Leadership and Inequality

Abstract

Ordinarily, a leader is perceived to be distinctive. Many images depict leaders as higher, larger, or further along toward some objective. In order to downplay the hierarchical implications of leadership, writers have made numerous attempts to introduce egalitarian values, since leadership itself can come across as unjust or unfair, contrary to an egalitarian ideal. The egalitarian will prefer an alternative, either an alternative to leadership altogether or an alternative image of leadership that suggests equality. We assert that there is a conceptual difference between leaders and followers. We also claim that inequality is inevitable, useful, and even necessary. Properly accounted for, inequality is also just - to elevate a single person to a position or status of leader, so long as that leadership enjoys legitimacy, dependent on purpose, and so long as that leadership remains subject to checks and balances. Maybe we need a model of leadership as mutual inequality.

Perceiving the Leadership and Organizational Identity under the Contemplation of Understanding of Psychoanalytical Approach

“…Leaders are always designated as singular, unique and very different from followers. "Following" as a term is a mirror image of such presumption, that point the psychological inequality among followers and leaders, as Harter et al (2006) proffer in their article. Current theories of management and leadership maintain a stinging distinction among individuals without considering the social impact that may have any effect on individuals' psychology.…”

“…The most important of the positive aspects of idealization and reflection within the organization is that it keeps the members of the organization together in crises and lies at the basis of building a strong bond, create a common perspective, temporarily suspend insight, and ensure that group members act with devotion. Harter, Ziolkowski, and Wyatt (2006) maintain that the leadership process is formed on inequality among leaders and followers. Coincidental suspicion also has been made by Gabriel (1997), he explains that the followers need to "go up" and leaders need to "go down" to meet each other.…”

Representations of Change within Dyadic Relationships between Leader and Follower: Discourses of Pregnant Followers

“…Interpersonal relationships in the work context are complex and include sensitive elements (Moye & Henkin, 2006) especially those between leaders and followers (Harter et al, 2006). Even though pregnancy is always temporary in status it may have much longer-term effects on both the individual and the organization.…”

Distribution dilemmas

“…Woods (2004) argued how distributed leadership appears to incorporate democratic procedures, insisting that democratic leadership and distributed leadership are not synonymous. Distributed leaders are appointed rather than elected (Hartley, 2007); power differentials do exist (Harter et al, 2006); and distributed leadership may give rise to autocracy (Spillane, 2005).…”