Criticism of Trait Approach

In the Early 20^th century, the trait approach emerged as the one of the first attempts to examine leadership. It was commendable in its efforts to study leadership by understanding what leadership traits made certain individuals great in their positions. The theory is characterized by its list of inherent qualities and character traits that it perceived as being present in influential social, political and military leaders throughout the time (Northouse, 2013). The theory also closes the doors for the possibility of learning leadership traits as it supposes that great leaders are born with the innate traits that allow them to be distinguished among their subordinates.

Although it is hard to deny that great leaders often exhibit certain predictable traits, the trait approach to leadership is susceptible to a lot of criticism. Research on the relationship between personality and perceived leadership skills has even shown a positive correlation with certain traits, including extraversion and openness to new ideas, resulting in increased perception of leadership effectiveness (Colbert et al, 2012). However, even this study suffers from a flaw that critics of trait theory approach will often mention. The approach focuses on how leadership effectiveness is perceived by the follower group rather than any empirical measures of effectiveness. Perceived effectiveness does not gauge actual effectiveness without the use of any empirical data. Additionally, other research has even found that leadership behaviors are a more effective predictor of effectiveness than leadership traits (Derue, 2011).

I am currently in the process of applying to medical schools and before doing so, I was shadowing a surgeon who performed general surgeries. During this extended period, I watched how he worked with the medical professionals around him during the procedures as he was careful in maintaining relationship dynamics and remaining calm during the duration of the surgeries. Upon completion of the shadowing program, I asked him if he was always this effective when he lead surgeries. The doctor was quick to recount how he was a very nervous and anxious medical resident, and while some anxiety is to be expected, he was even more so debilitated by his nerves than others in his position. He discussed how his anxiety and poor communication abilities during his residency inhibited his competency and knowledge to the point that he was once at risk of being removed from the program. However, he practiced controlling his nerves and developing a better network of communication with his co-workers during surgical procedures over the course of his career. He said it was a very active process and that he had to “learn how to lead”.

His statements reflect much of the criticism that trait theory faces. The approach fixes effectiveness of leadership on innate psychological structures and limits the value of learning and teaching in regards to leadership (Pervin, 1994). Innate personality traits may not be as fixed or influential in leadership as the theory proposes. Furthermore, trait theory also fails to take situations into account that may influence the outcome since different situations may require different traits from leaders. Leadership is more dynamic and less simplistic than the approach suggests it to be, and although the theory does present some great insight into the discussion of leadership, it fails to paint the proverbial “full picture”.

References

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practices. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Pervin, L. A. (1994). Further Reflections on Current Trait Theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2), 169-178.

Colbert, A. E., Judge, T. A., Choi, D., & Wang, G. (2012). Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: The mediating role of contributions to group success. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 670-685.

Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories – of leadership: An integration and :meta‐analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 4(1), 7-52.