Trait Theory of Leadership

10 Key excerpts on "Trait Theory of Leadership"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Strategic Leadership Development

  Building World Class Performance

  • Colin Carnall, Chris Roebuck(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Red Globe Press

    (Publisher)

  Our main intent in this chapter is to consider the various leadership theories in relation to our understanding of leadership but also how the theories help us to understand leadership, its development and its application within organisations to deliver optimum performance in the real world. 3.2 Trait theory What characteristics or capacity within individuals predispose them to behave as, and be perceived by others as, leaders? There are three broad types of factors that many have considered to be important: namely physical differences such as height, age or appearance; capacity differences such as intelligence, scholarship, knowledge, and communication skills; and finally, personality aspects such as self-confidence, emotional control, the need for achievement, the need for power, or interpersonal sensitivity. Trait studies are based on the search for an explanation of leadership success related to the qualities of the leader as a person, sometimes known as the ‘great man’ theory of leadership. In reality, however, while many studies have been undertaken to identify common personality, physical intellectual or other personal characteristics to distinguish ‘good’ leaders, little in the way of an agreed list of traits has ever emerged. Thus the research remained inconclusive (Fielder, 1964) but it has now re-emerged, albeit in work seeking to combine trait theory and behavioural approaches; see, for example, Hogan and Hogan, 2001. Trait theory work produced long and often contradictory lists of traits. Moreover, it was evident that there was substantial subjectivity in the judgements of success in much of the research. In any event, even where judgements of success appeared to be more objective it was also apparent that other factors were also at work – at least where success measures were based on economic performance.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Leadership: All You Need To Know

  • David Pendleton, Adrian Furnham(Authors)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  According to Trait Theory, particular char- acteristics began to be associated with effective leadership. However, in a series of influential reviews, Stogdill (1948) reported the lack of a clear and consistent relationship between individual traits and successful leadership and encouraged researchers to explore alternative theories. Trait Theory was also criticized for being unable to agree or identify a definitive list of leadership traits and, crucially, for failing to take into 14 Leadership: All You Need To Know account the behavior of followers or the increasingly complex situations that leaders faced. Recently there has been renewed interest in Trait The- ory (see Hogan and Kaiser, 2005, p.169–80) due to the increasing clarity about personality that the Five Factor Model of personality has brought to the subject. This will be covered in subsequent chapters. Yet the early trait work stumbled and eventually stopped for various reasons. First, different researchers came up with different lists of the fundamental leadership traits. Some included physical characteristics and others social background factors, while others ignored them. All this led to confusion and dispute. Second, these lists of traits/characteristics were not rank-ordered by importance and it was not clear how they related to each other. Third, it was not clear if these traits were both necessary and sufficient or just necessary. Fourth, the trait approach was essentially retro- spective and it was unclear whether the traits somehow “caused” a person to become a leader or were a consequence of their leadership style and experience. Finally, the trait approach ignored the role of all other social factors (teams, organizations etc.) in the experience of the leader, and thus were incomplete. Trait Theory gave rise to studies of the behaviors and styles of leaders in an attempt to define the “best” or most effective style.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  No longer available

  Organizational Leadership

  • John Bratton(Author)
  • 2023(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  doi:10.1108/JEA-08-2020-0171 Guthey, E. and Jackson, B. (2011) ‘Cross-cultural leadership revisited’, in A. Bryman, D. L. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, and M. Uhl-Bien (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Leadership (pp. 165–78). London: SAGE. As we have already covered, trait theories of leadership focus on personal characteristics or intellectual attributes that differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Interest in traits to predict effective leadership began in the nineteenth century when ‘great leaders’ were generally regarded as superior, usually male and white, individuals who, because of the fortunate inheritance of genes, possessed attributes important for effective leadership. Until the mid-twentieth century, much of the US-centric trait theories and research flourished in the enduring quest to discover (1) specific psychological traits and attributes which would help explain whether an individual will emerge as an informal leader in a group, and (2) how traits and personal attributes are related to leadership effectiveness. Image 5.1 Trait theories of leadership focus on personal characteristics or intellectual attributes that differentiate leaders from non-leaders Researchers used various methods to identify a universal cluster of leadership traits, including intelligence and personality testing, observation, and analysis of biographical data. To illustrate the trait approach, Table 5.1 compares two sets of data measuring traits with leader effectiveness. A word of caution: any interpretation of comparative data might differ because the researchers use different descriptors to describe similar personal characteristics

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Lessons in Library Leadership

  A Primer for Library Managers and Unit Leaders

  • Corey Halaychik(Author)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Chandos Publishing

    (Publisher)

  Given the valid questions about the theory’s merits, what value does the Trait Theory have? First, while it is true that the theory does overlook many external factors, the studies that have been conducted have been consistent in identifying traits that are seen as being important for leaders to possess in order to be seen as successful. Because of this, individuals filling positions of leadership can use the identified traits as a roadmap to success. Engaging in some self-reflection and discussions with others can help a leader to recognize where their strengths and weaknesses—as they relate to the list of traits—lie. Once this is known, an individual can work to develop the areas needing additional focus which will allow them to become more adept at leading their followers. Secondly, being aware of the theory’s limitations allows a leader to think critically about what other factors may influence not only the ability of a person to effectively lead but also what factors might impact their perception as being considered a good leader. Lastly, it can assist a leader in identifying traits in followers which they can help to develop through mentorship to help them grow into effective leaders.

  Behavioral Theory

  History

  Leadership scholars recognized that both the Great Man and Trait theories of leadership focus on innate abilities largely ignoring the impact that an individual’s actions might have on their capacity to lead. Furthermore, trait theory studies, while identifying desirable traits, provided no conclusive way to measure an individual’s capacity of possessing the traits. These factors caused researchers to seek out what other factors that might influence an individual’s ability to be a successful leader. One area that was explored was the role that personal conduct might play in the success or failure of those in positions of authority. By focusing on individual behavior, it was thought that specific actions could be identified which, when practiced, could allow anyone to be an effective leader. Known as the Behavioral Theory of leadership, it sought to replace the view that leaders are born with the idea that leaders could in fact be made.

  Beginning in the late 1940s several studies were initiated which attempted to measure and identify specific leadership behaviors. Two of the most impactful studies occurred at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. The Ohio State University studies were conducted by a group of researchers who initially sought out to discover which innate traits were beneficial for leaders to possess. They soon discovered, as has been pointed out previously, that the existing results of previous studies and their own attempts at discovery were inconclusive (Bass & Stogdill, 1990 ). This caused the researchers to shift their efforts and resulted in the creation of a questionnaire to identify common leadership behaviors. The resulting Leaders Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) has become one of the most widely used leadership measurement tools. The results of the Ohio State University studies found that two general groups of behaviors were associated with leadership approaches. The first of these, Initiating Structure , involves leaders who concern themselves with defining structure for both themselves and their followers, primarily focusing on organizing, initiating, clarifying, and information gathering (Bass & Stogdill, 1990 ). The second, Consideration , involves behaviors that focus on connecting with followers through encouragement, observation, listening, coaching, and mentoring (Bass & Stogdill, 1990

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Organizational Behavior

  • Michael A. Hitt, C. Chet Miller, Adrienne Colella, Maria Triana(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  12 Trait Theory of Leadership At one time, it was thought that some people were born with certain traits that made them effective leaders, whereas others were born without leadership traits. 13 The list of traits generated by this early research was substantial (in the thousands), and included physical characteristics (such as height and appearance), personality characteristics (such as self- esteem, aggressiveness, and dominance), and abilities (such as intelligence, tolerance for stress, and verbal fluency). 14 Early trait research has been criticized for several reasons. For example, the methodology used to identify the traits was poor. Investigators simply leadership The pro- cess of providing general direction and influencing individuals or groups to achieve goals. 254 CHAPTER 8 Leadership generated lists of traits by loosely comparing people who were labeled as leaders with those who were not—without actually measuring traits or systematically testing for meaningful differences. A second criticism is that the list of traits associated with leadership grew so large, it became meaningless. A third criticism is that the results of this research were incon- sistent—different leaders possessed different traits. Finally, no leadership trait was found to relate consistently to unit or organizational performance, and different situations seemed to require different traits. 15 Although famous leaders (e.g., Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.) had “special” traits, a close examination reveals differences among them. Numerous studies conducted to determine the traits that relate to effective leadership found that not all leaders possess the same traits. Nevertheless, the notion of leadership traits has been revived in recent years. 16 One reason for this, as discussed in Chapter 5, is that organizational scientists now better understand personality and individual traits, and have more sophisticated means of measuring them.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  No longer available |Learn more

  Concepts & Theories of Leadership

  • (Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • University Publications

    (Publisher)

  This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the Trait Theory of Leadership. This view of leadership, the trait theory, was explored at length in a number of works in the previous century. Most notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have prompted decades of research. In Heroes and Hero Worship ____________________ WORLD TECHNOLOGIES ____________________ (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton's (1869) Hereditary Genius , he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving from first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader. For decades, this trait-based perspective dominated empirical and theoretical work in leadership. Using early research techniques, researchers conducted over a hundred studies proposing a number of characteristics that distinguished leaders from nonleaders: intelligence, dominance, adaptability, persistence, integrity, socioeconomic status, and self-confidence just to name a few. Rise of alternative theories In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940; Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation

  • I. Derungs(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  In other words, lead- ership traits cannot be isolated from the environment in which the leadership occurs. Some traits might be beneficial in certain situations, but not in others, depending on the context which favors a certain lead- ership’s disposition. Traits and the character of a personality are not enough to mobilize the group or an organization to achieve its goal for transformation. Consequently, neither the outcomes nor the productivity resulting from the interplay between the leader and his/her environment could be produced from the personality’s attributes alone. The focus of this orientation is too much emphasized on traits, and thus on innate qual- ities, and is therefore for many scientists less useful for training and development of leadership (Northouse, 2001), since effect cannot be separated from cause and vice versa. For example, does self-confidence strengthen the success of leadership, or to what extent does success strengthen a leader’s self-confidence (Robbins, 2003)? In spite of these critical arguments the traits’ approach and interpretative variability are Table 3.1 Traits and Attributes of Leadership Stogdill (1974) Gardner (1989) Intelligence Insight Self-confidence Persistence Influence Achievement Initiative Responsibility Cooperativeness Tolerance Sociability Intelligence Understanding Achievement Drive Courage Resolution Trustworthiness Decisiveness Self-confidence Assertiveness Adaptability and flexibility Leadership 47 still in use in human resource management for the recruitment and selection of people for certain leadership positions as well as for the education of personal awareness and development. For the study of transformational and charismatic leadership, traits theories move back into the focus of training research. Leadership scholars generalize cer- tain characteristics as being important, for example, intelligence, high self-insight, sociability, self-confidence, and resilience.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The SAGE Handbook of Leadership

  • Alan Bryman, David Collinson, Keith Grint, Brad Jackson, Mary Uhl-Bien, Alan Bryman, David Collinson, Keith Grint, Brad Jackson, Mary Uhl-Bien(Authors)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  I present individual-difference models that have stood the test of time and show that there are traits that predict leader success; the fact that these traits have been researched over a long period of time does not make them antiquated. In a way, these trait models are like aspirin: discovered many decades ago but still effective today. I define traits and discuss their antecedents. Next, I present what I refer to as an ascription–actuality Trait Theory of Leadership to explain why some traits actually matter (objectively) for leadership effectiveness to the observer, whereas other traits appear to matter to the observer but objectively might not. I provide a historical overview of the literature to show how trait research fell in and out of (and then in again) favour of leadership scholars, and how methodo-logically sophisticated research approaches have engendered a renaissance in trait research. Then, I briefly discuss the criteria that researchers should use to sift through the field to select models that are valid. Finally, I review trait models that are the most predictive of leadership outcomes and identify those that are non-starters. WHAT ARE TRAITS? As with definitions of leadership, there are many definitions of traits. I will use one that will probably not upset too many differential psychologists. Briefly, traits are psychological or biological characteristics that exhibit four essential properties. That is, traits are individual characteristics that (a) are measurable, (b) vary across individuals, (c) exhibit temporal and situa-tional stability, and (d) predict attitudes, decisions, or behaviours and consequently outcomes (for discussion see Ashton, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007; Kenrick & Funder, 1988). Of course, one has to have a theory, too, which explains why a trait (e.g. intelligence) predicts effective leadership.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  No longer available |Learn more

  Leadership

  Research Findings, Practice, and Skills

  • Andrew DuBrin(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  Nevertheless, the trait approach does not tell us which traits are most important in which situations or how much of a trait is required. Also, different situations call for different combina-tions of traits. SUMMARY The trait-based perspective of leadership contends that certain personal characteristics and skills contribute to leadership effectiveness in many situations. Gen-eral personality traits associated with effective leader-ship include (1) self-confidence; (2) humility; (3) core self-evaluations; (4) trustworthiness; (5) authenticity; (6) extraversion; (7) assertiveness; (8) enthusiasm, opti-mism, and warmth; and (9) sense of humor. Some personality traits of effective leaders are closely associated with task accomplishment. Among them are (1) proactive personality, (2) mindfulness, (3) passion for the work and the people, (4) emo-tional intelligence, (5) flexibility and adaptability, and (6) courage. Emotional intelligence is composed of four key domains : self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Each domain has one or more associated competencies. Certain motives and needs associated with leader-ship effectiveness are closely related to task accom-plishment. Among them are (1) the power motive, (2) the drive and achievement motive, (3) strong work ethic, and (4) tenacity and resilience. Cognitive factors are also important for leader-ship success. They include cognitive (or analytical) Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Women/Men/Management

  • Ann Harriman, Bloomsbury Publishing(Authors)
  • 1996(Publication Date)
  • Praeger

    (Publisher)

  The final section will look at masculine and feminine differences in the use of power. The study of power, as we shall see, is approached in two different ways. The more traditional approach looks at power from the individual or situational viewpoint; another approach looks at power as a function of the organi- zational structure. 154 WOMEN/MEN/MANAGEMENT TRAIT THEORIES Trait theory starts with the belief that leaders differ in some fundamental way from nonleaders. Early research was conducted in order to determine just what those trait differences were. However, efforts to distill the infor- mation proved disappointing. One review found that only 5 percent of all traits thought to be related to leadership or success showed up in four or more studies (Bird 1940). Another showed that while certain traits differ- entiated leaders from nonleaders, the relative importance of these traits changed from one situation to another (Stogdill 1948). So persuasive were the critics that trait theory was virtually abandoned as research turned to the significant situational and style variables to explain managerial success. However, a subsequent re-review of the literature concluded that research- ers had overreacted. While we now know that there are no traits that are essential to managerial success, the personal nature of leadership cannot be ignored (Stogdill 1974). Literally hundreds of studies of the traits or characteristics of "natural leaders" have been conducted over time. They became particularly popular between about 1920 and 1950, when the rapid development of psycholog- ical testing instruments made personality assessment more available. The kind of traits most frequently studied included physical characteristics, per- sonality, and ability (Yukl 1981).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book