The phenomenon of leadership in psychology. Psychological aspects of leadership

In a person. In what proportions should they be mixed in order to get a person who is devoid of doubts about himself and his own abilities, active in any manifestation, thinking outside the box, acting decisively and able to rally any disparate group for the sake of common purpose?

Anyone can become a leader, since the qualities that will be discussed below are present to one degree or another in every person. But, as it turned out, not everyone is suitable and not everyone is satisfied with this role.

Terminology

Leader(from the English leader - "leading, first, going ahead") - a person in a group who enjoys great authority and influence, which manifests itself as control actions.

The role of a leader, ideological inspirer and mentor is terribly tedious for most of the inhabitants. For the majority, but not for the leader - a person whose mighty energy overflows and is looking for application.

So who is he?

Key qualities of a leader

Psychologists have studied this topic in some detail and have come to the unanimous opinion that all ideological inspirers have fundamental character traits.

A leader is a person who combines:

self-confidence. Justified or not entirely, but the leader has absolutely no reason not to believe in his strength. His confidence is contagious - being confident in himself, he instills this feeling in those around him.
Energy and perseverance. Not such a rare quality, but coupled with self-confidence, it gives amazing results. A person who gives up at the first obstacle is a whiner. A person who blames others for his failures is a psychopath. A person who can analyze his failures and move on is a market leader. He is such only because of his perseverance and perseverance.
Charm, charisma. Very important agree. Before starting to lead, the leader must first hook those around him, please them. Unfortunately, not possessing attractive emotional characteristics a person is unlikely to become a true leader.
The ability to convince. To be able to competently and intelligibly state one's thoughts is already a science, and the ability to put one's thoughts into other people's heads so that people take them for one's own is a whole art. Of course, a person with such a gift can be called a manipulator, but the leader is essentially a puppeteer, leading the masses in the right direction for him.
Initiative. A leader is an active, energetic person who has a lot of ideas and wants to bring them all to life. A real find for any team!
A responsibility. This is a fundamental human quality that underlies the entire pyramid of a leader figure. After all, if, with all the above qualities, there is no responsibility for committed actions, this will turn out to be a portrait not of a leader, but of a poseur, windbag and fanfaron. A real team leader will readily answer for the consequences of any of his undertakings.

Where is the intellect?

Have you noticed that among the above qualities there is absolutely no such as intelligence or mental capacity? According to many scientists, this is not an obligatory quality in the portrait of a leader. The most important condition for successful leadership is to be a little smarter than others. With a fairly large gap in the intellectual plan of the leader and his entourage, a backlash occurs - the crowd rejects the smart-ass, and the leader himself becomes bored with working with such "raw material".

Are Leaders and Managers the Same Thing?

Reading the article, many of you have probably already tried on the portrait of a leader to your leader. Coincidences happen, but very rarely. Does this mean that we are led by people who are not able to lead, random? Causal relationship: if random people lead, then the leadership is ineffective.

Let's figure it out. Of course, there is a leader-leader in nature. He is a rare "beast", found more in the central part of Russia (ambitions do not give rest, and leadership qualities call to conquer the capital). The farther from Belokamennaya, the calmer and more measured our leaders become. are present in their characters, but not in maximum value. How do they manage to lead?

The problem is solved in one action, and the answer is simple: such managers are rescued by competent personnel decisions. Indeed, what could be simpler - if I lack some quality, you need to find a person who has it and hire him. This is exactly what a thinking leader, a team leader, does. At the same time, the idea of the organization does not suffer, all components are mutually balanced, and the goals are achieved.

The leader in the organization, who does not think about the future of his offspring, hires his brother, matchmaker, mistress, which discredits not only himself, but also the company.

A female leader: a gift from heaven or a punishment?

As experts jokingly assure, in order to succeed, a woman needs to be not just smart and cunning, she must be two heads taller than any man. And this statement is not without meaning, because the gender approach rules here too.

An independent group of scientists has experimentally proven that it is very difficult for the fairer sex to lead. A "leader" was placed next to the group of subjects, first a female, then a male. In both cases, the decoy leader had to take the reins of government into his own hands and, by convincing the subjects, lead them to solve the problem. In the course of the test, it turned out that those around them agree rather favorably to perceive the desire to lead coming from a man. They allow them to get the better of them and are more willing to agree with his point of view. Whereas the activity of a woman striving for leadership causes rejection and irritation among the majority of those around her.

It is not surprising that female leaders in the competition with the stronger sex are forced to disguise their weak sides. They acquire masculine character traits, masculine management style, masculine habits. It's kind of a defensive reaction.

Can a leader be subordinate?

A very interesting question, you will agree. After all, if a person has more ambition and self-confidence than a hair on his head, how can he obey the demands of another person, his boss?

Indeed, this is a big problem for the current leader. He, by virtue of his nature, simply will not be able to stand aside and will undermine the authority of the current boss every day and every minute. An informal leader is a person who himself is a hostage of his charisma.

Of course, you can get rid of such a hindrance by firing him, but if the rebel is also a good specialist, then it is wiser to find another use for his energy. Invite him to take the place of the leader, make him responsible for fire safety and labor protection. Believe me, you won't regret it. The empowerment and certain power will ensure that the ambitions of the informal leader are satisfied. Of course, he will not stop criticizing you, but only on business. And besides, you should not brush aside everything said by the informal leader in your address - his brain is arranged in such a way that he clearly sees the minuses in management. Therefore, it is better to "wind on the mustache" and take into account.

Is it possible to develop a leader in yourself?

Of course you can, but first you need to decide if you really need it.

Numerous development courses and trainings that currently exist offer everyone who wants to develop a leader in himself in one or two weeks. This, as psychologists say, promises social significance, fame and attention. Many of these trainings really need and help. But there is a possibility that a person, having completed such courses, will experience real shock and stress if it turns out during the course that he was not born to be the leader.

Summarize

Summing up the above, we can say with confidence that the problem of leadership is very multifaceted. From a psychological point of view, a leader is a hostage to his irrepressible energy. It is most often unsafe for them to be, his life is full of unforeseen situations, he is always at the epicenter of events, but from this a real leader receives only satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment.

Praise to the fearless, world-rotating!

Leadership Psychology

III A specific phenomenon arising from the interaction of a leader and followers, at the intersection of two problems: the political psychology of an individual (leader) and the political psychology of groups, small and large.
Ш Relationships of dominance and subordination, influence and following in the system of interpersonal relations in a group.
Ш This is a designation of the exercise of the powers of power and influence within social group; that is, to function as a leader means to exercise leadership.
Ш The process of mutual influence between the leader and his followers in order to achieve group, organizational and social goals. Leadership can be autocratic, dictatorial, democratic, and so on.
Ø The process of influencing group members to achieve group goals.

What makes a person an effective leader? This question has long interested scientists. One of the most famous and simple answers comes from the theory of great people. Its supporters can be found among historians, political scientists, psychologists and sociologists. (supporters - Friedrich Nietzsche, Nikolai Mikhailovsky; opponents - Herbert Spencer.)

Great person theory states that a person who possesses a certain set of personality traits will be a good leader no matter the nature of the situation in which he finds himself. (The theory that a "leader" in society owes his social position, its character, personal qualities. For this theory, with a superficial attitude to history, there are many grounds, but, on the other hand, great people appear each in his own time, when one or another trend of historical development matures.)

The absolute embodiment of the theory of great people is the concept of a charismatic leader, before whom others bow down (from the Greek charizma - a gift, the grace of God, the mercy of the gods).

If this theory is correct, then there must be some key personality traits that make a person a great leader and an outstanding leader. What is it: high intelligence, charisma (charm), sociability, courage? Which is better: being an extrovert or an introvert? Should a ruler be absolutely ruthless? Or the best leaders are highly moral people? Or is it not the personality of the leader that matters most, but social characteristics the environment in which it was formed: family composition, education, previous occupations?

Psychologists, preoccupied with the question of the traits of a leader, have conducted many special studies. Some rather weak dependencies can indeed be found. But in general, we can say that strong relationships do not exist. Surprisingly, there appear to be very few personality traits directly associated with leadership effectiveness, and the correlation found is usually rather weak.

Here are some of the relationships found between individual personality characteristics and leadership.

1. Leaders usually have a slightly higher intelligence than their "flock". In no case should a candidate for leadership be separated from the average intellectual level of his followers. "Too smart" is inevitably rejected by the crowd. They are terribly far from the people ... A highbrow intellectual can take the place of the closest assistant, sage, secret adviser to the leader, and at best - gray cardinal. But the "path to the throne" is most often ordered to him.
2. Motivation of power. Many leaders are driven strong desire authorities. They have a strong concentration on their own person, concern for prestige, ambition, excess energy. Such leaders tend to be better socially prepared, more flexible and adaptable. Lust for power and the ability to intrigue help them long time to stay afloat".
3. A study of historical records showed that among the 600 known monarchs, the most famous were either very highly moral or extremely immoral personalities. From this we can assume that there are two paths to celebrity: one must either be a model of morality and virtue, or have the unscrupulousness of Machiavelli.
4. American psychologist Simonton found that US presidents who grew up in small families more often remained in history as great ones. politicians. For example, Franklin Roosevelt, who is considered one of the most prominent American presidents, was an only child. The remaining 97 characteristics, including personality traits, according to the results of this study, have nothing to do with a person's effectiveness as a leader.
5. There is a small positive relationship between a person's height and the likelihood that he will become a group leader. Once in the position of leader, people of high stature are more likely to become prominent historical figures. It can be argued that tall man slightly more likely to become a leader.
6. There is very little evidence that traits such as charisma (charisma), courage, dominance or self-confidence are indicators of a person's performance as a leader. psychology leader personality leader

In general, it is very difficult to predict how good a leader a person will be based on personality traits alone. Therefore, over time, researchers began to lean toward the view that it is not enough to consider personality traits alone. It is necessary to take into account the situation in which these traits are manifested. This does not mean that personality traits do not affect the chances of becoming a leader at all. One simply has to consider both the personality of the person and the nature of the situation in which he or she has to play a leadership role. According to this view, one does not have to be a "great person" to become an effective leader. Rather, you need to be the right person in the right place and at the right time.

A leader cannot be such always and everywhere. He can show his leadership qualities only in the right situation. For example, a business leader may be very successful in some situations and fail in others.

A corporate leader who wants to remain effective for the long term must be able to quickly adapt to changing circumstances and flexibly vary his behavior. Often a leader becomes fixated on one style of behavior, which, for example, turned out to be effective in the days of the company's formation, but is completely unsuitable for a period of intensive growth and holding the won positions. As a result, the firm eventually loses its ability to compete in the market.

There are several theories of leadership that focus attention simultaneously on the personal qualities of the leader and on the situation in which he acts. The best known is Fred Fiedler's situational theory of leadership. Fiedler's assumption is that leaders can be divided into two broad types. Representatives of the first are focused mainly on the task, the second - on the relationship. A task-oriented leader is more concerned with getting the job done right. Relationships and feelings of employees do not interest him. The potential advantages of this style are the speed of decision-making, subordinated to a common goal, severe control over subordinates. A relationship-oriented leader is primarily interested in what feelings and relationships arise among employees. He seeks to increase work efficiency by improving human relations: encourages mutual assistance, allows subordinates to take part in the development of important decisions, takes into account the mood and needs of employees, etc. Of course, later it was found that the style of some leaders can be oriented at the same time to work and to the person.

Task-oriented leaders are most effective in either very high or very low control situations. In the case of very high control, people are content and happy, everything goes smoothly, and there is no need to worry about the feelings of subordinates or their relationships. Here the leader who concentrates only on the task accomplishes the best results. When control of a situation is very low, a task-oriented leader is better able to organize the situation. Using his powers, he, with the help of orders and disciplinary actions can bring some order to a confusing and uncertain work environment.

The terms "leader" and "manager" are similar in meaning, so they are often used as synonyms. But they are not identical. Leadership is psychological phenomenon, whereas leadership is purely managerial. The leader spontaneously assumes a dominant position in the group with the explicit or implicit consent of the majority of its members. His influence and authority are mostly informal. A leader is a formal boss who holds an official position. Therefore, the actual leader of the group is not always its official leader and vice versa.

Used Books

1. E. Aronson, T.D. Wilson, R.M. Akert. (article)
2. Krichevsky R.L. Leadership psychology - St. Petersburg, 2007 - 544 p.

The psychology of leadership has been of interest to people for a long time and not by chance. Everyone wants to earn respect, but not everyone understands exactly how to do it.

There is a saying in Ukraine: "where there are three Ukrainians, there are four hetmans." But this applies not only to Ukraine. In any situation where there are more than two people, there is always a question of leadership. Those. even with the spontaneous formation of a certain group, someone takes on a more active role in it according to natural data, or he is simply forced by circumstances.

However, over time, people who have taken responsibility for making decisions begin to play a more significant role, their words are listened to with more respect, their words are given preference, they acquire a dominant position in the group. This is how the group members are divided into leaders and followers, that is, into leaders and followers.

Therefore, the question is open to this day: what exactly makes a person an effective leader?

Leadership Psychology: Theories

There are several theories of leadership:

The theory of heroes or great men- in ancient times, “divine” traits were attributed to a person, usually inherited from gods or kings. According to this theory, leaders have certain characteristics, such as the desire for responsibility, perseverance, initiative, lust for power, high levelIQ, remarkable appearance, , reliability, etc. etc.. However, studies have shown that leaders of different times and peoples differed among themselves in terms of selected qualities and manifested themselves differently depending on the situation.
The theory of the environment - the environment itself forms the necessary qualities in the chosen person, corresponding to the requirements of the environment. When a person is instilled by his environment with the idea that he should take over the reins of government, this is exactly the case when a person in a different environment easily relieves himself of the burden of responsibility, precisely because it is a burden.
Interaction-expectation theories- the leader in this theory is defined as the initiator of interaction in the group.
The theory of exchange - members of the group make a certain contribution, complement the existing ones and expect to receive some kind of "bonus income" from this.
situational theory- The effectiveness of the leader depends on how this leader is focused on the task that has arisen, to what extent he is able to control the group and influence it.

As you can see, the psychology of leadership really occupies the minds and puzzles for a long time and for many (since so many theories have already been invented). Each of these theories has both supporters and opponents, and no one has yet figured out how and why a person becomes a leader.

But what psychologists have achieved is to find out the common thing that hinders the development of leadership. Of course, this is not the party and the government, but our own cockroaches - internal blocks and barriers that were formed as a result of the past experience of ourselves and our ancestors, limiting beliefs, inhibiting habits.

Leadership Psychology: Limitations

Here are the most common restrictions:

1. Nebula and lack of clarity of goals. . Most often, a person fails due to the fact that he has a very weak idea of where and why he is going. Leaders don't usually suffer from this, they imagine the final destination, have at least a rough plan of how to get there, and, ideally, imagine intermediate milestones along the way. That is why they are following them.

If you want to be a leader, put in front of you. Try to mentally imagine the end result you want to achieve and write it down in as much detail as possible.

2. Expecting instant change and lack of patience. A huge oak grows out of a small acorn. And it doesn't happen in one day. If you are overly impulsive and want to achieve results as soon as possible, if you do not know how to wait patiently, you will not achieve your goals and will become a leader only for a short time. And even then, only if you are enough charismatic leader and know how to charge others with your energy.

Success feeds success. If you want to, remember that any change requires constant attention and realistic deadlines. Set realistic deadlines.

3. novelty. If your key value is safety and convenience, you will prefer them to any change, even if it is a change for the better. New situations will seem more dangerous than usual. If you want to become a leader, do not be afraid of change, learn to take smart risks, keeping your head on your shoulders.

4. Fear of discomfort. It is natural for people to avoid situations that can cause pain or fear, that can question their beliefs, shake their ego... It's natural.

But if you want to become a leader, you must understand and accept that you will have to face such situations more than once or twice - this is a normal process of developing inner freedom as one of the leadership qualities.

5. Fear of losing friends and loved ones. Friends and relatives are not always sympathetic to your efforts to change your life and yourself. The very fact that you have embarked on this path suggests that your priorities have changed, and as a result, the growth of your leadership competence may cause rejection by others - after all, they knew you in a completely different way.

But if you definitely want to change your life, it is inevitable. You cannot change from the inside, keeping your status intact in your environment. Do not worry, it is worth showing wisdom and understanding. Like-minded people will appear one way or another, their circle will change depending on the change in your values, but relatives are relatives. People who love you, your hearth, your rear. You shouldn't destroy it. It pays to be flexible.

6. Disbelief in one's own strengths. It grows from childhood (if there were overly demanding parents) or from past bad experiences. A sad state when, on the one hand, you want to try, and on the other, a person does not believe that he can succeed at least something.

Everyone is responsible for their own development. Striving for requires that you learn to take responsibility for the course of your own life. If you need the support of like-minded people - find them, it's not as difficult as it seems at first glance.

7. Lack of skills. Sometimes a person simply lacks elementary experience, skills in self-development. Most try to figure it out in theory by reading biographies or memoirs. famous people. Of course, learning from the experience of great leaders is very important to start changing your mindset. But their experience is their experience. They had a different upbringing, a different environment, different circumstances. The psychology of leadership cannot provide recipes that are always suitable for everyone. This is impossible in principle, because all people are very different.

An incredible number of theories have been created by various office rats to explain why people choose who to follow and how to get everyone to follow them. To understand the psychology of leadership, one must understand the main thing that leadership is not a controlled process, but behavior based on a subconscious level. True leadership is always subconscious. It is based on an innate mindset or on reflexes acquired as a result of long experience.

I want to describe the psychology of leadership from the reverse - I will compare the leader with five professions and describe how he differs from them. Some of these professions are directly related to leadership, some have little to do with it. I use these professions only to demonstrate the point of view more clearly.

Leadership Psychology - Shepherd

The very word leader means walking in front, the person being followed. If the “leader” pushes or forces others to do what he himself does not do, then this is no longer a leader, but a manager, or as I call him a “shepherd”. The shepherd drives the flock away from him standing behind, using kicks or shouts. Such a leader does not benefit from other leaders within the team. As soon as they appear, they detach into another flock, and it becomes very difficult to drive them.

The splits in many companies and the separation of a large part of the staff was due to the shepherd type of leadership.

True leaders do not push others forward, but lead by example. And since they do not control the process of leadership, but only behave in the most natural manner, leadership by example is the most powerful of leadership.

Psychology of leadership - guide

The guide shows everyone the road that he has already walked three hundred times and led others along it three hundred times. And the road is known and all surprises are provided. The leader is the one who walks the road for the first time, but at the same time leads everyone along with him. The leader sees what cannot be seen yet, believes in what is not yet, knows the path that he himself is walking for the first time or behaves so that his faith, vision and knowledge are not in doubt.

Companies that practice "guide" leadership, risk-free leadership learned from others, will always breathe down someone's back.

The Psychology of Leadership - Plumber

The plumber is called when the pipe leaked. They call him and show him what the problem is. The leader himself comes to where he thinks he needs to be. The leader is active and makes decisions without instructions, directions and requests from other people.

The psychology of leadership lies in the fact that it is not the people or the situation that force us to “lead”, but we show leadership at a time when we could sit out in quiet place dry place.

The Psychology of Leadership - Botanist

nerd spends most time with magnifier and microscope. He is looking for little things and inflates them to unprecedented sizes. The small detail matters more than the big picture.

The psychology of leadership says otherwise, a leader is a person who sees the whole picture. It is not a single detail or event that is important, but the connections between all the details.

Psychology of leadership - confectioner

The pastry chef appeals to our primitive desires to fill the belly with delicious calories. He is not very interested in the long-term effect that his products have on his customers. The leader addresses lofty eternal values.

This principle of leadership psychology is used by Google. He digitizes books to prevent deforestation, and Michael Jackson became the king of pop when he turned his songwriting talent to save the world and gave tear-jerking interviews about his concern for animals and children.

All the above qualities are inherent in leaders at a subconscious level and are not controlled by them at will at the moment when they need to be manifested. Leadership is a reflex. Congenital or acquired, which must be developed and strengthened day by day.

52. Leader. Leadership. Types of leadership.

Leadership- this is ability to influence on individuals and groups, directing their efforts to achieve the goals of the organization.

Leader- this is face in any group (organization), which enjoys great recognized authority. He has influence, which manifests itself as control influences.

In psychology, various classifications of leaders are accepted:

By the nature of the activity (universal leader and situational leader);

By direction of activity (emotional leader and business leader), etc.

Types of leadership:

Formal is the process of influencing people from the position of their position;

Informal is the process of the leader's influence on people with the help of his abilities, authority, trust, skills and other resources.

The leader can be at the same time the formal (official) leader of the group.

3.1 Basic leadership theories

Leadership is the ability to influence individuals and groups of people to induce them to work towards achieving goals.

There are three approaches to identifying significant factors for effective leadership: approach from the standpoint of personal qualities; behavioral approach; situational approach.

Approach from the standpoint of personal qualities. According to the personality theory of leadership, also known as the theory of great people, the best leaders have a set of personal qualities common to all. However, a comprehensive review of research in the field of leadership concluded that a person does not become a leader only because he possesses a certain set of personal characteristics. Despite hundreds of studies, consensus about a set of qualities that certainly distinguish a great leader, it was not formulated.

Behavioral Approach. The behavioral approach has created the basis for the classification of leadership styles and behavior styles (behavior with subordinates on a continuum from autocratic to liberal style). According to the behavioral approach to leadership, effectiveness is determined not by the personal qualities of the leader, but rather by his manner of behavior in relation to subordinates. Therefore, when describing this approach, the concept of "leadership style" (manager's behavior) is analyzed and such important management categories as autocratic style, democratic style, work-oriented style, and person-oriented style are considered.

situational approach. Neither the personality approach nor the behavioral approach were able to identify a logical relationship between the personal qualities or behavior of the leader, on the one hand, and efficiency, on the other. This does not mean that personal qualities and behavior do not matter to management. On the contrary, they are essential components of success. However, more recent research has shown that additional factors can play a decisive role in leadership effectiveness. These situational factors include the needs and personal qualities of subordinates, the nature of the task, the requirements and influences of the environment, and the information available to the manager.

Types of Leadership

The simplest and most widely used classification of leadership in an organization is highlighting his roles:

1. business leadership. It is characteristic of groups that arise on the basis of production goals. It is based on such qualities as high competence, the ability to solve organizational problems better than others, business authority, experience, etc. Business leadership has the strongest influence on leadership effectiveness.

2. Emotional Leadership. It arises in socio-psychological groups on the basis of human sympathies, the attractiveness of interpersonal communication. An emotional leader inspires confidence in people, radiates warmth, inspires confidence, relieves psychological tension, creates an atmosphere of psychological comfort.

3. situational leadership. Strictly speaking, by its nature it can be both business and emotional. However, his hallmark is instability, temporal limitation, connection only with a certain situation. The situational leader can lead the group only in a certain situation, for example, in case of general confusion during a fire.

There are other classifications of leadership depending on the type of leader. Is not it. Umansky highlights six types (roles) of a leader:

organizing leader(performs the function of group integration);

leader-initiator(leads in solving new problems, puts forward ideas);

emotional leader(dominates in shaping the mood of the group);

erudite leader(distinguished by the vastness of knowledge);

standard leader(is the center of emotional attraction, corresponds to the role of a "star", serves as a model, ideal);

master leader, craftsman(specialist in some kind of activity).

The typology of leadership proposed by prof. B. D. Parygin. It is based on three different criteria: first, by content; secondly, in style; third, by the nature of the leader's activity.

inspirational leaders who develop and offer a program of behavior;

· executive leaders, organizers of the execution of an already given program;

· leaders who are both inspirers and organizers.

The style is:

Authoritarian. This is a leader demanding monopoly power. He single-handedly defines and formulates goals and ways to achieve them. Communication between group members is kept to a minimum and passes through the leader or under his control.

Democratic. This style, according to most researchers. It appears to be more preferable. Such leaders are usually tactful, respectful, objective in dealing with group members. work through participation in management, however, it takes much more time to make decisions than with an authoritarian style.

Passive (Liberal). Such a leader is characterized by the absence of praise, censure. Offers. He tries to avoid responsibility by shifting it to his subordinates. The installation of such a leader is, if possible, an inconspicuous stay on the sidelines.

According to the nature of the activity, there are:

· universal type, i.e. Constantly showing the qualities of a leader;

situational, showing the qualities of a leader only in a certain situation.

In addition to those mentioned, it is often used classification of leaders depending on their perception by the group. According to this criterion, the following types of leaders are distinguished:

1) "one of us". This type of leader does not particularly stand out among the members of the group. He is perceived as "the first among equals" in a certain area, the most successful or by chance, found himself in a leadership position. In general, according to the group, he lives, rejoices, suffers, makes the right decisions, makes mistakes, etc., like all other members of the team;

2) "the best of us." A leader belonging to this type stands out from the group in many (business, moral, communication and other) parameters and is generally perceived as a role model;

3) "good man". A leader of this type is perceived and valued as a real embodiment of the best moral qualities: decency, goodwill, attentiveness to others, readiness to help, etc.;

4) "servant". Such a leader always strives to act as a spokesman for the interests of his adherents and the group as a whole, focuses on their opinion and acts on their behalf.