The Evolution of Leadership Study

Today we're going to take a look at how academic thought about the field of leadership has changed over the years.  One of the first things that new students to our Master of Science in Leadership program find out is that Academia hasn't had just one approach examining what makes for a great leader.

First, the Great Man

This is where most people still seem to be when it comes to thinking about leaders.  It is summed up in the old adage Great leaders are born, not made.  The idea, popular in the 1800's, was simply that great leaders were great men (remember, this theory pre-dated gender equity); that is, they were born with a certain set of inherent traits that propelled them to great feats and thus into the history books. 

Just as history has been said to be written by the victors (that is, after the fact from the point of view of those to who triumped), this theory looked at those who emerged as leaders with 20/20 hindsight and ascribed their qualitites as those of great leaders.  Hmmm... does that sound tautological to anyone else?

Next, Combinations of the Right Traits

Next it was considered that it wasn't simply inherent traits in the individual that contributed to effective leadership, but those that could be learned as well.  Perhaps one was born with oratory acumen, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't possible to learn how to become a better speaker still.  No longer was it left to genetics one's chances of becoming a great leader.  Now one could strive, learn, and grow to increase one's skill in certain traits associated with effective leadership.

Finally, Situational Leadership

While recognizing that leadership traits could be learned as well as inherent in the personality was a step forward, academia was still re-examining its approach to the field.  It was recognized that a great leader in one context (say, the battlefield) was not necessarily a great leader in another (democratic politics).  A great prison warden would not necessarily be as effective as the head of the local Girl Scouts troop.  Thus was incorporated the approach of Situational Leadership, that is, the recognition that it is important to look at the context in which one is applying her skills to determine her effectiveness as a leader as much as the skills themselves. 

Context means not only the situation (the environmental factors) but the followers as well: who they were and how they operated.  Therefore leadership is now seen as a function of traits (inherent and learned), characteristics of the followers, and the nature of the situation.

And what traits are associated with effective leadership?

• Capacity (this one leans towards the "you're born with it or you aren't")
• Achievement (a mix of inherent and learned skill/effort)
• Responsibility
• Participation
• Status

As you can see, these traits nicely mix those you are born with, and those you can improve through effort and will.

What's the next step in the study of what it takes to become a great leader?  I'm not sure but our MSL students will be some of the first to know and apply that knowledge out in the real world!