"Scientific" Analysis of Leadership = Boring

-_-' alright, I'll probably get hate mail for this. But maybe someone can help straighten me out, and help me find this more useful. So a while ago I read through three or four books that explained some "scientific" studies on leadership.

Going through my notes, I'll pick on the "Multiple Linkage Model". I'll make this as brief as possible. A leader's effectiveness is driven by the leader's behavior, however there are many situational variables, such as corporate culture, that will influence the effectiveness of a leader's behavior. (Yelling and swearing at subordinates might work in the military, but will probably get you fired at your job). Similarly, intervening variables, such as subordinate's level of ability, available resources, natural disasters... can also influence results and effectiveness.

OK, my response to this "Duh!". Ok maybe I have a prejudice against this because it took the better part of a book to explain this in its original form (I see in my notebook where I drifted off to sleep with my handwriting becoming unrecognizable). I also just completed a Computer Based Training course on leadership where I sat through almost three hours of early 90's computer graphics that described four or five more theories of leadership.

I can't help but think, "How does this make me a better Young Leader?" Does anyone have any opinions about this? Is it better to think of leadership in the scientific (almost psychological) manner that you might read about in musty books? Or is it more reasonable to think about leadership from the basis of a few very basic principles and build up from there?

I would think that people are so incredible complex that it would be more effective to think about leadership from the ground up. Comments welcome and appreciated! Thank You!!

-Jason