Romance of Leadership

Abstract

Leadership is one of the most discussed, studied, and written about topics in our society. Should it be? The romance of leadership (ROL) is an attributional approach to leadership that attempts to understand when and why we recognize and give credit to leaders for influencing and changing our institutions and societies. First introduced by leadership scholar James R. Meindl and colleagues, this approach highlights the fact that leaders and leadership issues often become the favored explanations for both positive and negative outcomes in organizations. In addition, subsequent research has demonstrated that people value performance results more highly when those results are attributed to leadership and that a halo effect exists for leadership: If an individual is perceived to be an effective leader, his or her personal shortcomings and poor organizational performance may be overlooked. This entry defines the ROL perspective and then turns to implications and critiques of this approach. The Theory Based on a series of studies, the ROL suggests that we overwhelmingly tend to favor leaders and leadership as the causal force behind the activities and outcomes of organizations. In part, a critical response to a prevailing emphasis on the importance of leaders in the leadership process (as opposed to an emphasis on followers or the situation), the ROL theory was developed to call attention to the fact that whatever the " true " impact of leaders and leadership in organizations and societies, leadership as a concept has attained an immenseand perhaps often unwarranted popularity in our understanding of the world. Simply stated, despite centuries of study and decades of formal research, the concept of leadership remains largely elusive and resistant to attempts to unravel its mystique. Yet we continue to believe in its import and efficacy, even in situations in which we have no direct evidence to support this belief. The ROL was introduced as one of the first explicitly follower-centric approaches in an effort to balance the many leader-centric approaches that dominated leadership research and practice. Meindl pointed out that leadership had attained a seemingly heroic, larger-than-life status and urged us to consider the implications of relaxing the often taken-for-granted assumption that leadership is important in its own right. Particularly in light of the growing appreciation of external factors and the surrounding environment in which organizations operate, he suggested that we need to question and systematically explore the value and significance of leadership in modern organizations.