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.
1. Dialogue This!
