ABSTRACT
The fields of both management and leadership sought a universal prescription of ideal practices. Classical management purported to find this by proposing the centrality of analytic skills. Leadership theory searched in vain for a universal list of ideal traits. Even when managers have instructed workers in efficient protocols and have clarified best practices, they still have substantial responsibilities in staffing, planning, and communicating with superiors on productivity and planning issues. The weaknesses of classical management are also apparent. Its focus is very narrow and thus it leaves a great deal out of both the management and leadership equations. An additional moderating factor is the ability of the leader to express and manage the values of the organization or subunit. By the 1950s, some of the implicit leadership assumptions of the early management and trait theories were being consciously challenged by the basic research conducted at Ohio State University, the University of Michigan, and other settings.
