Slide 2 of 28
Notes:
Leadership studies historically went hand-in-hand with studies of elites: political, financial, military, aristocratic, or cultural elites. Leadership was considered an art, for which some fortunate people had an inbuilt genius; the rest of us could only engage in admiring post-game analyses.
During the Great Depression, US social psychologists found in studying groups that democratic leadership was not only possible, it was more effective. Thus a more egalitarian view of leadership evolved from the elitest (and, in today’s view, sexist) “great man” view. Unfortunately, research indicated that patterns of leadership behavior in small groups was not transferable to large groups, or organizations.
During WWII, people began to ask what traits leaders needed to win the war; however, research produced no consensus on key traits productive of effective leadership. In the 1950’s, Stogdill compared results of various traits studies, finding them contradictory and inconclusive.
Consequently, in the 50’s and 60’s Stogdill and others tried to conceptualize leadership as behavior, but could not isolate key behavioral patterns that made a difference.
(This slide/page and subsequent slide/pages are drawn directly from Rost’s excellent summary and critique of the history of leadership studies, theories, and definitions.)
