Table of Contents |
In the last Challenge, we described perspectives on leadership from different cultures and eras. In the next two Challenges, we will take a more academic approach to leadership as a concept. That is, the rise of leadership studies as a discipline began in the 1800s.
Leadership studies is an interdisciplinary concept that includes management, sociology, psychology, education, history, and philosophy to prepare people for leadership positions. It draws inspiration, insight, and wisdom from many fields of study. Remember, leadership, at its core, involves guiding and inspiring others toward a shared goal, but it can be viewed from many perspectives, including those of academic disciplines. Leadership for a psychologist will be viewed through the study of the mind, while a sociologist will view it through the study of groups, communities, and cultures.
However, leadership studies is fundamentally an applied science, developing knowledge through formal research and applying it to real and practical contexts. The questions that guide leadership studies are practical, such as:
The popular concept of evolution is “becoming better over time,” but a more accurate definition of its original, biological meaning is “adapting to the environment.” This is the view we should take of leadership theory—it has changed over time because the world has changed, and as an applied science, it needed to adapt to the world around it. However, it is fair to say that the understanding of leadership has deepened over time, since the modern views on leadership are more nuanced and complex than they were 200 years ago.
When we look back through history, it is important to distinguish between ideas of leadership and the more systematic body of thought we now call leadership theory. Ideas of leadership are the assumptions, beliefs, and cultural narratives that different societies have held about what makes a leader legitimate, admirable, or effective. They often appear in myths, religious texts, political treatises, and popular stories, and they reflect the values and power structures of their time rather than empirical testing.
Leadership theory, by contrast, is a more recent development, emerging from fields such as psychology, sociology, and management studies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with the explicit aim of analyzing leadership systematically and subjecting claims to evidence-based scrutiny. This section explores the ways historical ideas of leadership—rooted in tradition, philosophy, and cultural ideals—both shaped and diverged from the formal theories that dominate contemporary discussions of leadership today.
As you will learn in the next tutorial, the first book on leadership is considered by many to be On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic by Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle. This book originated "great man theory," as it was called at the time, the belief that history is best understood by the study of a few significant individuals who are born to do extraordinary things. We use the historic term here, but will refer to as "great leader theory" in subsequent tutorials.
Carlyle also coined the term "hero worship," the high regard that everyone else (those not born to lead) should have for those individuals. From this book, the first trait theories of leadership emerged, the belief that qualities of leadership were ones people are born with.
The inspiration for the book was Napoleon, the military leader of the French Revolution who later became emperor. In Napoleon’s era (and for many centuries preceding it), leadership was associated with national power and identity. These powers were believed to be innate, or present at birth—a kind of genius that was often inherited through families of royalty. You either had it, or you didn’t. In short, in a world that believed in a divine spark and fate, there was little thought to “training” people to lead; the belief was that they would lead because it was their destiny.
You might consider how long people have viewed leadership as an inherent quality present at birth. This perspective frequently connected leadership to royal lineage, suggesting that the ability to rule was passed down through families, not acquired through experience or learning.
IN CONTEXT: THE SUN KING
The reign of King Louis XIV of France, known as the "Sun King," perfectly illustrates this belief. His contemporaries and Louis himself believed his authority stemmed from a divine right, an innate gift from God that made him a natural leader. His power was seen as an intrinsic part of his being, a genius inherited through his royal bloodline. This perception meant that his leadership was accepted as legitimate simply because of who he was born to be, rather than what he had achieved. He was thus able to live a life of extreme luxury and excess, and became a symbol for the French Revolution to fight against after his reign. You can see how this idea, that leadership is a birthright, shaped the political landscape and the understanding of power for centuries.
In the United States of America, leadership both followed and challenged the traditions of Europe. America rejected royalty and the idea of inheritance, but in making a military general the first president, they showed the same associations of leadership with military success and national identity. The key difference was the idea that anyone (at the time, meaning any white man) could grow up to be president; the ideology of “the self-made individual” is a large part of the American identity. For this reason, the ideal of a leader became a person with a “rags to riches” story.
For generations, American culture has celebrated a particular type of leader: the self-made individual who achieves success through sheer determination and hard work.
Like their predecessors, people of this era were unlikely to think of leadership as an exclusive set of skills that people could learn, but the notions of who could become a leader changed.
EXAMPLE
Perhaps America’s most famous leader is Abraham Lincoln. A controversial figure in his time, Lincoln was president during the Civil War and led the Union forces to quash the rebellion, keeping the country together and ending the cruel practice of slavery. Lincoln also epitomized the “self-made individual,” as he rose from humble beginnings and was largely self-taught.The idea of trait theory persisted until the early 20th century, when, along with industrialization, science began to expand into new territories, including organizational behavior and industrial psychology, both aimed at applying the principles of psychology to the workplace. This was borne not only out of the economic imperative to maximize efficiency and reap profits, but also by the Cold War with the Soviet Union, a long period where there was no military conflict, but both countries tried to prove that their way was best by dominance in every realm: education, science, space exploration, and even sports.
These scientific views approach leadership as a set of behaviors, the way leaders act on a day-to-day basis, but also as situational, with different contexts requiring different kinds of leadership.
EXAMPLE
The views of leadership, like society in general, continued to change throughout the 20th century. The Civil Rights movement and Women’s Rights movement challenged the traditional hierarchies, not only who was at the top, but how they ruled, and whether one person should have so much power.
The leadership theories that followed expanded the idea of behavioral theories by judging that leadership wasn’t just a set of behaviors or actions with measurable outcomes, but changed from context to context. People in leadership studies took a more holistic view of organizations and leadership in the context of the whole, and how organizations function in an environment.
EXAMPLE
Ella Baker (1903–1986) was a key figure in the Civil Rights Movement who championed a collaborative approach to leadership. Rather than emphasizing charismatic, top-down authority, Baker believed lasting change came from empowering ordinary people to lead within their communities. She worked with the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference but was most influential in helping found the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which practiced decentralized, group-centered leadership.
Baker argued that movements are strongest when leadership is shared, not concentrated in a single individual. She focused on developing others’ capacity to organize, especially young activists. Her philosophy—captured in the idea that “strong people don’t need strong leaders”—highlights leadership as a collective process, making her a powerful example of collaborative leadership in social movements.
Leadership has continued to transform into the 21st century, and one force that has continued to challenge the traditional notion of leadership is social media. By giving a collective voice to women, people of color, and previously voiceless low-level employees, social media led to increased visibility and accountability for executives. Some previously revered leaders, like Harvey Weinstein of Miramax, were not only outed after transgressions became public but also imprisoned. Leaders are now expected to care for all stakeholders—not just shareholders, but staff, customers, and anyone impacted by their business. The ideal leader builds relationships and nurtures a positive work environment. In short, the leader can be seen as a servant to the company and all its stakeholders. Of course, leaders of big businesses are still powerful and well compensated, but their roles and the ideals they strive to live up to have changed dramatically.
EXAMPLE
As you will see in the next tutorial, Thomas Carlyle wrote that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.” However, we could reverse this and say that the biographies of great leaders are but a study of history. Each era defines what leaders should do and what “greatness” means, and then selects the people who can rise to the occasion.
Source: This tutorial was authored by Sophia Learning. Please see our TERMS OF USE.
REFERENCES
