This post, Pt. II, is for you if you want to learn about leadership studies and don’t know the evolution of its predominant theories from the 1800s to the 2000s. Knowing where we are, and where we need to go, in my mind can’t happen unless we know where we came from.
I went off the deep end a few posts ago on a history and practical guide for addressing workplace burnout. The history of the US through the ‘60s and ‘70s and how all the precursors to burnout coalesced in a fate-bound story wrapped my attention for days. What fascinated me is the cyclicality of the world (there’s a couple puns in there somewhere) and how these topics seem to lose focus then get rediscovered with even more vigor as we move through history’s cycles.
The notes I got from my editor were sassy and made me feel guilty for indulging. Alas! She’s right. I use too much jargon and I indulge in the story, something I’m critical of others for. I like actionable takeaways. Knowledge without application is an edgeless knife!
I aim to split up Daniel-length posts into smaller, bite-sized morsels. In Pt. I, “What the Fu$% is Leadership,” we sampled an array of definitions that I hand-picked from philosophy and pop culture to lay the groundwork for today’s post.
Pt. II starts at the Great Man Theory of the early 1800s and goes through the Transactional and Transformational theories of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Pt. III will cover the rest of the history. It gets more complicated, so it needs its own post. Pt. IV will be the user guide on how we apply all the theories. And in Pt. V, I’ll write my own definitions.
TLDR: Leadership theory has moved steadily from leader-centered ideas toward a more complex view.
- Leadership theory has moved from trait-based to social-process views.
- Effective leadership cannot be explained by traits, behaviors, or situations alone.
- It is best understood as a dynamic social process involving leaders, followers, context, and the wider system.
1. Great Man Theory (1840s) and Trait Theories (1930s to 1940s)
Early leadership thinking focused on the idea that effective leaders were born that way. Leaders like Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, George Washington, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. just came out of the womb ready to go, with gifts of leadership that all they had to do was grow into. Great Man Theory was a retrospective study of historical figures who had impact (Carlyle, 1841). Leadership was seen as a rare, almost destined quality.
Importantly, Great Man Theory argued that leaders are born, not made. Theorists of the time did not consider women as candidates for study. Obviously problematic. There are really strong female leaders up to this point, and they basically get disqualified from being considered. I’ll be sprinkling in some choice historical female favorites throughout to help frame the fallicy.
Wu Zetian: Wu is a masterclass in alliances and political acuity. She rose from China’s inner court to empress, then declared herself emperor. Very badass. Expanded and stabilized the empire, promoted officials based on merit, and had incredible intelligence networks that eliminated rivals ruthlessly.
Great Man Theory was a practice of independent case studies in destiny, looking at history with a perspective that the world has been shaped by extraordinary individuals born with rare and heroic qualities. Comparisons of leader to leader were sparse. Great Man Theory was more grand storytelling than science. This changes in the late 1800s.
The scientific method grew and brought with it the Socratic method, and anecdotal observations of yore were slowly coded into empirical evidence. Slowly, people began comparing the leader qualities between each of the “great men” to figure out what they all have in common.
The shift in process over decades elevated us from Great Man Theory to Trait Theory. Trait Theory is essentially the secular, research-based evolution of Great Man Theory.
2. Trait Theory
Trait Theory came up with a list of traits leaders had. What was realized is that not all the traits are genetic. Our horizons expanded to argue leaders may be born and/or made.
You can learn and develop some traits. You can’t be born taller, but you can dress professionally. You can’t be born with a positive canthal tilt, but you can learn to love Pearl Jam. In the 1800s, top traits were sincerity, originality, nobility, truth, and courage. As Trait Theory hit its peak and decline in the 1940s, top traits were intelligence, responsibility, initiative, persistence, and self-confidence.
These lists reflect what was popular for the time, and researchers tried to identify the specific mental, social, and physical traits of good leaders. The traits were subjective, deifying, and hard to measure. Trait Theory had its development and resulted in no consensus or proof of a defined set of tasks (Stogdill, 1948).
Because of this lack of consensus, the theory lost momentum by about 1950. Reasons Trait Theory lost favor were threefold:
- Different situations reward different traits: Traits beneficial for war, politics, science, religion, and business are all different.
- Traits are broad and subjective: Confidence is great, but it can look like calm authority in one person and reckless arrogance in another.
- A trait by itself doesn’t do the whole job: A smart leader is helpful, but if they are removed and distant, it doesn’t do anyone any good. It’s not just the trait but how it’s used.
- Sampling Bias: Trait examiners looked at who society propped up as a leader, not who had leadership capacity. Wealth, class, education, race, and gender all affected who we called a leader in the first place.
Trait-based thinking still survives in things like psychometric testing for hiring and team development. These are the DiSC Assessment, the Myers-Briggs test, the Elite Skills profile, and True Colors Test. With that, trait tests aren’t the whole story, and excessive reliance on any single test can overshadow more rigorous, business-driven reasoning.
Catherine the Great: The mind of an enlightened ruler with the tactics of a survivalist autocrat. Total legend. Renovated Russia into modern European political and cultural life and reformed aggressively, only pulling back from reformation progress when the reforms threatened her power.
3. Behavioral Era (1940s to 1950s)
The 1940s and ‘50s saw practitioners wanting to apply the scientific method to psychology but lacking modern diagnostic tools. So they said, “Forget what’s happening in the brain; we’ll just look at the actions and behaviors of people and observe it really well.” Ergo, behavioralism. We shift from who leaders are to what leaders do.
Behavioral Theory argues leadership is mostly learned, not inborn. The scales tip as behavioralists acknowledge that through training, coaching, and MBA courses, we can build a leader. Researchers study and group effective behaviors, and our first grouping of leadership styles emerged (Lewin, Lippitt, and White, 1939):
- Autocratic: Centralizes decision-making in the leader, with little input from subordinates.
- Democratic: Involves shared decision-making, where the leader actively seeks and incorporates group input.
- Laissez-faire: Characterized by minimal leader intervention, allowing group members substantial autonomy in decision-making.
Lewin was the first to map these out (Lewin, Lippitt, and White, 1939), and there are advantages and disadvantages to each. Behavioral Theory strongly influenced leadership development and management training, and the principles echo throughout the modern workforce. Through behavioralism, we got the idea that leadership is observable and largely learnable.
Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi: Indian military leader in the late 1850s who fought to oppose Western colonialism. Rode into battle with her infant tied to her back. The colonizing force, the British officers opposing her in combat, detailed her skill and tenacity.
4. Situational Era (1960s–1970s)
Leadership theory had a bit of a crisis in the ‘60s. Trait Theory said “leaders are mostly born,” behavioralism said “leaders act in certain ways,” and reality said “yes, but it depends!” In the early ‘70s, we got three theories which are all still widely studied and taught.
Contingency Theory (Structure + Fit)
The theory argues leaders can’t easily change their styles. Putting the leader in a situation where they thrive is easier. Fiedler’s Contingency Model argues effectiveness is determined by leader-member relations, task structure, and position power (Fiedler, 1967).
Path-Goal Theory
Path-Goal Theory says leaders clear the path so followers can reach the goal (House, 1971). Leaders then adjust their behavior based on follower needs:
- Directive: Clear instructions with a well-defined end state.
- Supportive: Emotionally and intellectually backing the team.
- Participative: Involving others.
- Achievement-Oriented: Setting high standards and specific time-bound outcomes.
Situational Theory
As popularized by Hersey and Blanchard, Situational Leadership says you change your leadership style based on the situation (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969). The styles are:
- Low readiness → Telling (high direction)
- Some readiness → Selling (explain why + guide)
- Higher readiness → Participating (share decisions)
- High readiness → Delegating (step back, let ‘em fly)
The SLII Model. Source: Getty Images. Included for educational purposes.
Blanchard repackaged this in the 1980s as SL-II (Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi, 1985). This theory took off because it was practical and solved the problems of middle management, who are often promoted due to the Peter Principle. The situational era gave us recognition that leadership effectiveness depends heavily on context.
Hatshepsut: Legendary ruling pharaoh of ancient Egypt. Ignored warmaking for massive construction and trade projects. Led a stable, wealthy, and architecturally unprecedented reign.
5. New Leadership Era (1990s + 2000s)
The late 1990s saw us moving fast in a globalizing, complex business environment. Leadership studies shift focus from a top-down model to the interactions among leader, followers, situations, and systems. Leadership moved from being the actions of one heroic individual to being a dynamic social process.
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership is based on an exchange process in which leaders provide rewards or corrective actions in response to performance (Burns, 1978).
- Based on exchanges between leader and follower.
- Uses rewards and punishments (commissions, KPIs, quotas).
- Works best in stable, mature organizations with clear structures and goals.
Transformational Leadership
If transactional leadership is the proverbial stick and carrot, transformational leadership is “motivating through WHY.” It introduces a moral duty for leaders to inspire through the “Four I’s” (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985):
- Idealized Influence: Leader acts as a role model.
- Inspirational Motivation: Create a compelling vision.
- Intellectual Stimulation: Encourage creativity.
- Individualized Consideration: Support individual growth.
Transformational leadership can drive high motivation and engagement, but it has a high risk of becoming personality-driven.
Will It Blend?
Modern leaders are expected to use both. Many frameworks become part of a toolkit a leader uses to achieve specific outcomes while leadership theories evolve further.
The Takeaway
- Early leadership theory got it wrong by focusing on who leaders are instead of how leadership actually works.
- No universal set of traits or behaviors defines a great leader because effectiveness depends on context.
- Modern leadership evolved from “born vs. made” into a flexible toolkit where leaders adapt style to situation.
What’s next? In Pt. III, we’ll look at modern leadership theories (Vogel et al., 2021). The most important step is the next one.
—Dan
References
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
Benmira, S., and M. Agboola. 2021. “Evolution of leadership theory.” BMJ Leader 5: 3-5.
Blanchard, K. H., P. Zigarmi, and D. Zigarmi. 1985. Leadership and the One Minute Manager: Increasing Effectiveness Through Situational Leadership. New York: Morrow.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Carlyle, Thomas. 1841. On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. London: James Fraser.
Fiedler, F. E. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Graeff, C. L. 1983. “The Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical View.” Academy of Management Review 8, no. 2: 285-291.
Hersey, P., and K. H. Blanchard. 1969. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
House, R. J. 1971. “A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 16, no. 3: 321–339.
Lewin, K., R. Lippitt, and R. K. White. 1939. “Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology 10: 271-301.
Stogdill, Ralph M. 1948. “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature.” The Journal of Psychology 25, no. 1: 35–71.
Vogel, Bernd, Rebecca J. Reichard, Saša Batistič, and Matej Černe. 2021. “A Bibliometric Review of the Leadership Development Field: How We Got Here, Where We Are, and Where We Are Headed.” The Leadership Quarterly 32, no. 5: 101381.