ABSTRACT
Much of the history of leadership as a scientific topic of investigation has centered on the pivotal role of power (e.g., Follett, 1927; French & Raven, 1959; Hollander, 1985; Kleiser, 1923; Pfeffer, 1981). Clearly, the acquisition and use of power are important to the study and understanding of formal leadership; however, we argue that traits and individual differences have been at least as equally important in the evolution of leadership, especially informal leadership, as a scientific construct. One reason for this apparent underappreciation is that there are many possible ways to define the concept of trait and even more possible ways to study it. As a result, the perspective that during the approximate 40-year period between 1948 and 1986, traits were supposedly “dead” in leadership research and theory, is, we assert, overly simplistic, misguided, and in many ways just plain wrong.
