Is it possible to have a unified or general theory of leadership?
I was fascinated by that last written question on my PhD comps. Even with the pressure of taking doctoral comps, I enjoyed the challenge of wrestling with that for a while that afternoon while I wrote. Einstein’s (and others) great quest in physics, if you recall, was for a general theory of relativity that would describe how gravity interacts with space and time. The general theory unified a vast array of other ideas and theoretical pieces and radically changed the scientific world.
Is such an understanding of leadership possible? That got me to thinking back through all the different “leadership theories” that are floating around. There is a different concept or definition of leadership for every leadership expert, scholar, or practitioner. Here’s just a few off the top of my head. Perhaps I’ll expand the list as the days go by.
Heroic (Great Man) Theory
Trait theories
Situational theories
Behavioral theories
Contingency theories
Economic versus Social Leadership
Bureaucratic leadership
Transactional leadership
Autocratic/Dictatorial Leadership
Command-and-Control
Leadership by Example
Charismatic leadership
Servant leadership
Spiritual leadership
Shepherd Leadership
Authentic leadership
Social Exchange/LMX theory
Participative leadership
Shared Leadership
Managing versus Leading
Motivational Theories of Leading/Managing
Moral leadership
Kenotic/Mimetic leadership
And the list is just getting started…
All of these theories describe legitimate aspects of leadership that, given a precise context and set of factors, is a legitimate way to either approach leadership or a legitimate way in which it (whatever “it” really is) has been carried out.
Is any single one thing that holds of all of these together?
Depends on who you ask. Therein lies the problem. A general theory of leadership, if it exists, would have to be something that every discourse or investigation of leadership would eventually and undeniably arrive at.
