1 Biography: King Faisal bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud Saleh Alshehri Introduction Biographies of key figures in authority and leadership can often provide a detailed account of their legacy of leadership, which, in turn, deserves to be examined through the lenses of a modern theoretical approach. This paper seeks to conduct an investigation of this nature, by analysing the leadership style of King Faisal bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, the King of Saudi Arabia from 1964 to 1975. This analysis primarily depends on a biography written by Alexei Vasiliev in 2016, entitled “King Faisal of Saudi Arabia: Personality, Faith and Times”. This biography was chosen because Vasiliev provides comprehensive accounts and insights into King Faisal’s style, thoughts, and approaches in leadership. Thus, this paper will first draw upon how the King’s leadership was shaped, based on the framework by Gronn’s (1999). Then, it will critically analyse his leadership style in terms of the transformational leadership theory, after which, an insight into the social, political and historical context of King Faisal’s rule will be expounded upon. Leadership as Career Leaders’ biographies are considered to be an excessive source of knowledge pertaining to the leaders’ traits, behaviour and practices, which are important for followers to emulate (Shamir, Dayan-Horesh, & Adler, 2005). King Faisal is an example of a leader who became a monarch during a time of social, political and economic unrest. His reign defined how the history of the Saudi, Arab and Islamic world would be written, and determined the outcomes that would have a lasting effect on modern lives today. Gronn (1999) clarifies that, to understand what makes a leader, researchers need to take into account the culture, history and society that may contribute to their decisions and practices. Furthermore, he added that, to study leadership style, it is important to view it from a career standpoint for two reasons. Firstly, scholars who study leadership will be able to develop an informed understanding of the different contexts in which leadership occurs. Secondly, leadership studies lack a sound comparative