Introduction to Leadership Concepts Homework Questions

CHAPTER 3

TRAIT THEORIES

This chapter discusses the first formal theory of leadership-trait theory. This approach to leadership focuses on the personal traits and characteristics of leaders. Both traditional and contemporary research in leadership traits and skills are reviewed.

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter you should be able to:

✓ understand the implications of the nature vs. nurture question,

✓ recognize the important role trait research plays in the study of leadership,

✓ identify the key elements and variables of Stogdill's research,

✓ understand the strengths and weaknesses of the trait approach to leadership,

✓ understand the basic components of charismatic leadership, and

✓ understand the elements of contemporary trait theories.

32 Trait Theories

INTRODUCTION Researchers and social scientists of the early twentieth

century believed that leaders possessed certain traits that enabled them to lead others. These unique physical and psychological characteristics provided them with the ability and potential to influence others. At the time, most scholars assumed that these traits were personal characteristics that were inherited. Later, this view was expanded to include skills learned and developed through life experiences. These earlier leadership researchers were not sure which traits were the most essential; however, they did believe that a person's physical and psychological characteristics were the best gauge for leadership potential. Most of these traits fell into the following categories: physical characteristics, social background, intelligence and ability, personality, task related abilities, and social characteristics (Bass, 1990).

NATURE VS.NURTURE One of the most important questions that trait theorists

attempted to answer had to do with the origin of leadership traits. Many trait theorists believed that people were born with skills that made them leaders. If they were born into "good stock" or had

Most people families with wealth and/or intellect, they were automatically considering the leaders. These born leaders (Rockefellers, DuPonts, and others)

issue today were held in the highest esteem during that time. Other trait believe that theorists contended that traits had to do less with the leadership characteristics one was born with, and more with the environment ability is in which one grew up. These theorists pointed to leaders like

influenced by Horatio Alger and Dale Carnegie in the industrial world. This debate ones birthrighC raged for years and much research attempted to prove or disprove but leadership one position or the other.

can also be Over the years, the nature versus nurture debate has learned. become less important. As research continued, it became clear that

the answer was not nearly as simple as either side wanted it to be. Most theorists today begin with the assumption that an individual's repertoire of leadership abilities is impacted by his or her birthright, but leadership is also learnable. The truth seems to be that both nature and nurture play a role in the development of personality traits. The traits of leaders are not due exclusively either to nature or to one's environment and experiences.

Understanding Leadership 33

EARLIEST THEORIES h d ii 0

e s h e It ;t Social scientists

of the early e twentiethI, century~I

believed that leaders

possessed certain traits

:s that enabled them to lead

it others.

d ly ;) it e lt

The great man theory is considered to be one of the earliest theories of leadership. Popular among researchers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, this theory argued that those who served as leaders were "endowed" differently from others. It was believed that leaders were more capable and had certain traits that the rest of society did not possess. The great leaders of history like George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Martin Luther King, to mention just a few, possessed qualities that their fellow countrymen did not. These leaders were believed to be "great men" who provided direction and influenced the masses.

The great man theory led to considerable research, but the conclusion reached by many scholars of the time was that leaders were in fact not that different from others. The diversity of leaders seemed to indicate to researchers that very different sorts of people had been successful at leading others. As a result, the great man theory slowly faded away as a serious field of study by the early 1900s. This failure encouraged the development and evolution of the trait theory approach. Rather than searching for "great men," researchers began looking for the personal traits that enabled leaders to lead. The idea was that, if leaders did possess unique qualities and characteristics, it must then be possible to identify these leader traits. During this time period, trait theory produced a considerable amount of empirical research that provided scholars with insight into leaders and their personal traits.

:e STOGDILL'S 1948 REVIEW :e Ralph Stogdill published a comprehensive review in 1948

that compiled nearly 130 leader trait studies from 1904 to 1947. Stogdill's review identified six common variables from these studies

IS that included personal characteristics as well as situational factors. it The six variables were:

• Capacity. This includes personal traits, such as intelligence, 's communication skills, and judgement. These critical elements t, directly affect a leader's capacity to lead. Leaders are believed :h to be more intelligent than others and to have the ability to ")f communicate ideas clearly. ·e

• Achievement. Those who have achieved a great deal in their lives are more likely to be elevated to leadership roles. Personal achievements, such as a college degree or certificate in a particular field, are seen as factors that provide the individual with the necessary abilities to lead.

34 Trait Theories

• Responsibility. Stogdill's research showed that, generally speaking, those who choose to lead are responsible to themselves, their followers, and to their cause or organization. Leaders are also seen as dependable and are persistent in pursuing their goals.

• Participation. Leaders are not spectators, but rather are active players in the groups and organizations in which they belong. Simply, leaders are willing to get involved, to participate, and to contribute in activities of the larger group.

• Status. The studies also suggested that a person's socioeconomic status and position directly relate to leadership and leadership potential. Generally, those who held leadership positions came from higher or more prosperous socioeconomic backgrounds and from more prestigious families.

• Situation. Although not a personal trait, Stogdill's research showed that situational factors play a large part in leadership, leadership effectiveness, and in determining which individuals serve as leaders. The studies indicated that being a leader in one situation did not guarantee action as a leader in another.

Despite the enormous amount of research on personal traits reviewed by Stogdill, few if any traits were found to be universally essential to the leadership process. Instead, he found that the need for certain traits varied based on the situation. In addition, he found many successful leaders who did not exhibit common traits. These early studies did not produce a particular "set of traits" that alone would guarantee leadership (Bass, 1990).

STOGDILL'S 1974 REVIEW In 1974, Stogdill again conducted an extensive review of the

research in trait theory. This time, he reviewed and analyzed more than 160 independent trait studies published between 1949 and 1970. His conclusions incorporated information from his 1948 review as well. Stogdill suggested the following trait profile:

The leader is characterized by a strong drive for responsibility and task completion, persistence in pursuit of goals, venture in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social situations, self-confidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to accept consequences of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other persons' behavior, and capacity to structure social inter­ action systems to the purpose at hand.

Understanding Leadership 35

ly Below is a list of the personal traits and skills Stogdill found :o to be common among successful leaders: n. • adaptable in • achievement-oriented

• assertive ,e

• cooperative g,

• decisiveto • dependable

i's • dominant 1ip • energetic 1ip • persistent 1ic

• willing to assume responsibility

ch

• intelligent

• creative

• diplomatic

• effective communication

• knowledge of tasks

• organized

• persuasive

• socially skilled

• self-confident

• tolerates stress

ip, Although scholars before him had rejected many elements of ~Is trait theory, Stogdill continued to believe that by studying individual in characteristics, a great deal could be learned about leadership.

While most agree that trait research did not produce a "set of traits" that were absolutely necessary for leadership, it did provide

its a good understanding of common characteristics of those who

illy serve as leaders. Today, most scholars believe that certain personal

ed traits may enhance a person's ability to lead, but these

he characteristics by themselves do not guarantee leadership

ts. effectiveness.,at

CHARISMATIC THEORIES Some of the more recent work in the field of trait theory has

been in the study of personal charisma. Some researchers are :he

looking at the relationship between those who are seen as)re charismatic people and how that might enhance their ability to

ind lead. Historically, the Greek word charisma means "divinely inspired 148 gift". Today, however, charisma is viewed more as a personality trait (or traits) that attract the attention of others.

for In 1977, Robert House proposed a new theory based on the'of

characteristics of charismatic leaders. House argued that ':ive

charismatic leaders have a strong desire for power, are highly,nal confident, and have a strong conviction about their own personal

md beliefs and ideals. This theory also states that charisma came firstess and foremost from followers' perceptions that the leader possessesher unique qualities and characteristics.ter- House's Charismatic Theory includes:

36 Trait Theories

■ Charismatic leaders engage in behaviors that impress followers.

■ Charismatic leaders communicate goals that are deeply shared among the followers.

■ Charismatic leaders use emotional appeals to motivate followers.

■ Charismatic leaders have high expectations of their followers.

■ Charismatic leaders serve as role models for their followers.

In a more recent study, Conger and Kanungo (1998) proposed a charismatic leadership theory that was based primarily on followers' observations of leaders' behaviors. They believe that some followers attribute certain charismatic qualities and traits to a leader because of his or her behavior. These behaviors include:

■ Extreme vision. Charismatic leaders often express a vision that is radically different from the status quo.

■ High personal risk. Charismatic leaders often take great personal risks and make significant sacrifices to achieve their vision.

■ Use of unconventional strategies. Charismatic leaders often achieve their goals through unconventional methods.

■ Communicate self-confidence. Charismatic leaders express to their followers a high degree of confidence in themselves and the group's mission.

CONTEMPORARY TRAIT APPROACHES Even though the effectiveness of trait approaches has been

seriously questioned in both academic and practical contexts, many still believe some personal traits are predictive of leadership.

Covey~ Habits and Principles Stephen Covey identifies traits of leaders based on his

assumption that people will be more effective at leading others if they are effective at leading their own lives. Covey (1991) defined "principle-centered leaders" as persons who:

■ are continually learning • are service-oriented

■ see life as an adventure ■ lead balanced lives

■ exercise for self-renewal ■ are synergistic

■ believe in other people ■ radiate positive energy

Covey's books have been widely embraced in recent popular literature. His devotees hold his "seven habits of highly effective

Understanding Leadership 37

people" in high regard. His list of habits should be recognized as a d reiteration of trait theory. Those habits are:

1. Be proactive e 2. Begin with the end in mind

3. Put first things first 4. Think win/win 5. Seek first to understand, then to be understood

:) 6. Synergize y 7. Sharpen the saw It a The strength of Covey's approach, while non-empirical and

anecdotal, is logical and compelling, as is evidenced by the number of adherents he has attracted. The seven habits (traits) seemIt rational, reasonable, and accessible to many who seek to improve their abilities as leaders.

It ir Emotional Intelligence {EQ)

Recent work by Daniel Goleman (1998a, 1998b) and others n into the idea of emotional intelligence illustrate the fact that trait

research is still viable in the field of leadership. Goleman (1998a)

:0 concludes that leaders who are highly emotionally intelligent are:

• self-awared • self-regulating

• motivated

• empathetic n • socially skilled 1y

Goleman admits that intelligence and technical skills are important, but asserts that emotional intelligence differentiates the mediocre leader from the exceptional.

is Based on Goleman's foundation, Cooper (1997) asserts thatif

there are three essential driving forces within successful leaders.:d These driving forces are the key to the ability of leaders to have an impact on their followers and organizations. First, effective leaders build trusting relationships. This enables them to develop in a similar manner the capacity and character of their organization. Second, leaders work to increase the energy and effectiveness of organizations. This also develops capacity and stimulates initiative.IY Finally, emotionally intelligent leaders strive to shape the future by tapping the power of divergent views and making the most of real potential and innovation. This drive develops organizational character and guides organizational activity. Cooper reasons that

38 Trait Theories

leaders who exhibit these three traits are able to produce increases in emotional literacy, emotional fitness, emotional depth, and emotional alchemy.

The work of Covey and Goleman makes it clear that trait theory is not merely alive, but is thriving in significant ways. The relative simplicity of these and other popular conceptions, however, often obscures the inherent weakness of any trait approach: trait theory is exclusively leader-centered, and as such may have less actual utility and explanatory power than more recent theories.

SUMMARY The trait approach represents the first attempt to develop

leadership theory in a formal sense. Trait theories primarily focus on the leader and the characteristics and traits that seem to enable him or her to lead others. Whether or not these traits are based on learned or inherited skills, trait theorists believe that leaders bring certain abilities to the table that followers do not. Though it leaves a number of important questions unanswered, trait theory remains attractive to many because of its relative simplicity.

REFERENCES Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1998). Charismatic

Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cooper, R. K. (1997). "Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace." Training & Development, 51 (12), 31-39.

Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Summit.

Goleman, D. (1998a). "Guidelines for best practice: How to improve emotional intelligence." Training & Development, 52 (10), 28-30.

Goleman, D. (1998b). "What makes a leader?" Harvard Business Review, (5), 93

House, R.J. (1977). "A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership," in J.G. Hunt and LL. Larson (eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. pp. 189-207. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Northouse, P.M. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stogdill, R.M. (1948). "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature." Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71. Also (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.