Defining Leadership

Defining Leadership
A Review of Past, Present, and Future Ideas

BY

MATTHEW R. FAIRHOLM, PH.D.
DIRECTOR, LEADERSHIP STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT, CEMM

MONOGRAPH SERIES MS02-02

THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT

Center for Excellence in Municipal Management’s Research Program
Since its inception, The George Washington University Center for Excellence in Municipal Management has focused on providing practitioner oriented research to support and expand its mission. The Center’s efforts have grown to include professional and academic research around such Center-related themes as government transformation, leadership and management, public-private partnerships, and leadership and executive
This gave rise to various forms of trait theory: the idea that leadership depends upon personal qualities, personality, and character. In this sense, Carlyle’s (1841/1907) essay on heroes and our current fascination with celebrity figures can be viewed as studies of leadership. More explicitly, Dowd (1936) concludes that different individuals in every society possess certain traits or qualities that define their position in society, including leadership. More comprehensively, Jennings (1960) defined the “great man” theory of leadership, wherein much of leadership study can be found in biographies of historical figures. These biographies may explicitly or implicitly describe a conception of leadership, but they all belie the belief that to understand leadership, it is necessary to understand leaders. Figures such as George Washington (Clark 1995), Winston Churchill (Coote & Batchelor, 1949; Emmert, 1981; Gilbert, 1981; Hayward, 1997), and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Carson, 1987), are often dissected to discover secrets of leadership. The search for the set of qualities that these great people and superior individuals possessed, led researchers to an exhaustive search for particular leadership traits. This search began first by identifying generalities. Strength of personality equating to leadership was a consistent theme (Bingham,
Later studies focused on physical characteristics, social background, intelligence and ability, personality, taskrelated characteristics, and social characteristics (Stogdill, 1974). The focus on the last two categories presage the beginnings of behavioral theory. Broadening the great person theory, Scott (1973) discusses a theory of significant people. Significant people are the administrative elite who control the “mind techniques” of others because they do significant jobs and are superior to everyone else. Their justification is not for control, but rather to improve efficiency. Since people will benefit from the techniques, it can be considered morally correct. The result in improved efficiency will enable the elite to handle crisis situations better than before. An equation representing this concept is written: AE+MT = SP (administrative elite + mind techniques = significant people). Charismatic leadership is rooted in trait theory, though it is a