ARTICLE REVIEW

Benmira, Sihame and Moyosolu Agboola. “Evolution of Leadership Theory.” BMJ

Leader, vol.5, Issue 1 (2021): 3-5. Cited 8 August 2023. Online:
https://bmjleader .bmj.com/content/5/1/3

The “Evolution of Leadership Theory” is a three paged article written with the key

purpose of exploring the evolution of the key leadership theories that have emerged since the

19th century and how each of these theories have progressed over the years. The authors begin

by admitting that leadership remains one of the very complex subjects, yet the success of any

organization depends on it. The article has been divided into four key eras. Each section

briefly discusses the evolution, description and progress of each of these main leadership

theories. The four eras are; First, the Trait Era; which saw the development of the Great Man

theory (1840s) and the Trait theories (1930s-1940s). Secondly, the Behavioural Era; (1940s-

1950s) which saw the development of the behavioural theory from the trait theories. Thirdly,

the Situational Era (1960s), when the Contingent and Situational theories were developed.

The fourth era was the New Leadership Era (1990s-2000s). This is when the Transactional,

the Transformational and other theories were developed. The article concluded by

acknowledging that leadership by definition, understanding and application will continue to

change over time.

The article was able to achieve its purpose in a very summarized manner. It is a

succinct and well-organized and one could easily see the historical evolution of the main

theories of leadership and their progress over the years. The progressive transitions where

clearly outlined and the context that gave rise to such theories can be clearly identified. For

those who have no background knowledge about these main traditional leadership theories

and their history, and want a quick overview on the subject will find this article helpful.

1
 On the other hand, it could have been better if the authors recognize and acknowledge

the individuals who have made these theories popular during these different eras, but they

failed to do so. Take for instance, during the situational era the article acknowledged the

contribution of Fiedler in the development of the first contingency theories, (para, 11) but

failed to do so with the other key theories. This is one of the weaknesses of this article,

because it gives a incomplete history of the evolution of these leadership theories.

Furthermore, on the positive note, the article provides a simple definition and

description of what each theory is all about. This is a bonus; it helps readers understand what

each leadership theories are about. However, when it comes to examples, it only gives

leadership examples for the Great Man theory, people like Julius Caesar (para, 6) and

transformational leaders like Bill Gates, (para, 13) but failed to do so for other theories. It

would have been better if all leadership examples are included in the paper so that readers can

be able to understand how these theories have been put to practice by these leaders.

Overall, the article is good as it is very clear and concise. There is a progressive flow

that linked each era and each theory. Also, a brief context was given as to why a particular

theory might have been abandoned or has evolved to a new theory. This is very helpful to

understand the progress that took place following each theory. A well summarized table was

also included, which could have been excluded given that each era has already been well

summarized. Most of these traditional leadership theories have been become less relevant

thus resulting in the evolution of new leadership theories.