Wendelln/aBelln/an/an/an/a, RichardJ.Hilln/an/an/an/a, CharlesR.Wrightn/an/an/an/a

Public Leadership¹

Four general approaches to leadership were selected for attention in this review of the literature on public leadership in the United States. These are studies of for-real leaders, of reputational leaders, of active social participants, and of personal influentials. Formal leaders, as the name suggests, are individuals who hold official positions of authority in society, and therefore, can be expected to exercise leadership and influence in matters of public importance. In particular, we have considered evidence on the kinds of individuals who hold high governmental offices, either elected or appointed, top executive posts in business, and military leaders. Reputational leaders are the persons believed to be influential in national or community affairs by certain segments of the community or by the community at large. Active social participants are defined as persons who take part in various formal voluntary organizations or who are most active politically. Personal influentials, more particularly political-opinion leaders, are those people who in their everyday personal contacts influence others in matters of public affairs.…

The evidence presented by such disparate approaches is scattered, complex, and not always consistent. From these many sources, the current review has selected and organized data in terms of certain basic characteristics of leaders that seem most germane to planning for adult education. More particularly, data are presented on the extent to which participation and leadership in public affairs in America is differentiated according to sex, age, ethnicity, religion, education, and social class. Although none of the studies reviewed is definitive in its treatment of these characteristics, the various studies corroborate or complement each other to the extent that certain generalizations are possible. The major findings regarding these characteristics are summarized [as follows.…]

(1) American public leadership is a man’s role today. No matter what concept of leadership is adopted or what methods for locating leaders are employed, most studies document the fact of male dominance in public affairs in the United States.

(2) Public leadership in the United States is a more common activity during the middle years of life than during either youth or seniority. Occasionally, especially among persons of higher socio-economic status and for leaders as defined by formal or reputational status, elder members of the society are powerful. But only rarely are young adults found among the leaders in public affairs.

(3) Public leadership on issues of concern to the entire community or nation is not often in the hands of members of ethnic and religious minority groups. The vast majority of public leaders in the United States are native-born white Protestants. Exceptions are sometimes found in large urban areas.

(4) Three forms of public leadership—formal, reputational, and social-participation—are currently most likely to be displayed by people in the middle and upper social classes, as well as those with above-average formal education. By contrast, personal influence is a form of public leadership that appears in all social strata, although sometimes this type of leadership behavior is also most prevalent among the upper strata.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Following the descriptive analysis of the distribution of leadership in America, the review surveyed the current state of knowledge about the public’s image of its leaders. Most of the information pertaining to public images is relevant only to the formal or positional type of leader. One of the central themes running through research on public attitudes, opinions, and images of leaders is that of variation. For example, variation in the public’s views on leadership occurs according to the respondent’s region of residence, group affiliations, and degree of party identification. Views also vary according to the type of leader and perhaps the general social context within which he acts. In general, Americans have been found to be poorly informed about public issues and their leaders, and many have an ambivalent attitude towards politics and public affairs.…

[T]he question of what motivates citizen participation in public affairs was also discussed. First, factors of economic self-interest were considered. In general, economic self-interest alone does not provide an adequate explanation of citizen involvement in public affairs. However, analysis of the part played by a variety of an individual’s personal interests does add to our understanding of motivational problems. Second, consideration was given to a number of studies stressing the role of personality in political behavior. While the work in this area has established that personality factors are of some importance, the specific nature of the relationship between personality and political behavior remains unknown. As a consequence, the existing work on this subject is more accurately characterized as having potential significance as a general framework rather than as being an empirically buttressed theory. A third approach has focused on the problem of identifying the social determinants of political action. An empirically based set of social variables has been formulated which offers promising leads for future research and which provides a partial explanation for one type of political behavior, voting. With respect to public leadership in general, while social factors are involved, the explanations that are formulated in these terms require additional development. Finally, several social scientists have employed a multilevel and frequently eclectic approach to the problem. These efforts characteristically lack the conceptual integration necessary for adequate explanation.

¹ From Wendell Bell, Richard J. Hill, and Charles R. Wright, , pp. 179–182. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1961. By permission.