Now familiar with three approaches of leadership: the trait approach, the psychodynamic approach, and the skills approach, I think the best approach is actually a combination of all three. Many leadership approaches were developed due to gaps in previous theories; however, each new theory has its own set of holes. I think it’s difficult to have one specific approach describe the process of leadership. Leadership is complicated and there are too many variables between the leader, the followers, and the situation. If the weakness of many of these theories is that they are not true for all situations, and people can agree that a number of these theories are correct in certain situations, then it makes sense that combining these situationally valid theories would be effective.
Regarding the trait approach, for example, theorists identified certain traits that they believe define a great person or leader and that these special leader traits are innate (Pennsylvania State University, 2012). This idea that great leaders are born and not made is attractive, but has its downfalls. For example, there is no finite, objective list of leadership traits (Northouse, 2013). Theorists could sit around for eternity battling over what makes a good leader, coming up with new traits and conflicting examples of established traits. Also mentioned in Northouse (2013), the trait approach misses the importance of learning and developing as a leader. If leaders are born great what do they have left to learn? And what about followers and situations? Those aspects of leadership affect the effectiveness of the leader; however the trait approach is leader-centric. Although there are many criticisms of the trait approach, traits are important to the leadership process because they give people a base from which to develop their leadership abilities. To me the trait approach serves to define more of HOW a leader can lead, and not IF a leader can lead.
The psychodynamic approach has some similarities to and difference with the trait approach. In Pennsylvania State University (2012) the psychodynamic approach is identified as an “extension” of the trait approach, where the trait approach describes who leaders are in a theoretical sense, and the psychodynamic approach gives leaders the tools to identify their strengths and weaknesses and analyze how those characteristics play into different situations with different followers (p. 3). The psychodynamic approach picks up where the trait approach left off because it recognizes the relationship between the leader and the followers. The psychodynamic approach is also presumably universal and objective, which is another area where the trait approach falls short (Northouse, 2013). However, an important hole in the psychodynamic approach that the trait approach doesn’t fill is taking into consideration learning and developing as a leader.
Enter skills approach. The skills approach is based more on behavior whereas the trait and psychodynamic approaches focus on personality (Northouse, 2013). The skills approach indicates that leaders need specific skills and abilities to be successful with certain followers and in certain situations; however because skills are behaviors and not inherent traits they can be developed (Pennsylvania State University, 2012). In other words, leaders do not need to be born; they can also be made. The idea that leadership can be taught is less limiting and gives people more control. In contrast with the idea that society has to wait for nature to provide it with great leaders, the skills approach gives people the opportunity to develop into great leaders even if they aren’t born exhibiting a specific personality. The skills approach does have its own criticisms, though; one being that the theory is so expansive and includes so many different components it becomes too general and difficult to accurately measure and predict (Northouse, 2013).
I don’t think it’s feasible to imagine one very specific leadership approach defining and explaining the idea of leadership. Combining the factors of the leader, the followers, and the situations, it is impossible that all possibilities of each factor could be taken into consideration in the creation of one theory. However, I can imagine that there are certain patterns of leadership that can be identified using a vast array of leadership-defining tools that are consistent, conflicting, and constantly evolving with humans as we move through our existence. The trait, psychodynamic, and skills approaches are just three of those tools, and I think the other approaches to come will probably fit together and compliment each other in similar ways.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pennsylvania State University. (2012). PSYCH485: Leadership in work settings. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/001/toc.html