The definition of leader has been studied and refined over the decades. Northouse (2013) has a simple definition, “Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5). This gives a skeletal framework for recognizing leadership but what exactly does it look like. What are the nuances? “Consider the following leaders: Hammurabi, Cyrus the Great, Pericles, Asoka…Adolf Hitler…Indira Gandhi, Idi Amin, and Fidel Castro” (Simonton, 2010, p. 630). Great leaders both kind and cruel, all defined by the same common attributes. We can see the pieces of the definition of leadership in their reign of power. The common goal is what the leader envisioned (good or bad), the group described the people who followed willingly or not, and all of these leaders exhibited influence over a time, growing and refining their message. It begs the question, when we have examples throughout history of both good and bad, why are people surprised when our modern leaders fall from grace.
Trait theory is the study of personality attributes in an attempt to determine what is unique about leaders. Why are some individuals catapulted to fame or infamy and others contribute but are never acknowledged? Is there a secret formula that if recreated, could produce the next great leader? It has been shown there are traits in these leaders they all have in common. “His [Ralph Stogdill] results showed that a person who holds a position of leadership surpasses the average member of the group in several ways, including intelligence, scholarship, dependability, and sociability” (Wynn, 2006, 1029).
Leaders have always been in the news and there is usually a scandal behind their shine in the spotlight. Just recently we have seen the Toronto mayor, Rob Ford, who admitted smoking crack, the former chief-of-staff to Sen. Lamar Alexander, Ryan Loskarn, charged with possessing child pornography, Anthony Weiner, and Gov. Chris Christie. As leaders, they all seemingly possessed the same traits, “intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability” (Northouse, p. 23). One precipitous event befalls them and they are delivering an apology scripted by their speechwriter. What if we have wrongly attributed morality and integrity amongst the other good attributes and this scandalous persona is the real individual? “Although evidence was found for the genetic transfer of intelligence and life span, morality and leadership was more subject to role modeling effects” (Simonton, 2010, p. 636).
We are predominantly a Christian society which puts that set of values on top of the characteristics we have come to expect of our leaders. This is ingrained into our psyche by religious leaders and politicians alike. Arnold Ludwig’s (2002) study of 20th century heads of state showed, “that the individual’s type of leadership could be discriminated according to such variables as scholastic performance…sexual profligacy…courage or bravery in battle…mania, anxiety, paranoia and cognitive impairment” (Simonton, 2010, p. 635). Further, Ludwig’s (2002) seven predictors of leadership are, “dominance, contrariness, presence, agent of change, vanity, courage, and wary unease” (Simonton, 2010, p. 635). One could make the argument that while we expect morality and integrity, in reality, those in power have always and will always have the immoral person just under the mask of good.
We see that leaders and leadership are both good and bad and share many of the same characteristics. We have been shown that the moral attributes of a leader are not genetic but as a result of modeling. This role modeling has a long history of immoral leaders from which to learn how to lead. Despite the multitude of immoral examples throughout history, our predominantly Christian society expects moral and pious behavior. This incongruous set of expectations gives us leaders like President Bill Clinton who was caught lying about an immoral act, retained his presidency and has gone on to remain a prominent member of society. Morality and integrity are essential to building trust and creating a welcoming environment. With so many examples exhibiting the contrary, perhaps the world isn’t ready to give up pillaging and plundering that catapulted individuals to power and ruined societies in the not so distant past. It may be pure morality and integrity is not within us at this time and our expectations should be shifted to an area that can truly make a difference.
— O. Lewis
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications, Inc.
Simonton, D. K. (2010). Personality and Leadership. In R. A. Couto (Ed.), Political and Civic Leadership (pp. 630-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Wynn, S. R. (2006). Trait Theory. In Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration. Ed. (pp. 1029-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Yes, leaders have both good and bad traits. One trait that is described in the five-factor personality model – extroversion – can bee seen as well as a dark-side personality trait, especially if the extroversion quality in a leader turns into narcissism. Research has shown that individual traits in small doses do not appear to impact ones leadership abilities. However, when they are enhanced, they play a substantial role in determining the effectiveness of leadership skills (Payne, 2010).
Based on my experiences, trait theory is a guide to help determine effective leadership. The Big Five helps to identify effective leaders (Northouse, Pg. 27). Whereas, dark-side personality traits tend to lead to more negative qualities and job dissastifaction at the staff level (Neubert, 2004).
References:
Neubert, Sean (Nov. 2004). The Five-Factor Model of Personality in the Workplace. Personality Research Website. Retrieved from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/neubert.html
Northouse, P.G.(2013). Leadership:Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Payne, Ed (2010, Oct. 12). Could your boss be managing from the ‘dark side?’. CNN Website. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/12/dark.side.management/
As a populace, we place an extraordinary amount of emphasis on the character and integrity of our heroes and our leaders. They are viewed as mythological entities of greatness that, in the opinion and conceptualization of said populace, is morally infallible. They are placed upon moral platforms, and expected to be incorruptible because of who they are and what they represent in the daily life of the common man.
But when it comes to knowing right from wrong, and behaving in an ethical manner towards their fellow man, individual men and women are corruptible. They are corruptible and fallible because they are human. There are the extremities of moral character. Most of us in class could probably classify the nature of someone that they know as virtually flawless. Quite the reverse, most of us in class could probably classify the nature of someone they know as deplorable, and easily susceptible to temptation.
Who is to say, however, how one would act if given an abundance of power, such as the President of the most powerful nation in the world, or unlimited funds and resources, such as a famed sports figure. Religion is no cloak of invulnerability. Jim Bakker was the founder of the PTL organization, and later convicted of fraud and conspiracy charges. L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology was convicted of petty theft and illegal business practices.
The ideology of the perfect being, in my opinion does not exist within humanity. It is, therefore, not that we should not expect morality and integrity from our leaders, but that we should expect them to be human. “There is not a righteous man on Earth who does what is right and never sins.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20) I expect fallacy within humanity. I also expect that a remarkable leader will reflect and grow from their transgression and rise above it.