Theories and principles that have withstood centuries range from Plato to Lao Tzu. Greek Athenian philosopher Plato (V/IV BC) in the form of dialogues argued that people were born different by nature and the higher justice is that everyone would be engaged in the occupation to which he had a tendency: the strong person ruled the weak; smart one - unwise.

Lao Tzu’s^[1] definition, “A leader is the best when people barely know that he exists. When his work is done and his aim is fulfilled they will say they did it themselves" was polar to that of Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “It is better to be feared than loved.”^[2]

In the 19th century, the theory of leadership’s traits had been being investigated. Cecil Rhodes (1853–1902) believed that public-spirited leadership could be nurtured by identifying young people with "moral force of character and instincts to lead", and educating them in contexts (such as the collegiate environment of the University of Oxford) which further developed such characteristics.^[3]

A number of works explored the trait theory at length, for example, the writings of Thomas Carlyle who identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. Francis Galton (1869) examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. He concluded that leadership was inherited. These works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of a leader. Proponents of the theory of the Great Man popular in XIX century believed that all the achievements of civilization are the result of the activities of outstanding personalities since the main law of public life is the imitation of the hero by the followers (masses).

The scientific study of leadership began with an emphasis on the features of effective leaders. Scientific Management (Taylor – 1905) aimed at maximizing employees’ effectiveness through specialism considered that leaders are born, not made (The theory of leadership features).^[4] It assumes that only men with the inborn characteristics of leadership will be successful, and have the innate ability to take their natural place when crises arise. Nevertheless neither any of these signs nor any particular combination of them will guarantee success as a leader.

In the advent of the industrial revolution, we see a progression from a dominant leader style remnant of the early 20th century to a more egalitarian style befitting open "knowledge society" in which interpersonal communication has lost its hierarchy, and value is evaluated more than consumer satisfaction. K. Lewin (1939) defined three organizational leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire, with varying levels of management involvement and directive.^[5]

Three decades later, Dr. Rensis Likert described the Participative Leadership Theory in which leaders show great concern for employees, and include them in the decision-making process.^[6] Fred Fiedler believed that the best leadership style was the one that best fits a given situation, and accordingly proposed the Contingency Theory of Leadership and the Least Preferred Co-worker Scale to establish whether a manager-supervisor was a good match for his leadership assignment.^[7] Robert House published a theory of Charismatic Leadership in which the leader is characterized as “dominant, having a strong desire to influence others, being self-confident, and having a strong sense of one’s own moral values”.

Gary Yukl added elements of the Participative Leadership Theory, pointing to the conscious joint decision, and delegation of authority.^[8]  

Dr. Paul Hersey^[9] and Dr. Ken Blanchard^[10] proposed Situational Leadership Style based on the maturity or developmental level of the follower. Robert Greenleaf proposed Servant Leadership, which only caught on in the mid-1990s when Larry Spears dissected Greenleaf’s ideas into ten defining characteristics of servant leaders. This latter gained more impetus in the aftermath of repeated ethical failures within large brand-name organizations within the US and beyond, in the first decade of the 21st century.^[11]

The limitations of large corporations also resulted in renewed interest in leadership associated with small enterprise development. Entrepreneurial leadership can be defined as the ability to anticipate opportunities, envision a new enterprise concept, work with others and maintain flexibility and initiate changes that will create a viable future for the enterprise.

The global outcry surrounding the rising concern about global inequality, the sustainability of the planet, and the realization of the interdependence of all things, gives rise to a need for new leadership. Einstein once offered that creativity and innovation are needed to solve the complex problems of the world, and particularly these skills are considered the most crucial for 21-st century leadership.^[12]