Drath et al. (2008: 635) contend that Bennis’s ‘tripod’ describes an underlying
ontology of leadership studies (and one which is “virtually beyond question in the
field”). However, while leadership studies may have been conducted based upon
a uniform ontological platform, Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003: 362) doubt that
“...a common definition is practically possible”. They support their argument with
a selection of shortcomings which have been raised with regard to the lack of
progress in realising a unified theory of leadership; these include:
Alvesson and Deetz (2000, cited in Alvessen and Sveningson 2003: 362): “The
commitment to an objectivist paradigm promising the accumulation of
knowledge through development and verification of hypothesis has not led to
the delivery of the goods”;
Fiedler (1996: 241), who noted skeptics’ concerns that: “...leadership theories
and research lacked focus and were chaotic, and some writers asked even
whether there is such a thing as leadership”;
Sashkin and Garland (1979: 65): ‘‘By any objective measure, the study of
leadership has failed to produce generally accepted, practically useful, and
widely applied scientific knowledge’’; and
Yukl (1989: 253): “ the field... is presently in a state of ferment and
confusion. Most of the theories are beset with conceptual weaknesses and lack
strong empirical support. Several thousand empirical studies have been
conducted on leadership effectiveness, but most of the results are
contradictory and inconclusive”.
The section above has introduced the heterogeneity of definitions and theory in
leadership research and paints something of a bleak picture as regards
positivistic-mode progress towards a unified theory of leadership. More recently,
however, Mackenzie and Barnes (2007) have suggested that leadership studies
are ‘evolving’ along a positivistic path. Firstly, they reiterate the complex nature
of leadership studies and leadership theory:
Each new “Leadership Theorist” and every “Supervisor Student”
eventually struggles to reconcile and synthesize different viewpoints
about leading and leadership. This is a daunting task, given the
immense quantity of writing in their literatures. The diversity of
opinion, the many competing purposes, the different foci of attention,
the variety of leadership approaches, and the fuzziness of terms and
conceptual relationships makes reconciliation and synthesis a task of
well-informed, expert, and diligent scholars.
(Mackenzie and Barnes 2007: 99)