Leadership Development? Is It a Myth?

Gemmill, G. and Oakley, J. (1992) Leadership: An Alienating Social Myth?

The thesis of my chosen journal largely questions why traditional societal norms, which have been implemented by the role of a ‘leader’, create a sense of alienating risk in subordinates, in their attempts to overturn them. It investigates how leadership can discourage independence, deskilling others from forming their own perceptions, when creative thinking is perceived as destructive.

In light of this, Gemmil and Oakley, the authors, express concern for a society developing non-self-thinkers, who habitually, consciously and subconsciously, permit people in power to control their decision-making. Traditionally, ‘leadership’ is classified as obligatory, to maintain sanity against human uncertainty. The authors consider ‘leadership’ as an excuse for individuals to avoid independently delving into complexities, and exposing harsh truths. Confronting forbidden truths causes individual alienation, precipitated when digressing from the principles prioritised by ‘leaders’.

The authors introduce contradictory theories for their analysis, which encompasses the perplexed argument on ‘leadership’ either being imperative for society, a boundary that existed before us, or a myth built on blind human beliefs. Perhaps organisations can progress in ‘leadership’s’ absence, which may simply be a societal-made structure, prompting human alienation when the notion is challenged.

Historically, the need for a leader is critical for individuals’ comfort, security and direction. These states are established as social norms for society’s survival and progression. The purpose of leaders is to provide logical guidance in the presence of ambiguity. Moreover, epistemological and ontological philosophies that consider realism and the dissection of truths are traditionally unquestioned in previous leadership studies. The journal defines leadership as reified; an abstract idea made practical, thus the...