Conceptions of Leadership and Knowledge, Part 2: From Great “Man”3 Thinking to Scientific Management to the Concept of Transformational Leadership Overview of this Section of the Course In this section of the course, and, in fact, in all of the remaining sections, the focus is on the academic/professional field of Leadership Studies. This section focuses, in part, on twentieth-century scholars’ attempts to make both the study of leadership and the study of the phenomena and issues leaders confront scientific. It also emphasizes that earlier methods for studying leadership did not completely disappear when a formal field of Leadership Studies was established. As noted above, early ideas about leadership were developed, in large part, through the informal and formal study of history and, more specifically, by studying historical figures that were believed to be especially instrumental in shaping historical events. More often than not, these historical figures were male. Thoughtful people now understand that this focus on males resulted from cultural bias and contextual factors rather than from any innate superiority that males have in exercising leadership. Unfortunately, historians’ work not only reflected the biases of the larger culture that had socialized them; historical studies of “great men” also reinforced cultural assumptions. Historical studies of “great men,” for instance, reinforced problematic assumptions about the linkage between gender and the proclivity to lead. They also implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) defined leadership skills in masculine terms. Historical studies of “great men” also reinforced the even more basic notion that leadership is a property of individuals and results from personal characteristics. This notion—often characterized as the great man theory of leadership—still influences our thinking today. One example is our proclivity to think (and talk) about presidents rather than presidencies. The former notion directs our attention to the personal characteristics and quirks of the individuals who occupy or have occupied the oval office; the latter concept normally expands our focus to include not only presidential staffs and other appointees, but also contextual factors including the standard operating procedures and organizational cultures of presidential administrations. As was suggested above, the field of Leadership Studies was created, in large part, to move beyond the great man theory of leadership by making the study of leadership scientific. Bernard Bass and the other academics that helped shape the emerging leadership studies field, for instance, attempted to develop instruments that could be used to systematically measure different approaches to leadership and their effects. Bass and others then used these instruments to systematically test hypotheses about leadership and generate knowledge that, presumably, could be used to educate leaders and select those exhibited the sorts of traits and behaviors associated with success to fill leadership positions. Those who established the interdisciplinary field of leadership studies also 3
The sexist language employed here reflects the historical thinking rather than the instructors’ beliefs.
5