Anyone writing about leadership is immediately
confronted by a number of issues. The first concerns
whether leadership is a useful concept. Calder (1977)
iconoclastically doubts whether leadership is a
scientifically viable construct and similar comments have
been made by Miner (1975) and Perrow (1972). The
second problem is the sheer size of literature on
leadership. This would not matter if the literature was
well organized. But, as McCall and Lombardo (1978)
complain, it consists of a mind-boggling array of
unintegrated theories, prescriptions and conceptual
schemes.