Co-Authors: Dr. David Robertson & Dr. Julie Armstrong

Imagine being an HR professional tasked with facilitating executive development programs within your organization. You've decided to refer your executives to external professionals for their development. But here's the challenge: how do you identify the right program or professionals to recommend?

The task becomes even more daunting due to the lack of clear indicators that distinguish high-quality programs from those led by inexperienced individuals in the field. The leadership industry remains unregulated, allowing anyone to claim expertise without recognizable certifications, proper qualifications, or a clearly-defined body of knowledge. To complicate matters further, popular programs often appear impressive and well-funded due to their widespread recognition. Therefore, it's easy to assume that these programs must be effective based on their popularity. However, as Socrates once wisely stated, "If you want to be wrong, follow the masses."

The general public often lacks awareness of the disparity between programs led by passionate enthusiasts with a focus on soft skills and professional programs grounded in rigorous scientific principles. It's unlikely that most people possess the necessary expertise to discern between the various programs. Consequently, they tend to rely on "social proof" or popular opinion to make their choices. Sadly, this reliance on public perception often leads to referrals for soft skill-focused programs led by novices or enthusiasts. While these programs may provide immediate gratification and cater to a wide audience, they may lack enduring, substantial, and scientifically validated leadership principles.

As a result, individuals attending such programs (and their sponsoring organizations) may encounter repeated long-term failures, thus developing a negative opinion about leader and leadership development without ever experiencing the true benefits of a professional program grounded in evidence-based practices. This scenario presents an interesting question. Is Leadership a soft skill or a hard science? That's a question that sparks an interesting discussion. However, to answer it effectively, we need to understand the concept of soft skills and how they differ from hard skills.

Soft skills are people-oriented skills, traits, and characteristics that govern how individuals interact and navigate their work and personal lives. They are often intangible and less directly-quantifiable than technical or hard skills, which are job-specific abilities. What makes the field of leadership unique is the necessary combination of both soft-skills and hard skills to produce the intended organizational outcomes. Pop-leadership seems to focus only on soft skills, evidenced by many social media posts, pseudo-leadership texts, and advice from coaches who may (or may not) possess certifications in coaching methods, but lack formal education in the field of leadership. This has led to a perception that leadership is solely about possessing personal attributes or characteristics, but that's not the whole story.

Thanks to the science of leadership, we now know leadership depends on other factors as well. In fact, the science of leadership, also known as leaderology, encompasses a much broader set of qualities and competencies. Specifically, it emphasizes a variety of hard skills.

While emotional intelligence, communication, psychological safety, relationship-building, and resilience are examples of important soft skills required to practice leadership, there are numerous other elements that can be classified as hard skills. Strategic decision-making, problem-solving, data analysis, business strategy development, organizational diagnosis, conflict resolution, negotiations, organizational architecture, performance measurement options and applications, change leadership, communication strategies, team building, performance evaluation, motivation techniques, and effective feedback delivery are just a few examples. The list goes on and on.

It is true that certain aspects of leadership can be seen as both an art and a social science. The art of leadership emphasizes creativity, intuition, and personal expression, which are essential for inspiring, motivating, and influencing others. On the other hand, the scientific study of leadership involves extensive research, theories, and models that explore leadership styles, behaviors, and their impact on individuals and organizations. By examining leadership through a scientific lens, we can systematically observe, experiment, and analyze its various aspects, just like any other social science.

Recognizing that leadership is both an art and a science, we understand that applying leadership principles in real-world contexts requires learning the science and implementing it artistically. This approach involves adapting to different situations, continuously improving through feedback and self-reflection, and applying knowledge effectively. Like any other scientific discipline, the quality of leadership practice or development varies based on the individual's dedication and understanding of the craft.

The misconception that leadership is solely a collection of soft skills often arises from public conditioning and the tendency of certain non-leadership professionals to adopt the "leadership" title without having studied the science. The science of leadership soft skills is in their relationship as a measurable moderator or mediator of the hard skills that impact organizational outcomes. Unfortunately, practitioners who lack the breadth and depth of understanding regarding these relationships often create a misconception that undermines the rigorous academic journey required to gain expertise in leadership and the wide range of skills involved.

To truly grasp the value of leadership as a science, it is essential to dispel misconceptions and recognize its multifaceted nature. Leadership is not an abstract concept; it is a set of definable skills and competencies that can be researched, identified, measured, cultivated, and refined. Similarly, focusing on leadership as a distinct discipline yields tangible benefits, such as higher employee engagement, improved productivity, enhanced teamwork, and better organizational performance. Furthermore, leadership extends beyond a single profession or industry and is applicable in business, politics, education, community development, and countless other contexts.

By recognizing leadership as a science, we open the doors to rigorous study, empirical research, and evidence-based practices. This scientific approach allows us to develop frameworks, models, and theories that can guide leaders in their decision-making processes and help them navigate complex challenges. Additionally, viewing leadership as a science encourages organizations and institutions to invest in leadership development programs. These programs provide individuals with the necessary knowledge, skills, and tools to become effective leaders in their roles. This is because the science of leadership tends to include training on critical thinking, problem-solving, strategic planning, emotional intelligence, communication, and other essential leadership competencies.

In addition to leadership development programs, organizations can also leverage scientific methods to assess and select potential leaders. Psychometric assessments, simulations, and structured interviews can help identify individuals who possess the right mix of skills, traits, and behaviors for leadership roles. This data-driven approach reduces biases and enhances the likelihood of selecting high-quality leaders.

When leadership is regarded as both a science and an art – a combination of hard skills and soft skills – it encourages a holistic perspective that combines analytical thinking with creative expression. NLA-verified Leaderologists and Leadership Professionals understand the scientific principles and theories behind leadership, but they also know how to apply them in real-world situations via the soft skills that make them effective. They balance strategic decision-making with empathetic communication, adaptability with resilience, and collaboration with assertiveness.

Unfortunately, public awareness and understanding of these truths are lacking, resulting in confusion about what it means to study, develop, and practice leadership. The need for the National Leaderology Association (NLA) arises from this gap in knowledge and perception, emphasizing the importance of such advocacy. Just as management, psychology, and anthropology have their associations, leadership as a social science now has its own platform for advancement and representation. Establishing the NLA will elevate the significance of leadership, promote its understanding and development, and bring awareness to its diverse applications.

Ultimately, our message is that leaderology transcends the traditional boundaries of soft skills and emerges as a discipline that combines the art of personal expression with the science of research and analysis. By recognizing leadership as a science, we acknowledge its multifaceted nature and the wide range of skills and competencies required to make a meaningful impact on individuals, organizations, and academe. Embracing this perspective opens up avenues for rigorous study, evidence-based practices, and continuous development. In the end, this comprehensive understanding of leadership can lead to more effective leaders, thriving organizations, and a positive societal impact.