In #PSYCH485 this week, the focus was on the trait approach to leadership. When people hear the word “leadership”, there mind automatically thinks of a person, an experience, or a definition. Individuals all have their own thoughts on what it takes to be a leader, how a leader acts, and why leaders are needed. Let’s be honest in how the common person views a leader: intelligent, understanding, trustworthy, determined, and self-assured. They have all the five main traits that Peter G. Northouse lists in Chapter 2 of his book “Leadership Theory and Practice”. It seems like a leader has it all together. After all, if they have made it to the point in life where they are able to direct others in to doing something that they have already mastered, they must be successful. Wouldn’t we all rather be leaders than followers?
There is something about the word “follower” that simply sounds like it is a bad thing. It’s a labeling name that you don’t want to be called in your social circle. I can hear it in my head now, the judgments that one pass to the person who would be considered a follower. When is she going to stop being a follower and start thinking for her own mind. Or the one thing that we have all heard or said ourselves, He is following in his father’s footsteps. Even if it’s NOT a bad idea for that person to be a follower, there will always be at least one person who says it with negativity, as though the only way to success is through leadership.
I could sit for hours and discuss how being a follower can still be a leader per se, but my focus is on the leader right now: that individual who can do no wrong because their traits are of high honor. Let me show assurance that I have not a cold heart towards leaders. I have many great leaders in my life, and feel that I am one for others as well. I find this topic of leadership intriguing, in that there are always positive traits that leaders are known for and praised on. There is a dark side of personality traits that people seem to forget about. Thankfully, the Penn State World Campus course ‘PSYCH 485’ in the Lesson 2 commentary addresses these six negative traits that leaders can have.
As based on the commentary, the six personality traits that are viewed dark-sided are: “argumentative; interpersonal insensitivity; narcissism; fear of failure; perfectionism; impulsivity.” The bad personality traits can be viewed as opposite effects that occur when the main five positive traits are taken too far, or not far enough. Intelligence can become argumentative. Self-confidence can lead to narcissism. Determination can show a fear of failure and strive for perfectionism. Interpersonal insensitivity replaces integrity. Sociability has the extreme opposite skills as that of impulsivity. If a leader has a handful of great traits, but even one dark-side trait, are they really a great leader?
It interests me to study the dark-side of leadership traits, mainly because exposing the hidden layers of any individual can lead to a better understanding of society. We don’t actually know all that we think we know from what we see when we first see it. Being a follower is generally associated with a negative perception, but at least those individuals keep it real with their strengths and weaknesses. Leaders can move mountains, which is needed in the world, but that does not mean they will have a happy and successful life. A successful leader needs to stay clear of the dark-side leadership traits, because they will ruin all that they have worked hard to become. My advice to all leaders is to stay passionate about your field of work, and don’t let the increasing demands and stress take over your mind and soul.
For additional reading, check out this link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/157670/leader-development-and-dark-side-personality.pdf. It offers a great perspective on dark-side leader traits, including a study that took place involving statistics, strategies, and analysis.
References:
Northouse, Peter G. (Ed.). (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th Ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pennsylvania State University (2016). Leadership in Work Settings—PSYCH 485. Online course lesson. Penn State World Campus. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved January 21, 2016 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych485/002/content/02_lesson/06_page.html
Samantha Cenna says
I found your post quite interesting, and I particularly found it interesting how you linked the negative traits with the positive ones. I haven’t really thought about it this way, and so I am seeing an new perspective and also a new theory that might bounce off your idea. So what if, instead of showing negative or positive traits, it is simply a continuum that everyone is tirelessly trying to find the right mark. Maybe everyone has both the good and the bad traits and we are playing this constant balancing act between them all to be the best leader we can be. Maybe, in all of this, we all find our own mix of what works for us in compliment to our personality as a whole. That is why some people might be more successful who are narcissistic, while others find the same level of success with neuroticism which according to our commentary is defined as “high in emotional stability tend to be calm and do not take mistakes or failures personally. Leaders who are calm under pressure can often help a group stay on task and work through difficult issues” (PSU, WC, L2, p4).
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2016). PSYCH 485 Lesson 02: Trait Approach. Retrieved on January 24, 2016 from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych485/001/content/02_lesson/01_page.html
Tiffany A Luz says
The title of your post really got my attention and I have enjoyed reading further. I wanted to address the perfection perception of the leader. Leaders are not perfect. Not one of them are perfect. Even if you are a successful leader such as a Steve Jobs of Apple Inc or Jack Welch of GE, there is no such thing as perfection.
In this lesson, we focus on the leader and their individual traits. Northouse (2016) walks us through the trait conceptions of Stogdill (1948), Mann (1959), Stogdill (1974), Lord Devader and Alliger (1986), Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991), and Zacarro, Kemp, and Bader (2004). In Table 2.1, a summary of traits and characteristics are provided; a result of research by the aforementioned (Northouse, 2016, p. 22). The list of traits is long, demonstrating just how difficult it is to select certain traits as definitive traits of leadership (Northouse, 2016, p. 23). There fore I think its fair to say that it would be equally difficult to correlate all traits to every successful leader. I’m sure that more times than not leaders possess a few good traits and struggle with a few of those dark-side traits. And if one were to be perfect, they would have to possess all of them right? In particular, check out Jack Welch. If I had to point our a dark-side trait, it would have to be his interpersonal insensitivity. When he became CEO of GE, he decided that each year he would fire the bottom 10% of his managers. It made him successful. This is called rank and yank. And personally, I would not work at a company that does this. It’s not that I’m not hard working and a stellar performer, but because of the stress that one day someone could get lucky and surpass my numbers, and then i’m out of a job. I don’t necessarily think this is a great leadership move, but the guy took GE’s market value from 12 million to 280 million. So the answer to the following question: “If a leader has a handful of great traits, but even one dark-side trait, are they really a great leader?” The answer is yes. Jack Welch will still go down as a great leader.
As for the option to be a leader or follower, I feel that we all alternate this role at some point in our life. Aristotle stated, “He who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander”. You must first follow in order to be able to lead. Despite the use of the phrase “be a leader, not a follower”, most likely used by parents everywhere; I think that it serves a different purpose and isn’t referring to the same type of leadership.
Stogdill (1948) stated that “no consistent set of traits differentiated leaders from nonreaders across a variety of situations”(as cited in Northouse, 2016, p. 19). This helps to confirm the fact that an individual possessing traits associated with leadership in one situation may not be a leader in another (Northouse, 2016, p. 19).
Its not a bad thing to be a follower. In some contexts its good to follow. Also, leaders don’t have it all together. Many leaders are said to have type A personalities. Little known fact: Type A personalities have been connected to the likeliness of cardiovascular disease. (I would cite that but book that I read that in is boxed up somewhere 😉 but google it lol)
References:
“How Jack Welch Runs GE”. Businessweek.com. May 28, 1998. Retrieved:http://www.businessweek.com/1998/23/b3581001.htm. January 21, 2016.
Cohan, Peter. “Why Stack Ranking Worked Better at GE Than Microsoft”. Forbes. Retrieved:http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/13/why-stack-ranking-worked-better-at-ge-than-microsoft/#4f761e005853. January 21, 2016
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. LosAngeles: Sage Publications.
Nicole Alexandra Dwyer says
I enjoyed reading your post as I think a lot of focus in leadership tends to be on the positive traits rather than the negative. Although it is a hard concept to grasp, many of the most powerful leaders in history have had strong negative traits and thus influenced individuals (followers) in negative ways. I’d like to take some time to discuss how powerful negative traits in leaders can be in persuading their followers and tie into coercive power. According to Northouse (2013), coercive power is one specific types of power that involves using force to initiate change. Coercion typically involves the use of threats and punishment. Although we should distinguish the difference between leadership and coercion, coercion does demonstrate traits of leadership in the essence of influencing individuals and asserting change.
For example, one of the most powerful leaders in history was Adolf Hitler. I performed a quick good search of leaders in history and within minutes I was able to find a site listing some of the most influencial leaders of all time, including Adolf Hitler. According to the New York Public Library (2016) Hitler is considered a leader for three main reasons; (1) his power over the Nazis demonstrated the power of “rhetoric, propaganda and scapegoating” which is extremely powerful way to lead during an economic crisis, (2) He was “responsible more than anyone else for the outbreak of human civilizations most deadly war, World War II, and (3) he was responsible for bringing about one of histories greatest tragedies and largest instances of genocide”. As you can see, the “accomplishments” that Hitler performed are atypical of normal leader, which is why we distinguish this type of power as coercion and not leadership.
According to Pennsylvania State University (2016), one of the main problems associated with dark-side traits is that they are often strongly related to FFM dimensions scores. For example, narcissism which describes a leader that is “overly self-confident, self-centered, and extremely ambitious, [someone who has] a strong sense of entitlement and often hold others in contempt” relates to higher extraversion scores. Although we view narcissism as dark-side trait, it strongly corresponds to extraversion, a trait that according to Northouse (2013) is the “factor most strongly associated with leadership” and further, tends to be the important trait associated with effective leaders. Looking at the example of Adolf Hitler, I don’t think anyone would disagree that he was an individual that had a very narcissistic personality. After analyzing the trait approach along with the six dark-side traits, it is rather easy to dissect how Hitler gained so much coercive power.
References
New York Public Library. (2016). Adolf Hitler. Retrieved January 22, 2016, from http://100leaders.org/adolf-hitler
Northouse, Peter G. (Ed.). (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th Ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pennsylvania State University (2016). Leadership in Work Settings—PSYCH 485. Online course lesson. Penn State World Campus. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved January 21,2016from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych485/002/content/02_lesson/06_page.htm l