International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume IV, Issue II, February 2020|ISSN 2454-6186 www.rsisinternational.org Page 69 Leadership and National Development Christopher Alexander Udofia (Ph.D) Department of Philosophy, Akwa Ibom State University, Nigeria Abstract:- This paper with the title, Leadership and National Development is saddled with the task of undertaking an expository analysis of the concepts of Leadership and Development. In executing this task, the work will unveil and discuss the various theoretical paradigms that have been articulated by scholars on those concepts. The fundamental thesis of this discourse is that there is a correlation between the quality of leadership and the quality of development. The work justifies the thesis by employing the East Asian development model to demonstrate that qualitative leadership produces qualitative development. The failure of leadership and the consequent ill-deveopment in Nigeria is extensively discussed as a proof of the relationship between bad leadership and ill- development. The work finally recommends some modalities which if effected can redeem Nigeria out of the leadership quagmire and reposition the country on the path of authentic development. I. THEORITICAL DISAMBIQUATIONS ON THE CONCEPT OF LEADERSHIP n contemporary times, leadership as a concept and an art has acquired a flair of ubiquitousness and has been intensively celebrated and discussed in both global and local arenas. Unfortunately, the unyielding paradox that trails this frenzy about leadership is that it does not correspondingly lead to the disambiguation of the largely amorphous nature of leadership. Pervasively, the intensifying hysteria on leadership appears to correspond with an escalating conflation of the ambiguities and obscurities that surround leadership. Leadership in this context can be amply described as one of the most hysterically celebrated and yet the most anomalously comprehended phenomenon. Etymologically, the term lead” according Emmanuel Eyo and Christopher Udofia in their Leadership Philosophies: Insights and Decision Theories, A Conspectus on Leadership Study Series is a derivative of the old English “Laeden” which relate to the act and art of guiding, conducting, taking decisions etc. (156). Most of the theories of leadership surveyed in this research are excerpted with necessary modifications from the monumental work on leadership done by Emmanuel Eyo and Christopher Udofia cited above. Great Person /Trait Theories of Leadership: These are the earliest theories of leadership which are premised on the thesis that the genetic makeup and architecture of a leader (Great man or woman) is characteristically different from others. Since genes determine the traits and natural propensities of a person, the theory assumed that the traits of a leader are different from those of others. The belief that leaders are born and not made was prevalent in much of the early nineteenth century and early twentieth century (1900 – 1940). The monumental 1869 study done by Galton on the role of heredity, the 1880 work by William James about the great men of history and Thomas Carlyle‟s work on Heroe and Hero Worship were premised on the assumptive proposition that innate qualities inherent in some people actify the emergence of a person as a leader irrespective of the context. The operative theoretical rationale that instigated investigators to research about leadership traits during this period was that since certain traits distinguished the great men (in those days most of the leaders were men) and known great leaders of history from their followers then existing leaders in the political, industrial and religious realms should possess these traits. These traits therefore were considered as the barometric yardsticks for leadership. Trait is used here in an inclusive sense to refer to people‟s general characteristics, capacities, motives and patterns of behaviour. The first person who correlated the different findings of researchers and published a review of one hundred and twenty four studies and surveys done on the different biographies of historical great men, to distil their leadership traits, was Ralph M. Stogdill. According to Eyo and Udofia (183-185) Leaders differ from non-leaders because of the unequalled drive for achievement, unparalleled level of ambition, unweathering energy, unrelenting tenacity and high level of initiative in decision making, action and proactiveness. Leaders are also singularized by the traits of leadership motivation which is palpable in their burning passion to lead, accept responsibilities, win, be in authority and possess power as a means to positive influence. Power is an expendable means not an ultimate end in the perception of a good leader. A good leader distinguishes between personalized power motive and socialized power motive. The former is meant for egoistic self-aggrandizement and the later for altruistic purposes. Another set of sublime traits that effervesce a leader is that of integrity and honesty. Integrity has to do with the quality of moral rectitude of person while honesty is the level of the leader‟s consistency with truth. A leader cannot be said to be honest and of integrity if h/er dealings are shrouded in secrecy and murky in nature. Transparency is as well a coordinate value for integrity and honesty. Integrity delimits the leader from advancing beyond the morally permissible even when it is legally permissible, honesty compels the leader not to utter words that are at variance with truth and transparency forbids the possibility of illegitimate concealment in the leader ‟s dealings. A leader in this respect is a moral entity and custodian of virtues. The extent of a leader‟s abidance to these moral scruples determines the level of truth, credibility and confidence that the followers repose on him. I