This article is about leadership, what is is and how it has evolved over time. It will cover hierarchical, traditional leadership, situational leadership and modern authentic leadership, touching on the main characteristics and historic environment of each type.
Recently our family has been reading the third part of the Onyeka series by Tọlá Okogwu and a section on leadership there, with the main character is struggling with in this book. For those who are potentially scoffing at getting an impulse from a children’s book, I recommend risking a look at them. There are some very good ones out there.
In any case, this reminded me that I wanted to write a blog about leadership, what it was, what it is now and its evolution over time. In one scene Onyeka is discussing leadership with her mother, who explains that leadership is not about making decisions and shouting out orders. But about service, and enabling and protecting those one is responsible for. How too many world leaders were leading by volume and directives, and too little by serving. This reflects very well the evolution leadership has been through particularly in the last 100+ years.
Fundamentally, leadership is about influencing others around you towards a joint goal.
This can occur in many different life contexts and does not always require being nominated to lead a group. You could be leading a community initiative you started, being a CEO of a company, leading a project, guiding a group of people from one place to another, etc.. This principle meaning of leadership remains unchanged, however how the influencing is interpreted and leadership is understood has changed drastically over time. This evolution reflects humanity’s growth in understanding of human interactions, dynamics, communications and ethics. It also reflects increasing organisational complexity over time.
The Evolution of leadership: from hierarchy to authenticity
Hierarchical leadership: the traditional foundation
Early 20th-century leadership theories emerged from trait and behavioral models that viewed leadership as an inherently top-down function. Leadership was very much considered to be about strength. It was also strongly influenced by the mostly non-democratic, hierarchical forms of society reigning at the time as well industrialisation, with a predominantly negative image of people as driven by base desires and needs, which were thought to require control from the top. Researchers in the 1930s-1950s sought to identify innate qualities distinguishing leaders from non-leaders or codify ideal behaviors (Day et al., 2014).
This hierarchical paradigm assumed one presumed ideal way to lead—the leader directed, followers complied.
Critically, it overlooked contextual factors and follower development, treating leadership as static rather than relational. This gave very little space to employees for involvement, innovation and contribution. Thereby restricting team engagement and restricting leaders’ to controlling and management tasks.
Situational leadership: contextual adaptation
By the 1960s, having left the most immediate consequences of WWII behind, with societies changing, and with significant steps being made in the understanding of human behaviour, scholars recognized that no single approach worked universally. Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard developed their situational leadership model. This proposed that effective leaders must adapt their style—directing, coaching, supporting, or delegating—based on employee maturity and situational demands (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969).
This marked a pivotal shift: leadership became flexible, responsive to context rather than rigidly prescriptive.
The focus for leaders shifted to the people they were responsible for in terms of their competence and engagement, and also the environment they worked in. Rather than focussing on giving orders to be followed, leadership here was more about developing a relationship with the people you lead.
Authentic leadership: values and integrity
In the early 2000s, authentic leadership emerged as contemporary research emphasized self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced decision-making, and internalized moral perspectives (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Despite having been published in the 1970s Fritjof Bergmann’s New Work became increasingly popular and timely as newer generations started shifting away from the ‘live to work’ motto and life-time company loyalty common and popular in the 19080s and 90s. With increasingly complex jobs and higher fluctuation becoming normal, purpose became a main motivator.
Unlike earlier frameworks focused primarily on effectiveness or adaptation, authentic leadership centers authentic communication and ethical integrity as the foundation of influence.
The leader isn’t just strategically effective—they follow their values. Their communication allows employees to know where they are at with this type of leadership. Leaders here are capable of admitting mistakes, taking responsibility and growing, as well as letting their team members shine.
This evolutionary arc reveals real development: from leading top down and alone, to leading by building relationships, to leading by example and bringing one’s whole self to the table. By doing so modern leadership demands not only competence but authenticity, learning from the past and integrating new findings, thereby setting an example for others.
You want to integrate modern authentic leadership in your business? Or you want to develop your leadership in that direction? Get in touch! As a business coach I work with leaders and organisations on these topics all the time and look forward to hearing from you.
