The Development of Leadership Thought and Practice in the United States

Introduction and Overview

Leadership is one of the most discussed, examined, and yet elusive ideas in the social sciences in general and educational leadership in particular (Bennis & Nanis, 1986). In spite of the innumerable definitions of leadership and claims made about it, we continue to seek greater understanding in both theory and practice. The history of leadership thought is itself a complicated and treacherous journey that has implications not only for how we understand the meaning of leadership but for what definitions and claims about leadership are regarded as appropriate, valued, and honored.

In this chapter, we call into question the traditional ways the history of leadership thought and practice has been formulated and expressed, and we seek to broaden and enrich perspectives on leadership history. We begin with a critique of these traditional accounts of the history of leadership. Our purpose is neither to present these accounts—they are well known to any leadership student—nor to provide an exhaustive report of the development of leadership thought. Rather, we will present some of the features of these historical accounts and identify some weaknesses. Following this critique, we will identify several sources of leadership thought and practice that have been ignored in the traditional accounts and explore their value for understanding and practicing leadership. A comprehensive discussion of all those sources that have been ignored would be impossible. However, by offering a few examples of some of these sources, we hope to stimulate discussion of how leadership thought could benefit from other sources. We end the chapter with a discussion of the implications for changing the way we describe the history [Page 363]of leadership theory for research, practice, and preparation.

A Critique of the History of Leadership Thought

Probably every student of educational leadership can recite the traditional account of the development of leadership thought. Although these stories vary slightly, they tend to reflect the same progression. Beginning with trait theory, they move to behavioral theory and contingency theory, then continue with excellence and transformational theories. This history is influenced by another account originating in the industrial psychology and management literature, namely, scientific management, human relations, and social science theories (Getzels, 1977).

These traditional accounts have several features. First, as we mentioned previously, they are influenced strongly by the industrial psychology and management literature. In addition, sociology, political science, and other social sciences have contributed to leadership thought. The humanities, including arts, literature, and philosophy, have played a very minor role, if any, in these accounts. Because of this, aspects of leadership such as aesthetic and ethical dimensions have been largely ignored in the traditional U.S. history of leadership thought. Second, the traditional accounts are chronicled in a way that suggests linear progression toward clarity. For example, we are told that the original trait theories were discredited because of research that found that leadership behaviors differed among leaders. Moreover, the accounts tell us that the original task-versus-relationship behavior theories were improved through the identification of various situational factors that influenced leader effectiveness. These renditions of the history of leadership thought tend to ignore detours and obstacles on the historical journey and assume a steady progression toward greater precision. Third, these accounts have become the sacred texts of the field. They are taught to students, reflected in the literature reviews of research reports, and used to argue for what the next stage of leadership investigations should be. Rost (1991) states

...