Is there a Consensus on a Definition of Leadership in the Literature?

Abstract

Every discussion on leadership leads to the same conclusion, there is no singularly accepted definition.It has been argued that in a room of all educators there will never be consensus because of 1) different perspectives, 2) experiences, 3) biases, and 4) disagreement for discourse sake, and in these lie the heart of the leadership definition fragmentation. The definition offered by Yukl was comprehensive and unlike others that I have read outlined some noteworthy features such as 1) process; 2) followership; 3) needs; 4) task; 5) agreement or shared vision, 6) influence (i.e. types and purpose); 7) collective consciousness, 8) principles in carry out a task, and 9) effectiveness. Those phenomena set the platform for accountability of people, especially the leader, and this is encapsulated in what is referred to as leadership effectiveness. According to Yukl “Like definitions of leadership, conceptions of leader effectiveness differ from one writer to another” (p. 9). Although Yukl forwarded that this is many of the definitions of leadership, he postulated that this is measured based on the action(s) of the leader on the followers and various stakeholders in the organizations. It is easy to understand that the leader is, therefore, evaluating not merely his/her vision; but primarily his/her performance, growth, influence, and accomplishment of tasks.