to support the concept of leadership as a science, something that can be taught and learned.
Sven Lundstedt's (1975, p. 164) concept of leadership supports and enhances that of Boyd. Lundstedt (1975, p. 164) said that leadership "is the ability to influence the behavior of others in a group or organization, set up goals for a group, formulate paths to the goals, and create some social norms in the group." This definition includes some aspects which are arguably learnable; however, the "ability to influence" and the creation of "social norms" could, arguably, fall in the realm of art, as opposed to science.
James MacGregor Burns has studied leadership for years. He defined leadership as
. . leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivation the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations of both leaders and followers . . . Leadership, unlike naked power wielding, is thus inseparable from followers' needs and goals (Burns, 1978, p. 110). Burns' definition is probably better than the others discussed above, however, he still did not fully address the question of whether leadership can be learned (although he certainly appeared to lean in the direction of learning).
Thomas Peters, and Robert Waterman, Jr. (1982, p. 107) offered a definition of leadership which they attributed to Henry Kissinger. Leadership, according to this definition,
. . is many things. It is patient . . . boring coalition building . . . the purposeful seeding of cabals that . . . will result in the appropriate ferment in the bowels of the organization . . . meticulously shifting the . . . institution through the mundane language of management systems . . . altering agendas so that new priorities get . . . attention . . being visible when things are going awry, and invisible when they are working well . . . building a loyal team at the top that speaks . . . with one voice . . ...