History and Evolution of Leadership Definitions: 1900–Present
This paper examines how scholarly definitions of leadership have evolved over more than a century, from the early 1900s through the present day. Drawing on Rost's (1991) survey of over 200 definitions, the paper traces decade-by-decade shifts in how leadership has been conceptualized — moving from centralized domination in the 1920s, through trait and influence theories in the mid-twentieth century, to transformational and process-oriented frameworks in the 1980s and beyond. The paper concludes that, despite more than a hundred years of academic inquiry, no single universal definition of leadership has emerged, owing to the diverse geographical, cultural, social, and generational factors that shape how people understand leadership.
- Introduction: Origins of leadership research and paper scope
- The Evolution of Leadership Definitions by Decade: Decade-by-decade survey from 1900s to 1980s
- Leadership in the 21st Century: Modern approaches including servant and authentic leadership
- Conclusion: No universal definition exists; reasons why
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The chronological structure gives the argument a clear, easy-to-follow spine, allowing readers to track conceptual shifts decade by decade without losing the thread.
- The paper uses named scholars and specific citations at each stage, lending credibility to the historical claims rather than relying on vague generalizations.
- The concluding observation — that over 200 definitions still yield no consensus — is a strong, evidence-grounded payoff that ties the entire survey together.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of a literature-survey structure to build a cumulative argument. Rather than presenting a single thesis and defending it with examples, the author lets the historical record speak progressively, using each decade's dominant themes to show how context (politics, social change, organizational theory) continuously reshapes academic definitions. This technique is appropriate when the goal is to map intellectual history rather than advocate for a single position.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, then devotes its central section to a decade-by-decade survey from 1900 to the 1980s. A shorter third section addresses 21st-century approaches (authentic, spiritual, servant, and adaptive leadership). The conclusion synthesizes the survey's main finding — definitional plurality — and attributes it to cultural and geographic diversity. Four references anchor the historical claims.
Introduction
Leadership has long been a central focus of organizational and psychological research. The terms leader and leadership have quite a wide gap between their origins: leader came into use in the early 1300s, whereas leadership surfaced centuries later in the 1700s (Stogdill, 1974). Scientific research on leadership began much later, in the twentieth century (Bass, 1981), and the volume of scholarship on the topic has intensified ever since. This essay tracks the changes in the definitions of leadership from the turn of the twentieth century to the present.
The Evolution of Leadership Definitions by Decade
Defining leadership has not been straightforward for scholars and practitioners. It has now been more than a hundred years since academics began researching the topic, and through this period the definition of leadership has undergone numerous changes. Factors such as prevailing politics, world affairs, and shifting social perceptions have driven this definitional evolution. It is well recognized that people from different social and cultural backgrounds may not view leadership in the same way. Rost (1991) examined materials published between 1900 and 1990 and identified over 200 definitions of leadership, providing a rich historical record of how the concept has been understood across the century.
1900–1929
During this period, leadership tended toward a central, dominating power. At one leadership conference in 1927, for example, leadership was defined as the ability to bring the led to total respect, obedience, loyalty, and cooperation by imposing the will of the leader — leaving followers with little or no contribution to determining what ought to be achieved (Moore, 1927, p. 124).
1930s
The defining characteristic of leadership through this decade shifted from domination to influence. Leadership was characterized by the interaction between an individual's personal traits and those of the group being led. The prevailing view held that the leader could change followers, but equally that followers could influence the leader.
1940s
According to Hemphill (1949), leadership was essentially the manner in which an individual behaves when directing a group of people. Copeland (1942) had earlier drawn an important distinction between leading by persuasion and leading by coercion, which he termed drivership.
1950s
This decade produced three dominant themes in leadership thought:
- Continuance of group theory — Leadership was understood in terms of the actions of leaders within group activities.
- Goal theory — Leadership was seen as a portrayal of the character of the leader.
- Effectiveness theory — Leadership was defined as the ability of an individual to improve the overall effectiveness of a group.
1960s
This decade saw a degree of convergence among leadership scholars. Seeman (1960), for instance, defined leadership as the character that mobilizes people to pursue a common goal, asserting that one cannot be a leader without the ability to focus people's energies on a shared objective.
1970s
The concept of organizational behavior rose to prominence in this decade. Rost (1971) viewed leadership as influencing a group to work toward a common organizational goal. Burns (1978) advanced the discussion further when he defined leadership as the overall process of bringing together people with particular intentions and varying political, social, and economic inclinations, and directing them toward a shared objective.
1980s
Leadership received intense scholarly attention during this decade, and many new definitions emerged. Several dominant themes characterized the era:
- Follow the leader — Many definitions emphasized the need for followers to act as the leader wished, with little room for followers to question whether the leader's direction was worth pursuing (Rost, 1991).
- Influence — A large proportion of definitions during this decade included the concept of influence. When scholars sought to differentiate leadership from management, leadership was typically characterized as non-coercive influence.
- Traits — The publication of Peters and Waterman's (1982) In Search of Excellence reignited interest in viewing leadership as a matter of personal traits.
- Transformation — Transformational leadership as a concept is attributed to Burns (1978), who argued that leadership involves a group of people collaborating in such a way that they raise one another to greater levels of motivation and moral integrity.
Conclusion
An analysis of the more than 200 definitions of leadership points to at least one thing all scholars agree on: there is no single definition of leadership, and there likely never will be in the near future. The geographical, cultural, social, political, and generational differences that shape people's understanding of leadership are apparently too varied to allow for any single, universal formulation. Leadership remains a multifaceted, complex concept whose definition is far from being settled (Rost, 1991).
References
Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology and organizational behaviour. New York: Harper.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Copeland, N. (1942). Psychology and the soldier. Harrisburg, PA: Military Service Publications.
Hemphill, J. K. (1949). Situational factors in leadership. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research.
Moore, B. V. (1927). The May conference on leadership. Personnel Journal, 6, 124–128.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.