Complexities

What is it that makes a good leader? Is a good leader the same thing as being a successful leader? Is there anything as a bad leader? How many times and under what circumstances is a leader allowed to fail before he can be called a failure? Those are not easy questions because we are dealing with a concept that has correctly been called “the most complex and multifaceted phenomenon to which organizational and psychological research has been applied,” (van Seters and Field, (1990). However, these are important questions for those of us living in the twenty-first century because leadership will become more and more important as society becomes more and more complex.

Our interest in leadership began by focusing on individual in world history (mostly men) whom we considered to be great. Drawing on the lives of individuals like Muhammad, Shakespeare, Luther, Rousseau, and Napoleon, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle (1888) thought that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.” He was joined in that view by American scholar Frederick Adams Woods (1913) whose book, The Influence of Monarchs: Steps in a New Science of History, examined 386 rulers from the 12th century till the French revolution in the late 18th century and the influence of their lives on historic events. These and other Great Man views of history were later incorporated into what has been called the Personality Era of leadership theories. They have also had an inordinate influence on our contemporary understanding of leadership itself.

It is important to note that the Personality Era in our evolution of leadership theories does not begin with the leadership histories of the great men whose lives are the focus of that era. These great men were not aware of the leadership theory with which they have been affiliated. Circumstances had prevailed upon them and they heeded the call to leadership. They were not proponents of any theory of leadership.

Neither were the historians and thinkers like Bowden (1927) and Galton (1869) who would, years later, examine their lives and their work. It is interesting that the origins of the Personality Era of leadership theory do not coincide with the period with which that theory is identified. Proponents of the academic theory did not study the conditions under which those leaders became leaders. They did not study the lives of other individuals in that period that did not go on to be leaders or why those great men did become great. They may have given more credence to the views of Spencer (The Study of Sociology, 1896) who countered Carlyle by suggesting the emergence of a great man on the stage of history “depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown…. Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.”

It did not take long for other academics to recognize that personality was not a sufficient explanation for the leadership prowess of these great men. If leadership was related to personality one would expect that notable leaders would have similar personalities. However, it was obvious from the lives of contemporary leaders that successful leadership is associated with a range of differing personality types. There was also a problem for practicing managers because it is extremely difficult to imitate the personality of another individual. It was necessary to sever the link between leadership and particular individuals. A new theory was proposed which focused on identifying a number of traits that one could adopt to enhance leadership skills.

As before, no effort was made to formally define leadership for research purposes. From that point onwards leadership theories have been focused on leadership styles rather than on leadership. The purpose has not been to improve leadership but to improve leadership styles. Unfortunately, many have conflated the two and have tended to confuse leadership style with leadership.