ABSTRACT
The sheer volume of theory and research devotedto the study of leadership over the decades is testimony to its prominence in our collective efforts to understand and improve organizations. However, it has become apparent that, after years of trying, we have been unable to generate an understanding of leadership that is both intellectually compelling and emotionally satisfying. The concept of leadership remains largely elusive and enigmatic. Critics have made us aware of a range of scientific deficiencies that have plagued relevant theories and research, citing poor methodology, conceptual problems, definitional ambiguities, inappropriate focus, lack of coherence, and so on (e.g., Bennis, 1959; Stogdill, 1974; Miner, 1975; Greene, 1976; Karmel, 1978; McCall and Lombardo, 1978). Others have told us that leadership is best construed as a mere
substitute for and, thus, is functionally equivalent to other, more mundane organizational arrangements and processes (e.g., Kerr and Jermier, 1978). Still others confront us with disturbing evidence that our assumptions about the direct instrumental potency of leadership on organizational outcomes have vastly outstripped reality (e.g., Lieberson and O’Connor, 1972; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977). Finally, there are persuasive arguments that cause one to suspect that the greater relevance of leadership as a concept for organizational science is that it is a phenomenologically important aspect of how observers and participants understand, interpret, and otherwise give meaning to organizational activities and outcomes (Calder, 1977; Pfeffer, 1977; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Despite these assaults on traditional views, it appears that the concept of
leadership is a permanently entrenched part of the socially constructed reality that we bring to bear in our analysis of organizations. And there is every sign that the obsessions with and celebrations of it will persist. The purpose of this analysis is to shed some light on this collective commitment to leadership.
