Explore how leadership definitions evolved throughout the 1900s, from trait-based approaches to situational and transformational models.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Fri 7th November 2025
Leadership definitions in the 20th century evolved from inherent traits possessed by "Great Men" (early 1900s) through behavioural approaches emphasising what leaders do (mid-century) to contingency models recognising that effective leadership depends on situational context (1960s-70s), culminating in transformational and charismatic theories focusing on inspiring change and vision (1980s-90s). This theoretical progression mirrors broader societal shifts—from hierarchical industrial models through human relations movements to knowledge work requiring inspiration over command.
Understanding this evolution proves valuable beyond historical curiosity. Contemporary leadership challenges—remote work, diverse teams, rapid change, stakeholder complexity—demand integrating insights from across this theoretical spectrum rather than adopting single models uncritically. The 20th century's leadership scholarship provides conceptual tools for navigating 21st century reality, once we understand which theories address which challenges and why.
Leadership thinking at the century's dawn centred on the conviction that leaders possessed innate qualities distinguishing them from followers—traits you were born with rather than capabilities you developed. Thomas Carlyle's 19th century assertion that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men" pervaded early 1900s thought.
This perspective manifested in leadership definitions emphasising:
The context: Industrial-age hierarchies, colonial assumptions about racial superiority, limited social mobility, and absence of systematic social science research. Leadership meant commanding from authority, with followers expected to obey rather than question.
As psychology developed scientific rigour, researchers attempted identifying specific traits distinguishing leaders from non-leaders. Studies examined:
Physical traits: Height, appearance, energy levels, physical prowess
Personality traits: Dominance, self-confidence, emotional control, extroversion
Cognitive traits: Intelligence, decisiveness, judgment, creativity
Social traits: Cooperativeness, interpersonal skills, popularity, tact
Early optimism suggested that identifying leadership traits would enable systematic leader selection and development. However, research proved frustratingly inconsistent—traits predicting leadership in one context failed in others. A 1948 review by Ralph Stogdill concluded that no universal leadership traits existed, challenging trait theory's foundations.
If leadership couldn't be explained by who leaders were, perhaps it could be understood by what leaders did. Behavioural theorists shifted focus from traits to observable leadership actions, opening possibilities for training and development previously impossible if leadership was purely innate.
Key behavioural research programmes emerged:
Ohio State Studies identified two fundamental leadership dimensions:
University of Michigan Research similarly distinguished:
Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid (1964) plotted leadership on two axes—concern for production versus concern for people—arguing that "9,9 leadership" (high on both) proved most effective.
Douglas McGregor's 1960 formulation profoundly influenced leadership thinking by proposing that leader behaviour reflected underlying assumptions about human nature:
Theory X assumptions: People inherently dislike work, avoid responsibility, require coercion and control
Theory Y assumptions: People find work natural, seek responsibility, demonstrate creativity when properly motivated
McGregor argued that Theory Y leaders who trusted employees and created participative environments achieved superior results compared to authoritarian Theory X counterparts. This validated emerging human relations movements challenging purely hierarchical control.
The behavioural revolution's limitation: No single leadership style proved universally effective. Contingency theorists proposed that leadership effectiveness depends on matching style to situation.
Fiedler's Contingency Model (1967): Leadership effectiveness depends on:
Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership (1969): Effective leaders adapt style based on followers' maturity:
Path-Goal Theory (Robert House, 1971): Leaders clarify paths to goals and remove obstacles, selecting from directive, supportive, participative, or achievement-oriented styles based on task structure and subordinate needs.
Peter Drucker, Warren Bennis, and John Kotter distinguished leadership from management during this period:
| Management | Leadership |
|---|---|
| Planning and budgeting | Setting direction and vision |
| Organizing and staffing | Aligning people |
| Controlling and problem-solving | Motivating and inspiring |
| Producing predictability | Producing change |
This distinction proved influential, elevating leadership above mere administration whilst potentially oversimplifying the complementary nature of both capabilities.
James MacGregor Burns' 1978 work introduced transformational leadership as elevating both leaders and followers to higher moral purpose, contrasting with transactional leadership based on exchanges of rewards for performance. Bernard Bass later operationalized this distinction:
Transformational Leadership involves:
Transactional Leadership relies on:
Research demonstrated transformational leadership generated higher follower satisfaction, effort, and performance—particularly valuable for driving organizational change and innovation.
Robert House's charismatic leadership theory proposed that exceptional leaders possess:
Charismatic leaders inspire extraordinary effort by making work meaningful, creating emotional bonds, and modelling dedication to shared mission. However, the "dark side" of charisma—narcissism, manipulation, unwillingness to accept criticism—generated concern about leader-centricity and follower dependency.
Robert Greenleaf's servant leadership philosophy, emerging in the 1970s but gaining prominence in the 1990s, inverted traditional hierarchies by proposing that leaders serve followers first. Servant leaders prioritise:
This approach resonated with flattening hierarchies, knowledge work requiring empowered teams, and social consciousness movements.
Authentic leadership theory proposed that effectiveness stems from self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing of information, and internalized moral perspective. Authentic leaders:
The late 20th century witnessed growing emphasis on leadership ethics, catalysed by corporate scandals (Enron, WorldCom) and recognition that brilliance without integrity proved destructive. Ethical leadership incorporated:
Early century theories sought universal leadership characteristics; late century models recognized that effectiveness depends on context, followers, and challenges faced. This shift paralleled scientific thinking generally—from deterministic to probabilistic, from simple cause-effect to complex systems.
Understanding evolved from who leaders are, to what leaders do, to how leaders relate to followers. Modern leadership scholarship emphasizes interaction quality, trust-building, and creating conditions for others' excellence rather than leader characteristics in isolation.
"Great Man" individualism gradually gave way to distributed and shared leadership concepts. Late-century thinking recognized that complex challenges require collective leadership across levels rather than heroic individuals at the top.
Command-and-control models suited industrial-age factories; knowledge work demanded inspiration, meaning, and empowerment. Transformational and authentic leadership theories reflected this shift.
The early 20th century was dominated by Great Man Theory and trait approaches, which proposed that leaders possessed innate qualities distinguishing them from followers. This perspective assumed leadership stemmed from inherent characteristics—physical traits, personality attributes, and cognitive abilities—that individuals were born with rather than developed. Early trait research attempted to identify universal leadership characteristics, examining everything from height and appearance to intelligence and dominance. However, research proved inconsistent, with traits predicting leadership in one context failing in others. By mid-century, Ralph Stogdill's comprehensive review challenged trait theory by demonstrating that no universal leadership traits existed, prompting the shift toward behavioral approaches focusing on what leaders do rather than who leaders are.
Post-World War II leadership thinking shifted dramatically from trait-based to behavioural approaches, emphasizing observable actions rather than inherent characteristics. The Ohio State Studies and University of Michigan Research identified fundamental leadership dimensions—initiating structure versus consideration, and production-oriented versus employee-oriented leadership. This behavioural revolution proved significant because it suggested leadership could be learned and developed through training rather than depending on genetic endowment. Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y further influenced thinking by proposing that leadership effectiveness stemmed from assumptions about human nature. The human relations movement gained prominence, challenging purely authoritarian control and validating participative approaches. This period's optimism about systematic leadership development reflected broader post-war confidence in social science and human potential.
Transformational leadership theory emerged in 1978 with James MacGregor Burns' groundbreaking work distinguishing transformational from transactional leadership. Burns proposed that transformational leaders elevate both themselves and followers to higher moral purpose rather than merely exchanging rewards for performance. Bernard Bass operationalized and extended Burns' concepts in the 1980s, identifying four components: idealized influence (role modelling), inspirational motivation (communicating vision), intellectual stimulation (encouraging creativity), and individualized consideration (coaching individuals). Transformational leadership gained prominence throughout the 1980s and 1990s as organizations faced accelerating change requiring innovation and adaptation. Research demonstrated that transformational approaches generated superior follower satisfaction, effort, and performance compared to transactional leadership, particularly for driving organizational change.
Contingency theories, emerging in the 1960s-1970s, fundamentally challenged earlier approaches by proposing that no single leadership style proved universally effective—instead, effectiveness depended on matching style to situation. Whereas trait and early behavioral theories sought universal leadership characteristics or behaviours, contingency models like Fiedler's Contingency Theory, Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership, and House's Path-Goal Theory emphasized context. Fiedler proposed effectiveness required matching leader style to situational favourableness; Hersey and Blanchard argued leaders should adapt based on follower maturity; Path-Goal Theory suggested selecting from multiple styles based on task structure and subordinate needs. This represented maturation in leadership scholarship—recognition that complex phenomena like leadership couldn't be reduced to simple universal prescriptions but required nuanced understanding of contextual factors.
Several factors drove the shift from transactional to transformational leadership thinking in the 1980s-90s: accelerating organizational change requiring innovation rather than stability; transition from industrial to knowledge work where intrinsic motivation mattered more than external rewards; flattening hierarchies limiting pure position-based authority; globalization creating cultural complexity; and growing recognition that inspiration and meaning drove superior performance more effectively than material rewards alone. Additionally, corporate culture movements emphasized shared values and vision rather than merely structure and systems. The limitations of purely transactional approaches—which generated compliance but not commitment, adequate performance but not excellence—became apparent in dynamic competitive environments. Transformational leadership addressed these gaps by engaging followers' higher-order needs for achievement, meaning, and self-actualization rather than merely basic exchange relationships.
Early and mid-20th century leadership theory largely ignored gender and diversity, reflecting broader social biases and limited participation of women and minorities in leadership roles. Great Man Theory's very terminology revealed male-centricity; early trait research sampled predominantly white male leaders; behavioral studies examined traditional hierarchical contexts. However, late-century scholarship increasingly addressed gender, with research examining whether women led differently than men (findings showed more similarities than differences, though women somewhat more likely to employ participative and transformational styles). Diversity considerations gained prominence in the 1990s, with research on cross-cultural leadership differences and multicultural team dynamics. Servant, authentic, and ethical leadership theories emerging late-century proved more inclusive, though comprehensive attention to diversity's leadership implications largely awaited 21st century scholarship.
Modern leadership contexts benefit from selectively integrating insights across 20th century theories rather than adopting single models. Trait research informs leader selection and development by identifying capabilities correlated with effectiveness; behavioral models guide leadership training and performance evaluation; contingency approaches remind us to adapt style to situation, team, and challenge; transformational leadership proves essential for change initiatives and innovation; servant and authentic leadership address contemporary emphasis on empowerment, transparency, and stakeholder value. The key insight: 20th century's progression reveals that leadership comprises multiple dimensions—personal characteristics, observable behaviors, situational adaptation, follower relationships, ethical grounding—all relevant but no single element sufficient. Effective modern leaders draw eclectically from this theoretical heritage whilst recognizing that 21st century challenges (remote work, digital transformation, complexity) require extending rather than merely applying historical models.