One of the reasons the Great Man Theory of Leadership appeals is that it absolves us of responsibility for developing leadership capabilities more broadly. (Kofman and Senge, 1995) Viewed systemically, there is a "shifting the burden" structure: a perceived need for leadership (a symptom) can be met by developing capacities throughout the organization (the fundamental solution) or by relying on a heroic leader (the symptomatic solution). Success in finding a heroic leader reinforces beliefs in the group’s own powerlessness, thus making the fundamental solution more difficult.

On the same theme, Wheatley and Frieze say we assume: (i) leaders have the answers: they know what to do; (ii) people [will] do what they are told: they just have to be given good plans and instructions; and (iii) high risk requires high control: as situations grow more complex and challenging, power needs to shift to the top (and be entrusted to those, the leaders, who know what to do). (Wheatley and Frieze, 2011)

References

Kofman, F. & Senge, P. (1995). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. In Chawla, S. and Renesch, J. (Eds). Learning organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow’s workplace. Productivity Press, Inc.

Wheatley, M & Frieze, D. (2011). Leadership in the age of complexity: From hero to host. Resurgence Magazine, Winter, 1–5 [online], retrieved from https://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/Leadership-in-Age-of-Complexity.pdf

One of the reasons the Great Man Theory of Leadership appeals is that it absolves us of responsibility for developing leadership capabilities more broadly. (Kofman and Senge, 1995) Viewed systemically, there is a "shifting the burden" structure: a perceived need for leadership (a symptom) can be met by developing capacities throughout the organization (the fundamental solution) or by relying on a heroic leader (the symptomatic solution). Success in finding a heroic leader reinforces beliefs in the group’s own powerlessness, thus making the fundamental solution more difficult.

On the same theme, Wheatley and Frieze say we assume: (i) leaders have the answers: they know what to do; (ii) people [will] do what they are told: they just have to be given good plans and instructions; and (iii) high risk requires high control: as situations grow more complex and challenging, power needs to shift to the top (and be entrusted to those, the leaders, who know what to do). (Wheatley and Frieze, 2011)

References

Kofman, F. & Senge, P. (1995). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. In Chawla, S. and Renesch, J. (Eds). Learning organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow’s workplace. Productivity Press, Inc.

Wheatley, M & Frieze, D. (2011). Leadership in the age of complexity: From hero to host. Resurgence Magazine, Winter, 1–5 [online], retrieved from https://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/Leadership-in-Age-of-Complexity.pdf

There is hardly a singular angle to this question. Political leadership is different from organizational leadership (Hertley and Benington, 2011). While acknowledging that levels of leadership differ, it is important to note that the leader-follower dynamics and outcomes are shaped by a range of factors which include, but not limited to, orientation of the leader and followers, leadership style, internal and external influences, and expectations. The ability of a leader to maintain appropriate perspective when dealing with issues and engaging followers is crucial to stimulating commitment and loyalty in followers, as well as in mitigating leadership failure. Bligh (2011) argues that followers play very significant roles in determining leadership effectiveness or failure; the followers values, perception and reaction to leaders performance influences leadership behavior. However, transformational leaders are able to achieve inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and idealized influence (Bass, 1985, John, etal, 2012; Daudu, 2014), thereby helping leaders and followers to attain greater levels of motivation, productivity and success.

Fascinating question, suggesting different points of view! I will share an opinion on the issue of business organizations. Under the conditions of the modern business environment, the paradigm of leadership is changing - from an individual] it increasingly turns into a collective one. Under the improved organization, the new management style requires assessment of the importance and team building and team spirit, the acquisition of more coaching skills, the promotion of loyalty and the inspiration of employees. Modern leaders lead teams, projects, team networks. In the context of modern theories, leaders and their followers do not differ significantly from one another. Amar (Amar, 2001) describes the concepts of leadership and those for followers as interconnected and inseparable from each other. Goleman, Boytazis and McKay (Goleman, Boytazis & McKee, 2002) define the concept of followers as the mirror reflection of leadership. Thus, the theory of "in- formal", " dispersive "," unexpected "leadership that he appeals to creating a form of command lightened by formalities; within which the leader must abstain from the formal hierarchy specifics of the organization. The idea is employees, regardless of their level the organizational hierarchy they are in may be able to exercise leadership features that enhance the overall development of the organization. Leadership is transformed from an individual characteristic into a new paradigm through which is redefined as a collective practice (Raelin, 2003: 5). This paradigm corresponds directly to the empowerment that encourages the creativity of the members of the organization. Each of them is inspired to acts as a leader in the scope of its competencies. Raelin determines the organization that introduces and applies the new leadership paradigm, such as "Leaderful", defined by collective and equal leadership. .

Leadership does not exist in isolation, it is mutual process between leaders and followers; corruption of leadership does affect general public, and prevalence of corruption in society makes it hard for honest leadership to work honestly for their nation's progress.

Thank you all for your response. You know, most of the times in the argument and discuss of leadership issues, people tend to look at the "Blame taker" as the only component side of the coin. There is more to leadership in followership than there is to leadership alone.

Article Leadership in Africa: The Heart of the Matter