Some Aspects of Leadership in an Institution

Abstract

In the past the historian, philosopher, and essayist have devoted much time to the consideration of great men. Only recently, however, the study of outstanding individuals, especially leaders, become interesting to the psychiatrist and social psychologist, although as early as 1835 Quetelet laid the foundation upon which Francis Galton, Havelock Ellis, and James Cattell based their inquiries on heredity and genius. No serious attempt been made in this paper to compile a complete bibliography on Leadership. authors have made a search through the abstracts of the past decade and have examined much of the literature. W. Albig (1), for instance, lists thirty-seven authors in his chapter on of whom only a few have been drawn upon for application directly to the source of this study. process of is difficult to examine because of the complexity of personality and the difficulty of controlling the complicated variables to a degree which permits accurate interpretation and prediction. Apparently is the product of many interrelated factors. The roles and functions of the leader, the characteristics of the leader and the techniques of vary with the situation. Various groups, varying in size, the nature of their constituents and the group purposes and functions, require different types of leadership (1,p.98). Frank pointed out that the need for in any field arises from the fixed, rigid, and unchangeable patterns of thought and performance by those who, by position or seniority, control affairs (15). The psychologist's quest for general Albig believes, has been futile (1, p. 98). But Cowley reported a statistical study of leadership, wherein he claims to have isolated through a factor analysis method six traits common to self--confidence, finality of judgment, motor impulsion, and speed of decision (measured in three ways). Cowley's conclusions will be dealt with later in relation to interpretations made in this study. intelligence factor, as have other single variables, claimed the attention of some investigators (12, 23). Others have concerned themselves primarily with age, physical index, popularity, and scholarship (21, 25). Cowley summarizes, perhaps better than others, conclusions gained from an examination of previous literature: Leadership obviously is not a single trait but rather a complex fashioned together as a unity. An adequate appraisal of would naturally reduce this complex to its individual units, and any sort of study of to be of value should produce a list of traits which go together to make a leader. If one could produce an authentic list of such traits, immediate and important theoretical and practical advances might be made in our understanding and control of human behavior (7, p. 144). A study summarized in the science section of the