After every few years management gurus, scientists and practitioners come up with some “new” fancy jargon, cliché or a coinage. This I believe is done to remain relevant and meaningful to the dynamics of change happening in every sphere of life. Upon closer examination it is either old wine in new bottle or a cocktail of over-lapping concepts that tastes the same but appears new and appealing.

Over the last decade or so, we have seen how the concept of leadership has been broken down into several layers of recognition. A ‘simple leader’ of the past, with all the related skills and virtues attending that persona, is now required to seek recognition through the hair-splitting of leadership concepts. Consequently, we have situational, transformational, servant, parental, and humble leadership. What beats all these fine distinctions, however, is the leadership termed ‘authentic.’ What?

There can be unauthentic persons but how can anyone be a non-authentic leader? This one feature must disrobe him/her of any leadership position held. This is in my view managerial blasphemy, proving bankruptcy of managerial ability to develop sound alternative concept or thought.

Leadership, conceptually, is not medical science, where more and more of less and less leads to ‘specialisation’. While a doctor may start as a general surgeon, they require specialized education and clinical experience to qualify as a specialist, such as a cardiac surgeon, an ENT surgeon, a liver surgeon, or a nephrologist. Leadership, on the contrary, is a wholesome concept; being IT specialist does not lend the person to be addressed as a ‘leader’. Leadership requires more than specialisation.

Much before this division and hair splitting, there are some primary requirements which must be met to be called a ‘leader’. All leaders need to have certain basic qualities in their personality like abilities to draw a vision, strategies and have sound communication skills, a minimum standard of........

© Business Recorder