A History Of Modern Leadership Theory: Three Eras.

 

During the Industrial Revolution, the study of leadership, much like research in other aspects of organizations, became more rigorous. Instead of relying on intuition and description of common practices, researchers used scientific methods to understand and predict leadership effectiveness by identifying and measuring leadership characteristics.

 

The history of modern scientific approach to leadership can be divided into three general eras or approaches: the trait era, the behavior era and the contingency era.

 

The Trait Era: Late 1800s to Mid-1940s

The belief that leaders are born rather than made dominated much of the nineteenth century and the early part of twentieth century. It was commonly believed that leaders, by virtue of their birth, were endowed with special qualities that allowed them to lead others. These special characteristics were presumed to push them toward leadership, regardless of the context. The historical context and social structures of the period further reinforced such beliefs by providing limited opportunities for common people to become social, political, and industrial leaders.

 

The major assumption guiding hundreds of studies about leadership traits was that if certain traits distinguish between leaders and followers, then existing political, industrial, and religious leaders should possess them.

 

More than 40 years of study provided little evidence to justify the assertion that leaders are born and that leadership can be explained through one or more traits.

 

Because of weak and inconsistent findings, the commonly shared belief among many researchers in the late 1930s and early 1940s was that although traits play a role in determining leadership ability and effectiveness, their role is minimal and that leadership should be viewed as a group phenomenon that cannot be studied outside a given situation.