Leaders are supposed to be ‘charismatic’, but we also often hear of the ‘quiet’ ones. Then, there is Level 5 Leadership. Everybody, it seems, has a theory about what a leader needs to be. There are incredibly diverse views on what a leader looks like.

Seventy-five years ago, it was believed that we can identify a leader through his traits. Then it was said, what matters is the behaviour he displays. During these phases, many researchers attempted to discover common character traits that might help distinguish ‘true’ leaders from non-leaders. David McClelland’s work on the leader’s ‘need for achievement’ was a defining piece in this genre. Among the many traits that were singled out by others were: an internal locus of control, and even one’s place in the family birth order.

Fast-forward to the 1980s and we saw the birth of the celebrity CEO. Al ‘Chainsaw’ Dunlap, a retired US Army general, turned around many basket-cases successfully and became a media poster boy. At Lily Tulip, he fired 50 percent of the corporate staff; at Crown Zellerbach he cut 20 per cent of the workforce; at Scott Paper, he axed 11,000 jobs. Not many would remember, Jack Welch was popularly known as ‘Neutron’ Jack (after the neutron bomb, which kills the people but leaves the buildings intact) for carrying out a similar exercise at GE in that decade. (Jack brought in the ‘culture’ religion in the early 1990s.)

Then, came the 1990s & a boom when the ‘charismatic’ leader became the toast of the media. Leadership gurus were not far behind in their adulation either. Everybody wanted to believe the boom will last forever, so the business leader became the hero leading us resolutely into a more prosperous future. The internet bubble fed the ‘charisma’ frenzy further until optimism couldn’t defy the economic cycle.

In the new century, charisma is out, and we were advised that what works is quiet industriousness after all. The stellar qualities of the ‘quiet’ leader are extolled today. Not to forget those of the ‘humble’ leader, etc., etc. The ‘ideal’ leader in the next decade? Your guess is as good as mine.

Going by all that has been said about leadership traits, it will seem that in order to predict whether an individual has the potential to become a leader, or is already one, all we need to do is compare an individual against the psychological profile of a leader. Yet, none of these ‘profiles’ apply to all leaders. And many leaders refuse to conform to any of these profiles!

In the early 1980s, 89 of the Fortune 100 companies reorganised. Why? For that, one needs to look beyond the companies and their leaders. The environment changed. The increased low-cost competition from overseas was a reason. Another was the rise of the corporate raider. Raiders acquired underperforming companies where the sum of the parts was less than the parts taken individually and usually, sold the parts to different buyers. The constant fear of these corporate raiders stalked the boardrooms. The only way to keep them at bay was to increase profitability, and reducing management levels improved the bottomline. Finally, increased competition and uncertainty fuelled by the dramatic economic and regulatory changes of the time made things only worse. These men were merely reacting to the rapidly transforming world around them.

Clearly, the qualities of the ‘ideal’ business leader at any given time are a function of the economic, political and social environment of the day. The events playing themselves out in that period shape the perception of what we need from our leaders. The Germans have a wonderful concept to explain this phenomenon -- they call it the ‘Zeitgiest’: the spirit of the times.

The concept of leadership also changes with the times. What is considered the ideal in one period is looked down upon in another. And vice-versa. Winston Churchill was considered a pompous failure until he became the Prime Minister of Great Britain during World War II.

Another example which highlights this phenomenon is that of Edmund Muskie. In 1972, he was the leading Democratic candidate for the US president in the primaries. Addressing a rally, he choked while protesting against press attacks on his wife. Television images of a tearful Muskie horrified American viewers. Cry babys don’t become Presidents! His political career was over. Twenty-eight years later, Al Gore's campaign for president was struggling because he never displayed his feelings like, well, Muskie!

As a commentator remarked (albeit in an entirely unrelated context): “Muskie's catastrophic failure might have been considered a roaring success in a different time and place. If he had been campaigning in the age of Oprah, his tearful outburst might have won him plaudits. Muskie would then have been viewed as a devoted husband and passionate candidate who could communicate soulfully with the American public.”

The times and, just as importantly, the individual situation define the leadership style that is appropriate for the context. A charismatic leadership tactic might be good for pruning and regenerating an ageing behemoth, but it will not work equally well in an organisation that has reached a steady state and now needs to put systems in place to manage the growth. As Sun Tzu said: “One (who is) able to gain victory by modifying his strategy in accordance with the situation may said to be divine.”

The author heads strategy and leadership practice at Anoova Consulting. The views expressed in this column are his own. He can be reached at mohit.malik@AnoovaConsulting.Biz .