What is a theoretical approach in leadership?

Why are some leaders successful, while others fail?

The truth is that there is no "magic combination" of characteristics that makes a leader successful, and different characteristics matter in different circumstances. 

This doesn't mean, however, that you can't learn to be an effective leader. You just need to understand the various approaches to leadership, so that you can use the right approach for your own situation.

One way of doing this is to learn about the core leadership theories that provide the backbone of our current understanding of leadership. We explore these in this article and in the video, below.

Click here to view a transcript of this video.

Our article on Leadership Styles explores common leadership styles that have emerged from these core theories. These include the "transformational leadership" style, which is often the most effective approach to use in business situations.

The Four Core Theory Groups

Let's look at each of the four core groups of theory, and explore some of the tools and models that apply with each. (Keep in mind that there are many other theories out there.)

1. Trait Theories – What Type of Person Makes a Good Leader?

Trait theories argue that effective leaders share a number of common personality characteristics, or "traits."

Early trait theories said that leadership is an innate, instinctive quality that you do or don't have. Thankfully, we've moved on from this idea, and we're learning more about what we can do to develop leadership qualities within ourselves and others.

Trait theories help us identify traits and qualities (for example, integrity, empathy, assertiveness, good decision-making skills, and likability) that are helpful when leading others. For more on this idea, see our articles, Authentic Leadership and Ethical Leadership.

However, none of these traits, nor any specific combination of them, will guarantee success as a leader.

Traits are external behaviors that emerge from the things going on within our minds – and it's these internal beliefs and processes that are important for effective leadership.

We explore some of the traits and skills that you need to be a good leader in our articles What a Real Leader Knows, Level 5 Leadership, and What is Leadership?

2. Behavioral Theories – What Does a Good Leader Do?

Behavioral theories focus on how leaders behave. For instance, do leaders dictate what needs to be done and expect cooperation? Or do they involve their teams in decision-making to encourage acceptance and support?

In the 1930s, Kurt Lewin developed a framework based on a leader's behavior. He argued that there are three types of leaders:

1. Autocratic leaders make decisions without consulting their teams. This style of leadership is considered appropriate when decisions need to be made quickly, when there's no need for input, and when team agreement isn't necessary for a successful outcome.
2. Democratic leaders allow the team to provide input before making a decision, although the degree of input can vary from leader to leader. This style is important when team agreement matters, but it can be difficult to manage when there are lots of different perspectives and ideas.
3. Laissez-faire leaders don't interfere; they allow people within the team to make many of the decisions. This works well when the team is highly capable, is motivated, and doesn't need close supervision. However, this behavior can arise because the leader is lazy or distracted; and this is where this style of leadership can fail.

Clearly, how leaders behave affects their performance. Researchers have realized, though, that many of these leadership behaviors are appropriate at different times. The best leaders are those who can use many different behavioral styles, and choose the right style for each situation.

Our article "Laissez Faire" versus Micromanagement looks at how you can find the right balance between autocratic and laissez-faire styles of leadership, while our article on the Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid helps you decide how to behave as a leader, depending on your concerns for people and for production.

3. Contingency Theories – How Does the Situation Influence Good Leadership?

The realization that there is no one correct type of leader led to theories that the best leadership style depends on the situation. These theories try to predict which style is best in which circumstance.

For instance, when you need to make quick decisions, which style is best? When you need the full support of your team, is there a more effective way to lead? Should a leader be more people-oriented or task-oriented? These are all questions that contingency leadership theories try to address.

Popular contingency-based models include House's Path-Goal Theory and Fiedler's Contingency Model.

You can also use the Leadership Process Model to understand how your situation affects other factors that are important for effective leadership, and how, in turn, these affect your leadership.

4. Power and Influence Theories – What Is the Source of the Leader's Power?

Power and influence theories of leadership take an entirely different approach – these are based on the different ways that leaders use power and influence to get things done, and they look at the leadership styles that emerge as a result.

Perhaps the best-known of these theories is French and Raven's Five Forms of Power. This model highlights three types of positional power – legitimate, reward, and coercive – and two sources of personal power – expert and referent (your personal appeal and charm). The model suggests that using personal power is the better alternative, and that you should work on building expert power (the power that comes with being a real expert in the job) because this is the most legitimate source of personal power.

Another leadership style that uses power and influence is transactional leadership. This approach assumes that people do things for reward and for no other reason. Therefore, it focuses on designing tasks and reward structures. While this may not be the most appealing leadership strategy in terms of building relationships and developing a highly motivating work environment, it often works, and leaders in most organizations use it on a daily basis to get things done.

Similarly, leading by example is another highly effective way of influencing your team.

Effective Leadership Styles

As we mentioned above, transformational leadership is often the best leadership style to use in business.

Transformational leaders show integrity, and they know how to develop a robust and inspiring vision of the future. They motivate people to achieve this vision, they manage its delivery, and they build ever stronger and more successful teams.

However, you'll often need to adapt your style to fit a specific group or situation, and this is why it's useful to gain a thorough understanding of other styles. Our article on Leadership Styles takes a deeper look at the different styles that you can use.

Over time, several core theories about leadership have emerged. These theories fall into four main categories:

1. Trait theories.
2. Behavioral theories.
3. Contingency theories.
4. Power and influence theories.

"Transformational leadership," is the most effective style to use in most business situations. However, you can become a more effective leader by learning about these core leadership theories, and understanding the tools and models associated with each one.

The pursuit of empirical evidence that will support or challenge a proposed explanation may be the defining characteristic of science, but organizing of these explanations in some type of conceptual framework—a theory—may well be science’s second most vital pursuit. Theories about leadership create orderly knowledge out of discrete bits of information, guide researchers’ empirical endeavors, and provide suggestions for applications in leadership contexts. The science of leadership insists that knowledge of leaders and leadership be systematized.

In 1999, as the 20th century ended, researchers asked over 30,000 US citizens to identify the events that significantly shaped history from 1900 to 2000. Naturally, people varied in their rankings. Some people, for example, positioned world wars and social conflicts higher on the list than medical discoveries and advances in social justice. But nearly everyone’s list included using nuclear weapons to end World War II, Neil Armstrong’s walk on the moon, the invention of the airplane, the discovery of penicillin, and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

These events resulted from the complex interplay of history, politics, and social processes, but one factor is common to them all: Leadership. Each event, whether war, disaster, scientific discovery, medical advance, or revolution, followed a course constrained by leaders and the leadership process. Throughout history, and no matter what you call them—presidents, CEOs, commanders, ministers, bosses, principles, managers, educators, supervisors, directors, executives, and so on—leaders matter.

Given how important leaders are to success across so many contexts, including as business and industry, medicine and education, military and international relations, it makes no sense to not strive to better understand leadership. But how best to get that done? When so much is known about leaders and leadership in so many different contexts, how can the essentials be extracted from the wealth of detail?

This course’s answer: Begin with theories and models that synthesize the facts, findings, and explanations of leadership into coherent, logically consistent, conceptual frameworks. Rather than read dozens of books on leadership or review study after study that investigates some nuance of the leadership process, turn instead to the major theories of leadership that spotlight the key causes, concepts, and processes that combine to influence leadership. Rather than read case studies of effective leaders or their personal insights about what works and what doesn’t, turn instead to logically consistent and empirically tested theories that yield practical implications for the leadership experience.

Theories about leadership create orderly knowledge out of discrete bits of information pertaining to leaders, followers, and the process of leadership itself. As the great theorist Albert Einstein once explained, relying on theories is “rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting point and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our adventurous way up” (Einstein & Infeld, 1961/1938, p. 152).

This course examines many of the classic and contemporary theories that scholars have developed to explain some aspect of leadership. Some focus on the qualities of leaders: what does it take to be an effective leader? Others go directly to behaviors: what do leaders DO as they influence others? Others focus on the processes that sustain leading and following, such as cooperation, conflict, and communication. We will consider some classic theories that are primarily of historical interest, but also cutting-edge analyses that currently guide the investigations of leadership scholars around the globe.

But [take a deep breath], before we jump into the review, study, and review of all those theories, we need to first step back and have a look at the big picture by asking “What are theories, and what do they tell us about leadership?” So, here we review the nature of theories and the function in any scientific analysis. We begin by first reviewing the often taken-for-granted elements of a theory, including descriptions, variables, hypotheses, and definitions. We then offer a justification for taking the trouble to theorize about leadership, by considering the functions of theories: what to provide in terms of knowledge gained. That analysis provides the basis for the reading’s final element: considering the ingredients that go into building a good theory (instead of a bad one).

The Nature of Leadership Theories

What makes a field of study a science? Many consider the pursuit of empirical evidence that will support or challenge a proposed explanation—in other words, collecting data—to be the defining characteristic of science, but organizing these explanations in some type of conceptual framework—in other words, theorizing—may well be science’s most vital pursuit. Isaac Newton did not just notice that an apple falling from a tree accelerates as it descends; he also developed his second law of motion to explain this observation. Antoine Lavoisier did not just discover that oxidation causes increases in mass, but used that observation to develop his theory of the chemical composition of elements. James McGregor Burns, who was a political scientist, did not just distinguish between efficient leaders and inspiring leaders; he also built a theory that identified the preconditions for transformational rather merely transactional leadership.

To theorize, for a scientist, requires developing a set of interrelated propositions that explain a phenomenon of interest. But as in most things that are sufficiently interesting to warrant close analysis, no single definition of the word theory has yet to capture the endorsement of all scholars and researchers. Most would agree, however, that hunch, speculation, and conjecture are not suitable synonyms, for a theory is usually a “a set of interrelated hypotheses or propositions concerning a phenomenon or set of phenomena” (Shaw & Costanzo, 1970, p. 7). In the field of leadership studies, for example, most theories seek to provide a logically coherent answer some question about leadership—Why are some leaders endorsed by their followers but others lose their support? When is one type of leadership more effective than another? Why do some leaders fail to comply with basic standards of ethics?—but no template defines the standards that prescribe the content of any theory. Most, however, describe the phenomenon of interest, specify which variables that must be taken into account, suggest key propositions that explain the relationships among these variables, and draw from this conceptual framework a set of expected consequences—the predictions that can be subjected to empirical test.

Describing the Phenomenon

Many of the greatest advances in scientific understanding occurred when researchers succeeded in describing the phenomenon that needed to be explained (the explanandum). Copernicus, for example, changed all of astronomy when he accurately describe the solar system as heliocentric rather than geocentric. Advances in chemistry, too, resulted when researchers developed a means of describing and distinguishing among elements, and summarized their work in the periodic table of the elements. Similarly, many theories of leadership begin by providing considerable descriptive detail about leaders, followers, and the leadership process. A descriptive theory of leadership, for example, may note certain regularities in leadership styles across situations: some leaders may enact a democratic style, others an autocratic style, and still others a more laissez-faire leadership. Before offering a set of propositions that explains why leadership tends to take these three forms and when each type is most effective in a given situation, the theorist may first provide clear details about these three types, specifying typical features of each type, similarities and differences among them, and iconic examples of each. Scientists build theories to explain the regularities they observe, but in many cases, they must first fully characterize these regularities.

Identifying Key Variables

Scientists’ theories explain the regularities they observe, but in many cases, they must first fully characterize these regularities. That characterization generally requires identifying as many of the factors that significantly influence, or are influenced by, the phenomenon of interest. Physicists’ theories, for example, might consider how changes in energy, mass, pressure, and other forces influence other physical outcomes. Chemists’ theories of chemical reactions likely take into account the concentration of reactants, temperature, the presence of a catalyst, and so on. Similarly, leadership theorists would likely set about describing the variables that significantly influence, or are influenced by, leadership processes. If they are interested in variations in the leader’s style as a leader, then the theorists will need to describe that variable clearly—what, then, is a leader’s “style” and how do these styles vary one from another. Similarly, if the theorists wish to understand which style is more effective, then they will need to be able to develop a clear description of this “effectiveness” variable.

Although the specific variables that any theorist identifies depends on their particular theory and the aspect of leadership under investigation, most variables can be classified into the five essential clusters of causes and consequences shown in Figure 1-1: characteristics of the leader (e.g., personality traits, social skills, experience), the followers (e.g., expectations, motivation, cooperativeness), and the situation (e.g., cultural diversity, goals); leadership processes (e.g., leader-member relations, communication, performance monitoring); and outcomes (e.g., leadership emergence and effectiveness, organizational performance, follower satisfaction).

Making Conceptual Connections

At the core of a theory is a set of propositions, principles, and hypotheses that, taken in combination, propose a possible explanation for the phenomenon of interest (the explicans). As the philosopher Carl Hempel (1966, p. 71) explains, a theory offers a set of “theoretical principles, by means of which the theory then explains the empirical uniformities that have been previously discovered, and usually also predicts ‘new’ regularities of similar kinds.” These propositions will provide a compelling explanation for any facts and information that are already known about the phenomenon; they will offer generalizations that make sense of what is known about leaders and leadership. They will, in many cases, specify the relationship among variables, indicate which variables are likely causes of other outcomes and conditions, propose new interpretations of ideas and observations offered by other theorists, and suggest links between processes and events that before were thought to be unrelated.

These conceptual connections are the very heart of any theoretical analysis. Every theory of leadership we will study will not just describe the variables that must be considered to explain leadership, but offer truth claims about the nature of the relationship among those variables. A theory of leadership styles, for example, won’t just baldly state “there are three types of leaders: democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire.” It will also likely explain how the type of leadership style a person adopts will influence other important variables, such as follower satisfaction and the leader’s effectiveness. These conceptual connections will often be summarized in the form of hypotheses, such as “The leader’s style will influence follower’s level of satisfaction, such that followers will be happier and work harder when led by a democratic-style leader rather than an autocratic-style leader.”²

Making Predictions

Traditional conceptions of the scientific process stress the need to connect theories to empirically verifiable or disconfirming empirical observations. A theory that makes sense of all that is known is not sufficient to qualify as a good scientific framework if it does not yield predictions that can be tested to determine the theory’s adequacy. As the hypothetico-deductive model of science argues, one must be able to draw inferences from the theory’s basic premises that can be examined by conducting research (see Figure 1-2). These hypotheses and predictions are the bridge between the theory’s conceptualization and the world as it actually exists. A theory may be coherent, logically sound, and consistent with previous findings, but it must also make predictions that researchers can study empirically. As Hempel (1966, p. 17) writes, scientific knowledge “is not arrived at by applying some inductive inference procedure to antecedently collected data, but rather by what is often called ‘the method of hypothesis’; i.e. by inventing hypotheses as tentative answers to a problem under study, and then subjecting these to empirical test.”

Defining Terms

Many theorists, as they build their conceptual analysis, often identify and define the variable and processes they are examining. In leadership studies, rare is the theory that does not explicitly state a definition of leadership itself. In some cases, too, the theory may also specify the operational definition of one or more variables: The specific measurement operations that can be used to index or quantify a theoretical concept.

These definitions are, in some respects, miniature theories, for they clarify the meaning of key theoretical constructs and make explicit previously unstated assumptions. Consider, for example, the many definitions of leadership Joseph Rost (1991) identifies in his historical analysis of definitional debates about the meaning of leadership. In the early 1900s, theorists considered leadership to be a relatively heavy-handed method of influencing people, and their definitions of leadership spoke of authority, dominance, power, and even coercion. But by the 1930s theorists began to define leadership in terms of the personal qualities of a person; leadership was thought to be a characteristic or talent of a person; something someone either had or didn’t have. By the 1940s and 50s theorists shifted again, as their definitions suggested leadership was a relationship between people, and a relationship that involved collaboration and coordination. Contemporary definitions of leadership continue to stress the relationship between the leader and led, but also tend to embed leaders in a group or organizational context. Many theorists now consider leadership to be a noncoercive, collaborative, and reciprocal relationship between people, and suggest that ethics may also be an integral aspect of that relationship.

Definitions of leadership, then, often indicate one’s overarching conceptualization of leadership itself. Although the definition may not qualify as a theory, proper, it nonetheless signals the definer’s orientation or perspective. If one considers leadership to be a set of personal talents and inclinations, then one’s definition will describe leadership as a quality of person. Alternatively, if one considers leadership tantamount to influence, then one focuses on interpersonal processes that determine how one person succeeds in changing other people’s thoughts, behaviors, and emotions. Definitions may vary, therefore, depending on one’s theoretical perspective: theorists do not agree when they define leadership, for their very definition of the process is determined, at least in part, by their theoretical assumptions.

Theorizing and Modeling

Theories may be the workhorses of science, but scientists’ thinking about the phenomena they study are also structured by such closely related conceptual systems as models, perspectives, and paradigms. The distinction between a theory and model is, in many cases, more a matter of semantics than actuality. Both theories and models are conceptual frameworks that explain a phenomenon of interest. Both identify variables that influence that phenomenon and the causal connections among them. Both organize empirical findings and suggest hypotheses that require further study. Models, however, tend to be narrower in scope and, in consequence, more clearly specify the variables needed to provide an explanation while also identifying the way these variables are related to one another. For example, when researchers suggest that leaders who adopt a certain type of leadership style perform more effectively in situations of a certain type—but do not embed their work in a larger framework that explains why these regularities in types of styles or why the style-effectiveness relationship holds—then their analysis would likely be called a model rather than a theory. Models, because of their specificity, are often tested using statistical modeling methods which check for the presence or absence of the relationships specified in the model.³

Functions of Theories

What is to be gained from developing theory-based explanations of leadership? What will a person who is both skilled in developing theoretical explanations about leadership and is very familiar with the theories that others’ have constructed in their analyses of leadership be able to achieve compared to someone who acts first and theorizes later? What are the functions of theories?

Explanatory Function

A theory’s primary function is providing an explanation for some aspect of leadership. Who will emerge in a group of individuals as a leader? Why do human beings willingly accept the guidance of a leader in some situations and not others? Why are some individuals better able to influence their followers, and others cannot? What is leadership, after all, and how does it differ from power, influence, or persuasiveness? Theories answer these kinds of questions by organizing what may seem to be disparate and disconnected ideas, information, and evidence into an overarching, well-organized framework.

Predictive Function

In the hypothetico-deductive model of science, theories are the source of predictions that guide research. Theories may narrow researchers’ perspectives, prompting them to see the world in ways that are consistent with their conceptual assumptions and outlooks, but they also encourage them to make predictions about leadership that have yet to be documented empirically, but are logically consistent with the theory they are seeking to test. Theories, then, are the researcher’s roadmap, guiding them from one prediction and study to the next as they seek evidence to support or disconfirm their theories.

Ampliative Function

Theories are the means by which science generates new knowledge, for they enable researchers to go beyond the empirical data and to see implications and relationships that were not previously recognized or understood. Although the confirmation/disconfirmation stage in the hypothetico-deductive model of science requires hypotheses be deduced from the premises of the theoretical system, the inferential processes needed to create theories are inductive, ampliative ones, for they move from specific findings, observations, and ideas to more general, law-like principles. Deduction, then, is an essential component of the theory development and testing process, but induction scientific As Salmon (1966, p. 19) suggests, “deduction is an indispensable part of the logic of the hypothetico-deductive method, but it is not the only part.” The scientific method solves the riddle of induction, for it provides a logically sound method for constructing generalized statements and then testing the adequacy of those generalizations through research (Salmon, 1966).

Practical Function

Philosophers of science often note that basic science is not the same thing as applied science. For example, Bunge (1974) emphasized their divergent goals; he noted that systematic knowledge is the essential goal of basic researchers, whereas the applied scientist seeks information that will increase knowledge while also proving itself to be relevant to some particular problem. Bunge also proposed that research questions originate from different sources in basic and applied research. The basic researcher is interested in investigating some puzzle or problem that is suggested by theory. He or she asks “Let’s compare ‘what is’ with ‘what should be’ to see if the theory is adequate.” In applied science, the research may spring from practical concerns as much as from theoretically relevant hypotheses. In essence, the applied researcher asks “Let’s understand the nature of this problem so we can do something to resolve it.”

Although basic and applied science are distinct forms of science, both require the development of conceptual theories and models. Both accept the long-term goal of increasing knowledge and understanding. Both involve relating observations back to theoretical constructs that provide the framework for interpreting data and generating predictions. Both insist that the test of theory lies in objective, empirical methods rather than logical claims or subjective feelings. Both involve a striving for consensus among members of the discipline concerning acceptable, unacceptable, and to-be-evaluated explanations of empirical observations.

The final function of theories, then, is application: the usefulness of theories for offering solutions to applied problems at both the individual and societal level. Social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1951) stressed the practical uses of theory in his classic conceptualization of action research: scientific inquiry that both expands basic theoretical knowledge and identifies solutions to significant social problems. He felt that social problems should be solved scientifically for there “is no hope of creating a better world without a deeper scientific insight into the function of leadership and culture” and other essentials of social life (Lewin, 1943, p. 113).

Even when researchers pursue primarily basic science goals, their theories and findings can often be applied in a range of settings. Most forms of commerce, for example, involve some type of leadership: communication among people, influence, decision making processes in groups, and competition and cooperation are all processes actively studied by leadership researchers. Similarly many social problems, including international conflict, political disputes, and social injustices, are caused by, and may be resolved by, effective leadership. Thus, even though theories are often thought to be rarified conceptual systems without practical implications, theories can have great practical significance. As Lewin himself remarked, “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” (1951, p. 169).

Evaluating Theories

The field of leadership studies is rich with theory. Some of these theories trace leadership back to psychological processes—the motivations of the individual members, the mental processes that sustain their conception of their social environment, and even their instinctive urges and proclivities. Other theories focus more on the situation: if individuals possess skills that facilitate performance on task x but undermine performance on task y, then they are likely to emerge as effective leaders only if the group is working on task x. The number and diversity of theories in leadership is substantial: Jessica Dinh and her colleagues (2014) identified a total of 66 different theoretical domains in their content analysis of theoretical perspectives on leaders.

These theories, however, are not created equal. Some, more so than others, meet the criteria that researchers rely on to identify “good” theories, and others do not. Some of these criteria are considered to be necessary conditions for acceptability as a scientific explanations. Others are desirable, but not essential that they make or break a theory. But what are the essential qualities of a good theory? Although experts debate this question, consensus stresses three basic qualities: coherence, correspondence, and testability.

Is the Theory Coherent?

Coherence is the extent to which the theory is clear and concise, free of mistakes or leaps in logic, and well organized: precisely structured so as to bring order to all its interrelated assumptions, propositions, and related elements. A theory that is coherent cannot generate incompatible, conflicting predictions.

Does the Theory Yield Testable Predictions?

The hypothetico-deductive model of science requires that the theory be linked, in some way, to aspects the observable world. A conceptualization that yields no predictions that can be examined through research may provide profound insights into leadership, but such conceptualizations would not qualify as a scientific theory. Note, however, the theory need only be testable “in theory.” In some cases, perfectly legitimate scientific theories could not be tested, simply because of the limitations of existing research procedures.

Is the Theory Consistent with Existing Evidence?

A scientific theory should provide a fresh—even provocative—explanation for leadership, but even still: that explanation must be consistent with existing research evidence. Moreover, the theory should be consistent with evidence that was gathered after the theory was first suggested. A theory that is supported only by data that were available at the time the theory was developed could have been contrived to fit the data. This limitation is particularly problematic for models, since researchers can manipulate their models to fit their findings.

These three requirements—coherence, testability, and correspondence—establish the minimal threshold for a theory, but other attributes may determine if the theory is one that will substantially contribute to scientific understanding of some phenomenon. Philosopher of science Mario Bunge (1998), for example, presented no fewer than 20 criteria, clustered in five categories: formal, semantic, epistemological, methodological, and metaphysical. These secondary attributes of a good theory include parsimony, simplicity, consistency with related theories, bridging conditions, specified boundary conditions, comprehensiveness, well-foundedness, exactness, expediency, breadth in scope, and disconfirmability (or falsifiability).

A Final (and substantial) Caveat

Researchers have put forth hundreds of theories about leadership over the years. These theories, despite their variations, often disagree with one another when explaining what processes are more important than others, the types of outcomes they explain, and the variables that are most influential. The theories are all similar, however, in that they seek to provide additional insights into leaders and the leadership process by endorsing and utilizing the scientific method.

But what, precisely, is the scientific method? The view of theories and their function in science presented here are based on one specific view of science, which is variously termed hypothetico-deductive model, positivism, logical empiricism, or the received view. Drawing on the work of such philosophers of science as Hempel and Oppenheim (1948) and Bunge (1998), it argues for the axiomatization of theory by forming general law like statements, the specification of antecedent limiting conditions, deriving hypotheses from theories, operationalizing definitions, and the potential disconfirmability of theoretical systems.

Other theorists, however, believe that positivism provides a limited view of how science works and argue in favor of an alternative philosophy of science. These approaches differ from one another in a variety of ways, but most argue that the hypothetico-deductive is more of an ideal form of how science works, rather than an accurate description of the theory-research process. Rather than assuming facts exist, that observation is a neutral process, that causality is linear, and that individual action can be examined in mechanistic terms, these viewpoints argue that research is a reflexive, interpretive, constructivistic process.

The current analysis recognizes the limitations of positivism as a model of how science works, but rather than turn to a constructivism it accepts a modified version of positivism, often termed post positivism. This approach maintains that science, as an epistemological system, relies on methods that are different from alternative epistemologies. More than other approaches to gaining knowledge, leadership science advocates the long term goal of increasing and systematizing knowledge of leadership by (a) relating observations back to theoretical constructs that provide the framework for interpreting data and generating predictions; (b) testing hypotheses using objective, empirical methods rather than logical claims, subjective feelings, or authorities’ opinions; (c) striving for consensus among members of the discipline concerning acceptable and unacceptable explanations of empirical observations; and (d) striving to reduce the influence of personal values on data collection procedures or statistical analyses. Leadership studies, if they are to be scientific, remain within these boundaries—but those who endorse a different conception of science would likely disagree.

References

Bunge, M. (1974). Towards a philosophy of technology. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Philosophical problems of science and technology (pp. 28-46). Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Bunge, M. (1998). Philosophy of science: from explanation to justification (Vol. 2). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Cropanzano, R. (2009). Writing nonempirical articles for Journal of Management: General thoughts and suggestions. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1304-1311.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.

Duhem, P. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Originally published in 1906.

Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1961). The evolution of physics: The growth of ideas from early concepts to relativity and quanta (2nd ed). New York: Simon and Schuster. (Original work published 1938)

Einstein, A. (1954). “What is the theory of relativity?” In Ideas and opinions (pp. 227–232). New York: Bonanza. Originally published in 1919.

Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of national sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Pres.

Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of science, 135-175.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewin, K. (1943). Psychology and the process of group living. Journal of Social Psychology (S.P.S.S.I Bulletin), 17, 113–131.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.

Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discover. New York: Basic Books.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Prager.

Salmon, W. (1966). The foundations of scientific inference. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Shaw, M. E., & Costanzo, P. R. (1970). Theories and models of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1956). Models: their uses and limitations. In L. D. White (Ed.), The state of the social sciences (pp. 66-83). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

End Notes

[1] Approximately 36,000 people cast ballots in Stories of the Century: The Nation Votes, sponsored by USA WEEKEND and the Newseum, the interactive museum of news. The ten most influential events, as identified by men, were: U.S. drops atomic bomb, Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, men first walk on the moon, Wrights fly first airplane, President Kennedy assassinated, Antibiotic penicillin discovered, U.S. stock market crashes, Einstein conceives relativity, World War I begins, and DNA’s structure discovered. The ten most influential events identified by women were antibiotic penicillin discovered, Wrights fly first airplane, Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, U.S. drops atomic bomb, men first walk on the moon, President Kennedy assassinated, U.S. stock market crashes, new polio vaccine works, U.S. women win the vote, and Nazi Holocaust exposed.<p>

[2] Leadership theories are rarely mathematically precise formula or sets of tightly integrated theorems and postulates, but are instead what Albert Einstein (1919/1954, p. 228) termed constructive theories: they “attempt to build up a picture of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively simple formal scheme from which they start out.” He contrasted constructive theories with principle theories: a hierarchy of organized laws that are deduced from a smaller set of covering principles “that give rise to mathematically formulated criteria.” Both types have their unique strengths, for the “advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability, and clearness,” whereas “those of the principle theory are logical perfection and security of the foundations.”

[3] Models can, in some cases, be criticized for lacking explanatory power or conceptual coherence. As Cropanzano (2009, pp. 1305-1306) laments: “Sometimes we hear jokes that theory articles are ‘boxes and arrows.’ This is because they often present their model as a sort of flow chart. When the flow chart begins to resemble the wiring diagram of an office building then you are on the wrong track. A certain lack of elegance occurs when articles attempt to hammer together separate research ideas without attending to a single conceptual theme.”