
maintenance, and a feeling of belonging
continues unchanged from prehistoric
times. This need is met by the informal
organization and its emergent, or
unofficial, leaders.[57]
Leaders emerge from within the structure
of the informal organization. Their
personal qualities, the demands of the
situation, or a combination of these and
other factors attract followers who accept
their leadership within one or several
overlay structures. Instead of the
authority of position held by an appointed
head or chief, the emergent leader wields
influence or power. Influence is the ability
of a person to gain co-operation from
others by means of persuasion or control
over rewards. Power is a stronger form of
influence because it reflects a person's
ability to enforce action through the
control of a means of punishment.[57]
A leader is a person who influences a
group of people towards a specific result.
It is not dependent on title or formal
authority. (elevos, paraphrased from
Leaders, Bennis, and Leadership
Presence, Halpern & Lubar). Leaders are
recognized by their capacity for caring for
others, clear communication, and a
commitment to persist.[58] An individual
who is appointed to a managerial position
has the right to command and enforce
obedience by virtue of the authority of his
position. However, he must possess
adequate personal attributes to match his
authority, because authority is only
potentially available to him. In the
absence of sufficient personal
competence, a manager may be
confronted by an emergent leader who
can challenge his role in the organization
and reduce it to that of a figurehead.
However, only authority of position has
the backing of formal sanctions. It follows
that whoever wields personal influence
and power can legitimize this only by
gaining a formal position in the hierarchy,
with commensurate authority.
[57]
Leadership can be defined as one's
ability to get others to willingly follow.
Every organization needs leaders at
every level.[59]
[edit]Leadership versus
management
Over the years the philosophical
terminology of "management" and
"leadership" have, in the organisational
context, been used both as synonyms
and with clearly differentiated meanings.
Debate is fairly common about whether
the use of these terms should be
restricted, and generally reflects an
awareness of the distinction made by
Burns (1978) between "transactional"
leadership (characterised by eg
emphasis on procedures, contingent
reward, management by exception) and
"transformational" leadership
(characterised by eg charisma, personal
relationships, creativity). That those two
adjectives are in fact used equally well
with the noun "management" as with the
noun "leadership" indicates that there is
such a messy overlap between the two in
academic practice that attempts to
pontificate about their differences are
largely a waste of time.
[edit]Leadership by a group
This subsection does
not cite any references
or sources.
Please help improve this
article by adding citations
to reliable sources. Unsourced
 material may
be challenged andremoved. (S
eptember 2009)

In contrast to individual leadership, some

organizations have adopted group
leadership. In this situation, more than
one person provides direction to the
group as a whole. Some organizations
have taken this approach in hopes of
increasing creativity, reducing costs, or
downsizing. Others may see the
traditional leadership of a boss as costing
too much in team performance. In some
situations, the maintenance of the boss
becomes too expensive - either by
draining the resources of the group as a
whole, or by impeding the creativity
within the team, even unintentionally.
[citation needed]

A common example of group leadership

involves cross-functional teams. A team
of people with diverse skills and from all
parts of an organization assembles to
lead a project. A team structure can
involve sharing power equally on all
issues, but more commonly uses rotating
leadership. The team member(s) best
able to handle any given phase of the
project become(s) the temporary
leader(s). Additionally, as each team
member has the opportunity to
experience the elevated level of
empowerment, it energizes staff and
feeds the cycle of success.[60]
Leaders who demonstrate persistence,
tenacity, determination and synergistic
communication skills will bring out the
same qualities in their groups. Good
leaders use their own inner mentors to
energize their team and organizations
and lead a team to achieve success.[61]
According to the National School
Boards Association (USA) [62]
These Group Leadership or Leadership
Teams have specific characteristics:
Characteristics of a Team

 There must be an awareness of unity

on the part of all its members.
 There must be interpersonal
relationship. Members must have a
chance to contribute, learn from and
work with others.
 The member must have the ability to
act together toward a common goal.

Ten characteristics of well-functioning

teams:

 Purpose: Members proudly share a

sense of why the team exists and are
invested in accomplishing its mission
and goals.
 Priorities: Members know what needs
to be done next, by whom, and by
when to achieve team goals.
 Roles: Members know their roles in
getting tasks done and when to allow
 a more skillful member to do a certain
task.
 Decisions: Authority and decision-
making lines are clearly understood.
 Conflict: Conflict is dealt with openly
and is considered important to
decision-making and personal growth.
 Personal traits: members feel their
unique personalities are appreciated
and well utilized.
 Norms: Group norms for working
together are set and seen as
standards for every one in the groups.
 Effectiveness: Members find team
meetings efficient and productive and
look forward to this time together.
 Success: Members know clearly
when the team has met with success
and share in this equally and proudly.
 Training: Opportunities for feedback
and updating skills are provided and
taken advantage of by team members.

[edit]Leadership among
primates
Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson,
in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins
of Human Violence present evidence that
only humans andchimpanzees, among all
the animals living on earth, share a
similar tendency for a cluster of
behaviors: violence, territoriality,
and competitionfor uniting behind the one
chief male of the land.[63] This position is
contentious. Many animals beyond apes
are territorial, compete, exhibit violence,
and have a social structure controlled by
a dominant male (lions, wolves, etc.),
suggesting Wrangham and Peterson's
evidence is not empirical. However, we
must examine other species as well,
including elephants (which are
undoubtedly matriarchal and follow an
alpha female), meerkats (who are
likewise matriarchal), and many others.
It would be beneficial, to examine that
most accounts of leadership over the
past few millennia (since the creation of
Christian religions) are through the
perspective of a patriarchal society,
founded on Christian literature. If one
looks before these times, it is noticed that
Pagan and Earth-based tribes in fact had
female leaders. It is important also to
note that the peculiarities of one tribe
cannot necessarily be ascribed to
another, as even our modern-day
customs differ. The current day patrilineal
custom is only a recent invention in
human history and our original method of
familial practices were matrilineal (Dr.
Christopher Shelley and Bianca Rus,
UBC). The fundamental assumption that
has been built into 90% of the world's
countries is that patriarchy is the 'natural'
biological predisposition of homo
sapiens. Unfortunately, this belief has led
to the widespread oppression of women
in all of those countries, but in varying
degrees. (Whole Earth Review, Winter,
1995 by Thomas Laird, Michael Victor).
The Iroquoian First Nations tribes are an
example of a matrilineal tribe, along with
Mayan tribes, and also the society of
Meghalaya, India. (Laird and Victor, ).
By comparison, bonobos, the second-
closest species-relatives of man,
do not unite behind the chief male of the
land. The bonobos show deference to an
alpha or top-ranking female that, with the
support of her coalition of other females,
can prove as strong as the strongest
male in the land. Thus, if leadership
amounts to getting the greatest number
of followers, then among the bonobos, a
female almost always exerts the
strongest and most effective leadership.
However, not all scientists agree on the
allegedly "peaceful" nature of the bonobo
or its reputation as a "hippie chimp".[1]
[edit]Historical views on
leadership
This section needs
additional citations for
verification.
Please help improve this
article by adding reliable
references. Unsourced material
may
be challenged and removed.
(September 2009)

Sanskrit literature identifies ten types of

leaders. Defining characteristics of the
ten types of leaders are explained with
examples from history and mythology.[64]
Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that
leadership depends on one's blue blood
or genes: monarchy takes an extreme
view of the same idea, and may prop up
its assertions against the claims of mere
aristocrats by invoking divine sanction:
see the divine right of kings.
Contrariwise, more democratically-
inclined theorists have pointed to
examples of meritocratic leaders, such as
the Napoleonic marshals profiting
from careersopen to talent.
In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of
thought, traditionalists recall the role of
leadership of the Roman pater
familias. Feminist thinking, on the other
hand, may object to such models
as patriarchal and posit against them
emotionally-attuned, responsive, and
consensual empatheticguidance, which is
sometimes associated with matriarchies.
Comparable to the Roman tradition, the
views of Confucianism on "right living"
relate very much to the ideal of the
(male) scholar-leader and his benevolent
rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial
piety.
Leadership is a matter of intelligence,
trustworthiness, humaneness, courage,
and discipline . . . Reliance on intelligence
alone results in rebelliousness. Exercise of
humaneness alone results in weakness.
 Fixation on trust results in folly.
Dependence on the strength of courage
results in violence. Excessive discipline
and sternness in command result in
cruelty. When one has all five virtues
together, each appropriate to its function,
then one can be a leader. — Sun Tzu[65]

In the 19th century, the elaboration

of anarchist thought called the whole
concept of leadership into question.
(Note that the Oxford English
Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in
English only as far back as the 19th
century.) One response to this denial
of élitism came withLeninism, which
demanded an élite group of
disciplined cadres to act as
the vanguard of a socialist revolution,
bringing into existence thedictatorship of
the proletariat.
Other historical views of leadership have
addressed the seeming contrasts
between secular and religious leadership.
The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have
recurred and had their detractors over
several centuries. Christian thinking on
leadership has often
emphasized stewardship of divinely-
provided resources - human and material
- and their deployment in accordance
with a Divine plan. Compare servant
leadership.
For a more general take on leadership
in politics, compare the concept of
the statesman.
[edit]Action
Oriented Team
Leadership Skills
This section does
not cite any references
or sources.
Please help improve this
article by adding citations
to reliable sources. Unsourced
material may
be challenged andremoved. (S
eptember 2009)

This is a unique approach to team

leadership that is aimed at action
oriented environments where effective
functional leadership is required to
achieve critical or reactive tasks by small
teams deployed into the field. In other
words leadership of small groups often
created to respond to a situation or
critical incident.
In most cases these teams are tasked to
operate in remote and changeable
environments with limited support or
backup (action environments).
Leadership of people in these
environments requires a different set of
skills to that of front line management.
These leaders must effectively operate
remotely and negotiate both the needs of
the individual, team and task within a
changeable environment. This has been
termed Action Oriented Leadership.
Some example action oriented leadership
is demonstrated in the following ways:
extinguishing a rural fire, locating a
missing person, leading a team on an
outdoor expedition or rescuing a person
from a potentially hazardous
environment.
[edit]Titles emphasizing
authority
This section does
not cite any references
or sources.
Please help improve this
article by adding citations
to reliable sources. Unsourced
material may
be challenged andremoved. (S
eptember 2009)

At certain stages in their development,

the hierarchies of social ranks implied
different degrees or ranks of leadership
in society. Thus a knightled fewer men in
general than did a duke; a baronet might
in theory control less land than an earl.
See peerage for a systematization of this
hierarchy, and order of precedence for
links to various systems.
In the course of the 18th and 20th
centuries, several political operators took
non-traditional paths to become dominant
in their societies. They or their systems
often expressed a belief in strong
individual leadership, but existing titles
and labels ("King", "Emperor",
"President" and so on) often seemed
inappropriate, insufficient or downright
inaccurate in some circumstances. The
formal or informal titles or descriptions
they or their flunkies employ express and
foster a general veneration for leadership
of the inspired and autocratic variety. The
definite article when used as part of the
title (in languages which use definite
articles) emphasizes the existence of a
sole "true" leader.
[edit]Critical
Thought on the
concept of leadership
Noam Chomsky[66] and others[67] have
brought critical thinking to the very
concept of leadership and analyzed the
processes whereby people abrogate their
responsibility to think and will actions for
themselves. While the conventional view
of leadership is rather satisfying to
people who "want to be told what to do",
one should question why they are being
subjected to a will or intellect other than
their own if the leader is not a Subject
Matter Expert (SME).
The fundamentally anti-democratic
nature of the leadership principle is
challenged by the introduction of
concepts such
as autogestion,employeeship,
common civic virtue, etc, which stress
individual responsibility and/or group
authority in the work place and elsewhere
by focusing on the skills and attitudes
that a person needs in general rather
than separating out leadership as the
basis of a special class of individuals.
Similarly various historical calamities are
attributed to a misplaced reliance on
the principle of leadership.
[edit]See also
Types of leadership and other
theories
 Leadership C
 Agentic Leadership  Leadership d
 Coaching
 Servant leade
 Communal Leadership
 Toxic Leade
 Max Weber's Charismatic
 Youth leader
authority
 Collaborative
 Antonio Gramsci's theory
ofCultural hegemony  Outstanding
 Ethical leadership
 Islamic leadership
 Ideal leadership

 Leader-Member Exchange
Theory (LMX)
[edit]References
Notes

1. ^ Chemers, M. M. (2002). Cognitive,

social, and emotional intelligence of
transformational leadership: Efficacy and
Effectiveness. In R. E. Riggio, S. E.
Murphy, F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple
Intelligences and Leadership.}
2. ^ Kouzes, J., and Posner, B. (2007).
The Leadership Challenge. CA: Jossey
Bass.
3. ^ Ogbonnia, K.S. (2007). Political
party system and effective leadership in
Nigeria: A Contingency Approach.
Dissertation. Walden University, 2007,
p.27 3252463.
4. ^ Locke et al. 1991
5. ^ (Richards & Engle, 1986, p.206)
6. ^ Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based
perspectives of leadership. American
Psychologist, 62, 6-16.
7. ^ Bass, B.M. & Bass, R. (2008). The
Bass handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications (4th
ed.). New York: Free Press.
8. ^ Bird, C. (1940). Social Psychology.
New York: Appleton-Century.
9. ^ Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal
factors associated with leadership: A
survey of the literature. Journal of
Psychology, 25, 35-71.
10. ^ Mann, R.D. (1959). A review of the
relationship between personality and
performance in small groups.
Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
11. ^ Kenny, D.A. & Zaccaro, S.J. (1983).
An estimate of variance due to traits in
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
68, 678-685.
12. ^ Kenny, D.A. & Zaccaro, S.J. (1983).
An estimate of variance due to traits in
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
68, 678-685.
13. ^ Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L., & Alliger,
G.M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the
relation between personality traits and
leader perceptions: An application of
validity generalization procedures. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
14. ^ Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L., & Alliger,
G.M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the
relation between personality traits and
leader perceptions: An application of
validity generalization procedures. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
15. ^ Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L., & Alliger,
G.M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the
relation between personality traits and
leader perceptions: An application of
validity generalization procedures. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
16. ^ Arvey, R.D., Rotundo, M., Johnson,
W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The
determinants of leadership role
occupancy: Genetic and personality
factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1-
20.
17. ^ Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., &
Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
765-780.
18. ^ Tagger, S., Hackett, R., Saha, S.
(1999). Leadership emergence in
autonomous work teams: Antecedents and
outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52,
899-926.
19. ^ Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., &
Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
765-780.
20. ^ Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000).
Emergence leadership behaviors: The
function of personality and cognitive ability
in determining teamwork performance and
KSAs. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 15, 27-51.
21. ^ Smith, J.A., & Foti, R.J. (1998). A
pattern approach to the study of leader
emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 9,
147-160.
22. ^ Foti, R.J., & Hauenstein, N.M.A.
(2007). Pattern and variable approaches in
leadership emergence and effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 347-
355.
23. ^ Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based
perspectives of leadership. American
Psychologist, 62, 6-16.
24. ^ Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based
perspectives of leadership. American
Psychologist, 62, 6-16.
25. ^ Zaccaro, S. J., Gulick, L.M.V. &
Khare, V.P. (2008). Personality and
leadership. In C. J. Hoyt, G. R. Goethals &
D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the
crossroads (Vol 1) (pp. 13-29). Westport,
CT: Praeger.
26. ^ Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, N. M. A.
(2007). Pattern and variable approaches in
leadership emergence and effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 347-
355.
27. ^ Gershenoff, A. G., & Foti, R. J.
(2003). Leader emergence and gender
roles in all-female groups: A contextual
examination. Small Group Research, 34,
170-196.
28. ^ Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J.,
Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., &
Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills
for a changing world solving complex
social problems. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 11-35.
29. ^ Smith, J.A., & Foti R.J. (1998). A
pattern approach to the study of leader
emergence, Leadership Quarterly, 9, 147-
160.
30. ^ Magnusson, D. (1995). Holistic
interactionism: A perspective for research
on personality development. In L. A.
Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 219-
247). New York: Guilford Press.
31. ^ Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J.,
Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., &
Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills
for a changing world solving complex
social problems. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 11-35.
32. ^ Spillane (2004)
33. ^ Horton, Thomas. New York The
CEO Paradox (1992
a b
34. ^ Lewin et al. (1939)
35. ^ Miner (2005) pp. 39-40
36. ^ Blake et al. (1964)
37. ^ Spencer (1884), apud Heifetz
(1994), pp. 16
38. ^ Hemphill (1949)
39. ^ Wormer et al. (2007), pp: 198
40. ^ Fiedler (1967)
41. ^ Vroom, Yetton (1973)
42. ^ Vroom, Jago (1988)
43. ^ Sternberg, Vroom (2002)
44. ^ Lorsch (1974)
45. ^ House (1971)
46. ^ House (1996)
47. ^ Hersey et al. (2008)
48. ^ The Structure and Dynamics of
Organizations and Groups, Eric
Berne, ISBN 0-345-28473-9
a b
49. ^ Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership.
New York: Harper and Row Publishers
Inc..
50. ^ George J.M. 2000. Emotions and
leadership: The role of emotional
intelligence, Human Relations 53 (2000),
pp. 1027–1055
a b c d
51. ^ Sy, T.; Cote, S.; Saavedra, R.
(2005). "The contagious leader: Impact of
the leader’s mood on the mood of group
members, group affective tone, and group
processes". Journal of Applied
Psychology 90 (2): 295–305.
52. ^ Bono J.E. & Ilies R. 2006 Charisma,
positive emotions and mood contagion.
The Leadership Quarterly 17(4): pp. 317-
334
a b
53. ^ George J.M. 2006. Leader
Positive Mood and Group Performance:
The Case of Customer Service. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology :25(9) pp. 778 -
794
54. ^ Dasborough M.T. 2006.Cognitive
asymmetry in employee emotional
reactions to leadership behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly 17(2):pp. 163-178
55. ^ Lewin, K.; Lippitt, R.; White, R.K.
(1939). "Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social
climates". Journal of Social
Psychology 10: 271–301.
56. ^ Cecil A Gibb (1970). Leadership
(Handbook of Social Psychology).
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
pp. 884–89. ISBN 0140805176
9780140805178. OCLC174777513.
a b c
57. ^ Henry P. Knowles; Borje O.
Saxberg (1971). Personality and
Leadership Behavior. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley. pp. 884–
89. ISBN 0140805176
9780140805178. OCLC 118832.
58. ^ Hoyle, John R. Leadership and
Futuring: Making Visions Happen.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.,
1995.
59. ^ The Top 10 Leadership Qualities -
HR World
60. ^ Ingrid Bens (2006). Facilitating to
Lead. Jossey-Bass.
61. ^ Dr. Bart Barthelemy (1997). The Sky
Is Not The Limit - Breakthrough
Leadership. St. Lucie Press.
62. ^ National School Boards Association
 63. ^ Richard Wrangham and Dale
Peterson (1996). Demonic Males. Apes
and the Origins of Human Violence.
Mariner Books
64. ^ KSEEB. Sanskrit Text Book -9th
Grade. Governament of Karnataka, India.
65. ^ THE 100 GREATEST LEADERSHIP
PRINCIPLES OF ALL TIME, EDITED BY
LESLIE POCKELL WITH ADRIENNE
AVILA, 2007, Warner Books
66. ^ Profit over People: neoliberalism
and global order, N. Chomsky, 1999
Ch. Consent without Consent, p. 53
67. ^ The Relationship between Servant
Leadership, Follower Trust, Team
Commitment and Unit Effectiveness, Zani
Dannhauser, Doctoral Thesis,
Stellenbosch University 2007

Books

 Blake, R.; Mouton, J. (1964). The

Managerial Grid: The Key to
Leadership Excellence. Houston: Gulf
Publishing Co..
 Carlyle, Thomas (1841). On Heroes,
Hero-Worship, and the Heroic History.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
 Fiedler, Fred E. (1967). A theory of
leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill:
Harper and Row Publishers Inc..
 Heifetz, Ronald (1994). Leadership
without Easy Answers. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-
674-51858-6.
 Hemphill, John K. (1949). Situational
Factors in Leadership. Columbus:
Ohio State University Bureau of
Educational Research.
 Hersey, Paul; Blanchard, Ken;
Johnson, D. (2008). Management of
Organizational Behavior: Leading
Human Resources (9th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
 Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational
Behavior: Behavior 1: Essential
Theories of Motivation and
Leadership. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
 Spencer, Herbert (1841). The Study
of Sociology. New York: D. A.
Appleton.
 Vroom, Victor H.; Yetton, Phillip W.
(1973). Leadership and Decision-
Making. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
 Vroom, Victor H.; Jago, Arthur G.
(1988). The New Leadership:
Managing Participation in
Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
 Van Wormer, Katherine S.; Besthorn,
Fred H.; Keefe, Thomas
(2007). Human Behavior and the
Social Environment: Macro Level:
Groups, Communities, and
Organizations. US: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0195187547.
Journal articles

 House, Robert J. (1971). "A path-goal

theory of leader
effectiveness". Administrative Science
Quarterly 16: 321–
339. doi:10.2307/2391905.
 House, Robert J. (1996). "Path-goal
theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy,
and a reformulated
theory". Leadership Quarterly 7 (3):
323–352.doi:10.1016/S1048-
9843(96)90024-7.
 Lewin, Kurt; Lippitt, Ronald; White,
Ralph (1939). "Patterns of aggressive
behavior in experimentally created
social climates". Journal of Social
Psychology: 271–301.
 "Leadership: Do traits
matter?". Academy of Management
Executive 5 (2). 1991.
 Lorsch, Jay W. (Spring 1974).
"Review of Leadership and Decision
Making". Sloan Management Review.
 Spillane, James P.; et al. (2004).
"Towards a theory of leadership
practice". Journal of Curriculum
Studies 36 (1): 3–34.
 Vroom, Victor; Sternberg, Robert J.
(2002). "Theoretical Letters: The
person versus the situation in
leadership". The Leadership
Quarterly 13: 301–323.

[edit]External links
 Wikimedia Commons has
media related to: Leadership

 Leadership at the Open Directory

Project

Categories: Emergency laws | Strategic

management | Management | Business
theory | Organizational studies and
human resource management | Political
philosophy | Political science
terms | Positions of authority | Positive
psychology | Social
psychology | Sociology |Leadership
• article

• discussion

• edit this page

• history
• Try Beta

• Log in / create account

navigation
 Main page
 Contents
 Featured content
 Current events
 Random article

search
Go Search

interaction
 About Wikipedia
  Community portal
 Recent changes
 Contact Wikipedia
 Donate to Wikipedia
 Help

toolbox
 What links here
 Related changes
 Upload file
 Special pages
 Printable version
 Permanent link
 Cite this page

languages
 Dansk
 Deutsch
 Español
 Français
 Hrvatski
 Ido
 Bahasa Indonesia
 Italiano
 ‫עברית‬
 Limburgs
 Magyar
 Nederlands
 日本語
 Polski
 Português
 Slovenčina
 Svenska
 Türkçe
 Українська
 粵語
 中文
 This page was last modified on 17
December 2009 at 00:57.

 Text is available under the Creative

Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License; additional terms may apply.
See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of
the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-
profit organization.
 Contact us

 Privacy policy

 About Wikipedia

 Disclaimers