The article challenges the manner at which the traditional ways the history of leadership thought and practice has been framed and articulated, and at the same time, it tries to widen and enhance perspectives on leadership history. On the onset, the author presents an assessment of these out-of-date accounts of leadership history. The article does not aim at presenting the traditional accounts of leadership since they are well-recognized by all leadership students, neither does the author focus on presenting a comprehensive report on the growth of leadership thought. Instead, the article pinpoints the characteristics of the traditional historical accounts and presents the associated weaknesses. The author is delighted and motivated to recognize the sources of leadership thought and practice that that are disregarded in these traditional accounts. It is also important to appreciate that the author has included the value of traditional accounts for leadership history and their role towards molding the understanding and practice of leadership.
The article fails to offer an extensive dialog with all the ignored traditional sources. Despite the hurdle, the author succeeded in submitting several examples of the ignored sources within the context. The examples presented have assisted in stimulating the debate about the benefits of other sources towards leadership thought. The article explains the complexities associated with the understanding of the history of leadership thought but offers a platform for readers to understand it. The author tries to focus on the traditional sources with an aim to strengthen the argument of leadership thought. In the end, the article closes by discussing the impact of changing the manner at which we refer to the history of leadership theory for inquiry, practice and research (Grogan 14).
Likes and dislikes of the article
In my opinion, the author presents a comprehensive and precise discussion that is detailed to the point and backed up with evidence. Every part discussed is well informed, and also, it has a consistent flow of ideas and key issues. I also like the article since it broadens my understanding of leadership without much strain of getting what is described by the author. Furthermore, the use of alternative sources widens our knowledge of the leadership field in a constructive manner. The enrichment of traditional perspectives by other is a good thing for the article. On the other hand, I dislike the article as the author fails to provide all ignored sources but picks out a few of them. I have a problem with the criteria that might have been used by the author to decide the frequently ignored perspectives. It is also significant to note that the strengths associated with the article outweigh the weaknesses; therefore, it is an excellent piece of research.
Questions that the article leaves me with and how to answer them
I am left wondering the extent at which the frequently ignored perspectives combines with the traditional perspectives to broaden our awareness in the history of leadership thought. I believe the author could have addressed these concerns by ensuring that he integrates more content of the sources that have been ignored for the long period. My other concern is to whether the traditional history of leadership thought mold leadership in a positive way, especially amongst students. The concerns could have been addressed if the author provided examples of how the leadership students have benefited from learning about the topic.
Work cited
Grogan, Margaret. "The development of leadership thought and practice in the United States." The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (2005): 362.
