Leadership

Napoleon once said: Every French soldier carries a marshal's baton in his knapsack. It means the soldier who doesn't want to be a general is not a good soldier. But how to be a qualified general, what skills he has to master to be a general, he didn’t state clearly. However, in the last, with in the famous battle of Waterloo, after suffering a defeat that would end his military career, he was exiled to the island of St. Helena and kept prisoner till his death on 5 May 1821, supposedly by stomach cancer, but suspected by many as death by poisoning. His career was ended, but the controversies and lessons he brought were never creased. Was he a good leader in army? If so, why he would fail, what were the differences between leadership and management? These are the puzzles I want to solve from the four sessions of leadership course.
From the course; I learn that leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes. It involves several elements, like, influence, followers, shared purpose, change, personal responsibility and integrity, intention. Here, we have to pay attention to the word “influence”, it means that the relationship among people is not passive; however, also inherent in this definition is the concept that influence is multidirectional and noncoercive. So from this point of view, Napoleon was a good leader in terms of making people follow him. He was a brilliant military leader in that he knew how to win battles, and the human psychology that leads to military and political success. But to become a good leader, it is far not enough to only master the power of influence. Napoleon was still not perfect, but in the world who is perfect?
In the past, I was easily confused with “management” and “leadership”. As management can be defined as the attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and