TRAIT THEORY/APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP

Purpose of the unit

This theory equips the learner with one of the oldest notions/views that people held about leadership
and identifies the gaps that need to be patched up for leadership to be effective. It presents various
researches conducted on the most desirable traits of leadership.

Learning objectives

The learner is expected to:

1. Define a trait

2. Identify important leadership traits

3. Apply the concept of emotional intelligence

Expected learning outcomes

1. Analyze the usefulness of traits suggested

2. Generate other traits useful for effective leadership

3. Apply the traits articulated by different world leaders

Description of the Theory

In the early 20th century leadership traits were studied to determine what made certain people great
leaders. The theories that were developed were called “great man” theories because they focused on
identifying the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military
leaders. It was believed that people were born with these traits and only the “great” people possessed
them. During this time, research concentrated on determining the specific traits that clearly
differentiated leaders from followers.

In the mid 20th century, the trait approach was challenged by research that questioned the universality
of leadership traits. In a major review in 1948, Stogdill suggested that no consistent set of traits
differentiated leaders from non-leaders across a variety of situations. An individual with leadership traits
who was a leader in one situation might not be a leader in another situation. Rather than being a quality
that individuals possessed, leadership was re-conceptualized as a relationship between people in a social
situation (Stogdill, 1948). Personal factors related to leadership continued to be important, but
researchers contended that these factors were to be considered as relative to the requirements of the
situation.

Page 1 of 7
Based on a new analysis of much of the previous trait research Lord, De Vader, and Alliger (1986) found
that personality traits were strongly associated with individuals’ perceptions of leadership. Kirkpatrick
and Locke (1991) have gone so far as to claim that effective leaders are actually distinct types of people
in several key respects. Further evidence of renewed interest in the trait approach can be seen in current
emphasis given by many researchers to visionary and charismatic leadership.

The trait approach is alive and well. It began with an emphasis on identifying the qualities of great
persons; next it shifted to include the impact of situations on leadership; and most currently, it has
shifted back to reemphasize the critical role of traits in effective leadership.

Stogdill’s first survey identified a group of important leadership traits that were related to how
individuals in various groups became leaders. The findings of Stogdill’s first survey also indicated that an
individual does not become a leader solely because he or she possesses certain traits. The traits that
leaders possess must be relevant to situations in which the leader is functioning. As stated earlier,
leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in another situation. Findings showed that
leadership was not a passive state but resulted from a working relationship between the leader and
other group members. This research marked the beginning of a new approach to leadership research
that focused on leadership behaviors and leadership situations.

While the first survey implied that leadership is determined principally by situational factors and not
personality factors, the second survey argued more moderately that both personality and situational
factors were determinants of leadership. In essence, the second survey validated the original trait idea
that the leader’s characteristics are indeed a part of leadership. Stogdill’s second survey also identified
traits that were positively associated with leadership. The list included the following 10 characteristics:

a) Drive for responsibility and task completion

b) Vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals

c) Venturesomeness and originality in problem solving

d) Drive to exercise initiative in social situations

e) Self-confidence and sense of personal identity

f) Willingness to accept consequences of decision and action

g) Readiness to absorb interpersonal stress

h) Willingness to tolerate frustration and delay

i) Ability to influence other persons’ behavior

j) Capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand

Mann (1959) conducted a similar study that examined more than 1,400 findings regarding personality
and leadership in small groups, but he placed less emphasis on how situational factors influenced
Page 2 of 7
leadership. Mann suggested that personality traits could be used to discriminate leaders from non-
leaders. His results identified leaders as strong in the following traits: intelligence, masculinity,
adjustment, dominance, extroversion and conservatism.

Lord et al. (1986) reassessed the findings put forward by Mann (1959), using a more sophisticated
procedure called meta-analysis. Lord and coworkers found that intelligence, masculinity, and dominance
were significantly related to how individuals perceived leaders. From their findings, the authors argued
strongly that personality traits could be used to make discriminations consistently across situations
between leaders and non-leaders.

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) contended that “it is unequivocally clear that leaders are not like other
people”. From a qualitative synthesis of earlier research, Kirkpatrick and Locke postulated that leaders
differ from non-leaders on six traits: drive, the desire to lead, honesty and integrity, self-confidence,
cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business. Individuals can be born with these traits; they can learn
them, or both. It is these traits that make up the “right stuff” for leaders. They contended that leadership
traits make some people different from others, and this difference needs to be recognized as an
important part of the leadership process.

These studies of leadership traits and characteristics can be summarized below:

2.2 Central traits identified in the studies included:

a) Intelligence

Intelligence or intellectual ability is positively related to leadership. Having strong verbal ability,
perceptual ability, and reasoning appears to make one a better leader. Although it is good to be bright,
the research also indicates that a leader’s intellectual ability should not vary too much from that of his or
her subordinates. In situations where the leader’s IQ is very different from that of the followers, it can
have a counterproductive impact on leadership. Leaders with higher abilities may have difficulty in
communicating with followers because they are preoccupied or because their ideas are too advanced to
be accepted by their followers.

Intelligence is identified as a trait that significantly contributes to a leader’s acquisition of complex

problem- solving skills and social judgment skills. Intelligence is described as having a positive impact on
an individual’s capacity for effective leadership.

b) Self-Confidence

Self-confidence is the ability to be certain about one’s competencies and skills. It includes a sense of self-
esteem and self-assurance and the belief that one can make a difference. Leadership involves influencing
others, and self-confidence allows the leader to feel assured that his or her attempts to influence are
appropriate and right.

c) Determination

Determination refers to the desire to get the job done and includes characteristics such as initiative,
persistence, dominance, and drive. Individuals with determination are willing to assert themselves, they
Page 3 of 7
are proactive, and they have the capacity to persevere in the face of obstacles. Being determined
includes showing dominance at times and in certain situations where followers need to be directed.

d) Integrity

Integrity is the quality of honesty and trustworthiness. Individuals who adhere to a strong set of
principles and take responsibility for their actions are exhibiting integrity. Leaders with integrity inspire
confidence in others because they can be trusted to do what they say they are going to do. They are
loyal, dependable, and not deceptive. Integrity makes a leader believable and worth of our trust.

e) Sociability

Sociability refers to a leader’s inclination to seek out pleasant social relationships. Leaders who show
sociability are friendly, outgoing, courteous, tactful, and diplomatic. They are sensitive to others’ needs
and show concern for their well being. Social leaders have good interpersonal skills and create
cooperative relationships with their followers.

2.3 Five-Factor Personality Model and Leadership

Researchers have agreed regarding the basic factors that make up what we call personality. These factors
commonly known as Big Five are:-

1. Neuroticism-this is how easily we respond to the world around us-our emotional stability. Some
people get upset or angry very easily, others will be very stable. It is also the tendency to be depressed,
anxious, insecure, vulnerable and hostile.

2. Extraversion-this is how much people enjoy being with other people and being actively engaged
with them or how much they prefer to be on their own or with small groups. It is the tendency to be
sociable, assertive and have positive energy.

3. Openness-these involves people with a high level or tendency to be informed, creative, insightful
and curious.

4. Agreeableness-this is how accommodating we are to alternative attitudes, values and points of

view. People who are most accommodating will accept a wide range, whereas those who are least
accommodating will tend to have strong opinions and not listen to others. It is also being accepting,
conforming, trusting and nurturing.

5. Conscientiousness-this is how committed and organized we are to do something. People who

are very conscientious will get on and do what they say they are going to do, whereas people who are
not conscientious can be unreliable. Conscientious people have a tendency to be thorough, organized,
controlled, dependable and decisive.

In general, there is a strong relationship between the big five traits and leadership. Certain personality
traits are associated with being an effective leader. Specifically, in their study, extraversion was the factor
most strongly associated with leadership. It is followed by conscientiousness, openness and low
neuroticism. The last factor, agreeableness, was found to be weakly associated with leadership.

Page 4 of 7
2.4 Emotional Intelligence

Another way of assessing the impact of traits on leadership is through the concept of emotional
intelligence. As the two words suggest, emotional intelligence has to do with our emotions (affective
domain) and thinking (cognitive domain), and the interplay between the two. Whereas intelligence is
concerned with our ability to learn information and apply it to life tasks, emotional intelligence is
concerned with our ability to understand emotions and apply this understanding to life’s tasks.
Emotional intelligence can be defined as the ability to perceive and express emotions, to use emotions
to facilitate thinking, to understand and reason with emotions, and to effectively manage emotions
within oneself and in relationships with others.

2.5 How the trait approach works

It is very different from the other approaches discussed because the trait approach focuses exclusively
on the leader, and not on the followers or the situation. This makes the trait approach theoretically more
straightforward than other approaches. The trait approach is concerned with leaders and their traits. It is
concerned with what traits leaders exhibit and who has these traits.

The trait approach does not lay out a set of hypotheses or principles about what kind of leader is needed
in a certain situation or what a leader should do, given a particular set of circumstances. Rather, this
approach emphasizes that having a leader with a certain set of traits is crucial to having effective
leadership. It is the leader and his or her personality that is central to the leadership process.

The trait approach suggests that organizations will work better if the people in managerial positions have
designated leadership profiles. To find the right people, it is common for organizations to use personality
assessment instruments. The assumption behind these procedures is that selecting the “right” people
will increase organizational effectiveness. Organizations can specify the characteristics or traits that are
important to them for particular positions and then use personality assessment measures to determine
whether or not an individual fits their needs.

The trait approach is also used for personal awareness and development. By analyzing their own traits,
managers can gain an idea of their strengths and weaknesses, and they can get a feel for how others see
them within the organization. A trait assessment can help managers to determine if they have the
qualities to move up or to move to other positions in the company. It gives individuals a clearer picture
of who they are as leaders and how they fit into the organizational hierarchy. In areas where their traits
are lacking, leaders can try to make changes in what they do or where they work to increase the
potential impact of their given traits.

2.5.1Strengths of the Trait Theory

First, the trait approach is intuitively appealing. It fits clearly with our notion that leaders are the
individuals who are “out front” and “leading the way” in our society. The image in the popular press and
community at large is that leaders are a special kind of people – people with gifts who can do
extraordinary things. The trait approach is consistent with this perception because it is built on the

Page 5 of 7
premise that leaders are different and their difference resides in the special traits they possess. People
have a need to see their leaders as gifted people, and the trait approach fulfills this need.

Secondly, the trait approach is that it has a century of research to back it up. No other theory can boast
of the breadth and depth of studies conducted on the trait approach. The strength and longevity of this
line of research give the trait approach a measure of credibility not afforded other approaches. Out of
this abundance of research has emerged a body of data that points to the important role of various
personality traits in the leadership process.

Thirdly, more conceptual in nature, results from the way the trait approach highlights the leader
component in the leadership process. Leadership is composed of leaders, followers, and situations, but
the trait approach is devoted only to the first of these, leaders. Although this is also a potential
weakness, by focusing exclusively on the role of the leader in leadership the trait approach has been able
to provide us with a deeper and more intricate understanding of how the leader and his or her
personality are related to the leadership process.

Lastly, the trait approach has given us some benchmarks for what we need to look for if we want to be
leaders. It identifies what traits we should have and whether the traits that we do have are the best
traits. Based on the findings of this approach, personality and assessment procedures can be used to
offer invaluable information to supervisors and managers about their strengths and weaknesses and
ways to improve their overall leadership effectiveness.

2.5.6 Criticisms of the Trait Theory

In addition to its strengths, the trait approach also has several weaknesses. Firstly, it has a failure of the
trait approach to delimit a definitive list of leadership traits. Although an enormous number of studies
have been conducted over the past 100 years, the findings from these studies have been ambiguous and
uncertain at times.

It has failed to take situations into account. As Stogdill (1948) pointed out more than 50 years ago, it is
difficult to isolate a set of traits that are characteristic of leaders without factoring situational effects into
the equation as well. People who possess certain traits make them leaders in one situation may not be
leaders in another situation. Some people may have the traits that help them emerge as leaders but may
not have the traits that allow them to maintain their leadership over time. The situation influences
leadership, and it is therefore difficult to identify a universal set of leadership traits in isolation from the
context in which the leadership occurs.

Thirdly, this approach has resulted in highly subjective determinations of the “most important”
leadership traits. Because of the findings on traits have been so extensive and broad, there has been
much subjective interpretation of the meaning of the data. This subjectivity is readily apparent in the
many self-help, practice-oriented management books. For example, one author might identify ambition
and creativity as crucial leadership traits; another might identify ambition and creativity as crucial
leadership traits; another might identify power and achievement. In both cases, it is the author’s
subjective experience and observations that are the basis for the identified leadership traits. These
books may be helpful to readers because they identify and describe important leadership traits, but the

Page 6 of 7
methods used to generate these lists of traits are weak. In our culture, people want to know a set of
definitive traits of leaders. To respond to this need, authors have set forth lists of traits, even if the
origins of these lists are not grounded in strong reliable research.

Research on traits can also be criticized for failing to look at traits in relationship to leadership
outcomes. This research has emphasized the identification of traits, but is has not addressed how
leadership traits affect group members and their work. In trying to ascertain universal leadership traits,
researchers have focused on the link between specific traits and leader emergence, but they have not
tried to link leader traits with other outcomes such as productivity or employee satisfaction. Trait
research does not provide data on whether leaders who might have high intelligence and strong integrity
have better results than leaders without these traits. The trait approach is weak in describing how
leaders’ traits affect the outcomes of groups and teams in organizational settings.

A final criticism of the trait approach is that it is not a useful approach for training and development for
leadership. Even if definitive traits could be identified, teaching new traits is not an easy process because
traits are not easily changed. For example, it is not reasonable to send managers to a training program to
raise their IQ or to train them to become introverted or extroverted people. The point is that traits are
relatively fixed psychological structures, and this limits the value of teaching and leadership training.

2.5.7Application of the Trait Theory

Despite its shortcomings, the trait approach provides valuable information about leadership. It can be
applied by individuals at all levels and in all types of organizations. Although a definitive set of traits is
not provided by the trait approach, the approach does provide direction regarding which traits are good
to have if one aspires to take a leadership position. By taking personality tests and other similar
questionnaires, individuals can gain insight into whether or not they have select traits deemed important
for leadership, and they can pinpoint their strengths and weaknesses.

Managers can use information from the trait approach to assess where they stand within their
organization and what they need to do to strengthen their position. Trait information can suggest areas
in which their personal characteristics are very beneficial to the company, and areas in which they may
wish to get more training to enhance their overall approach. Using trait information, managers can
develop a deeper understanding of who they are and how they will affect others in the organization.

Page 7 of 7