What does it mean, however, to possess leadership skills or to be a good leader? Surprisingly, there is little consensus about the concept of leadership or the criteria for good leadership; indeed, there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are scholars doing leadership research. So how do we approach a phenomenon that is apparently so messy and ambiguous? From a critical communication perspective, we must start by recognizing that leadership is not simply an objective phenomenon, the facts of which need to be established so we know definitively how to be a good leader.

From this critical perspective, we’d argue that leadership research is less about establishing a body of scientific evidence and more about perpetuating an industry that thrives on creating a culture where everyone is convinced that strong leadership skills are the answer to a lot of problems. From the perspective of the trait approach, leaders are born rather than made.

New leadership has been used as an umbrella term referring to a host of different orientations to leadership. These themes include the following, which encourage people to question the very idea of leadership as commonly understood: A view of leadership as symbolic action, where the leader is conceived as a manager of meaning.

The emergence of transformational leadership and a neo-charismatic approach. This signals the return of the heroic great man, but in a different organizational context. A greater focus on followership, where the role of the follower in leadership processes is more thoroughly examined. A shift away from the formal aspects of leadership to a study of leadership as an everyday, informal process.

A view of leadership as a socially constructed phenomenon rather than an objectively existing set of traits, behaviors, or personality types. These new approaches to leadership shape how we look at influence.