Trait-theory on Leadership tells us Leadership is Built on Innate Characteristics & the Importance of Knowing One’s Self
One of the earliest examinations into the essential qualities of effective leadership began in the early 20th century. These initial studies formed what is referred to as the “great man theory” of leadership. “Great man” theorists found that personality traits were correlated with leadership abilities, and that “great” people were born with innate characteristics and qualities that distinguished them from other (not-so-great) people (Northouse, 2016).
From the trait approach to leadership, not everyone is meant to lead, and “leaders are a special kind of people that can do certain things” (as cited by PSU WC Lesson 2, 2016). The ability to lead is something that people simply are born with, not something that could be learned according to these theories. Peter G. Northouse discusses the perspectives of Kirkpatrick and Locke, in researching the trait-theory they determined that “it is unequivocally clear that leaders are not like other people” (Northouse, 2016).
Because leadership is a complex concept with a broad interpretation, one might be a leader in one capacity and not necessarily a leader in other capacities. Stodgill (1948, as cited in PSU WC Lesson 2, 2016) who was among the early trait-approach theorists, determined that there is no consistent set of traits shared across the board by all leaders; that often follower-types possess the same traits as leaders, and “there is no one list of traits that is important to all leaders” (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2016) which incidentally is one of the great criticisms of the trait-approach theory. Personality in and of itself is a multidimensional abstraction; over 18,000 traits have been identified by dictionary definition so researchers have condensed these into Five broad categories identified as “the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality” (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2016).
These factors, “commonly called the Big Five, are neuroticism, extraversion (surgency), openness (intellect), agreeableness, and conscientiousness (dependability)” (Northouse, 2016).
On the flip side, as the saying goes ‘by opposite things are known’, researchers have identified “the dark side of personality”: six personality traits that are associated with failing leadership and the reason some leaders prove unsuccessful. These negative traits are: “Argumentative, Interpersonal Insensitivity, Narcissism, Fear of Failure, Perfectionism, and Impulsivity” (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2016). Interestingly, these dark-side traits are often directly proportional to their positive counterparts. Narcissism, for example, “is highly related to higher extraversion scores (and those that score higher on extraversion are more successful leaders)” (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2016). So perhaps, those great leaders were equally fated to fail, but ultimately destiny chooses success for those who end up on top.
According to studies by Jung and Sosik (2006, cited in Northouse, 2016)
one of the distinguishing factors of a great leader is the quality of “self-monitoring”,
that is the ability of a leader to identify one’s own flaws and weaknesses, and work past them or overcome them. In other words, a great leader might possess dark personality traits, but they do not allow them to overpower their positive leadership traits for success. Joy-ann Trask (2016), reflects on the importance of self-awareness in a related blog about personality traits, citing an example of dark-side traits overwhelming the positive, and causing disagreeable characteristics and a personality that people won’t want to follow. Trask emphasizes the impact of positive personality traits on the ability to lead effectively, and illustrates the destructiveness of negative qualities and their role in ineffective leadership (Trask, 2016).
Michael Maccoby (2004) writes a pertinent article addressing one aspect of this very phenomenon- the dichotomy between dark personality traits and those identified as great leadership traits- where he focuses on the character of narcissism. The challenge, Maccoby says, for those possessing strong dark traits, “is to take advantage of their strengths while tempering their weaknesses”. According to Maccoby’s ideas, while dark traits like narcissism have definitive cons, there can be “incredible pros”- and great leaders may be “productive narcissists” (Maccoby, 2004). The danger of narcissism, Maccoby explains, is that it “can turn unproductive when, lacking self-knowledge and restraining anchors, narcissists become unrealistic dreamers” (Maccoby, 2004).
Therefore, it seems that the critical balance between a productive and successful leader and an unproductive failed leader is the trait of self-monitoring, which Jung and Sosik (2006, cited in Northouse, 2016) linked to charisma, a correlation of extraversion (one of the Big Five). An aspect of being extraverted in having a certain level of self-confidence. Having too much self-confidence however, can push the tendencies toward narcissism over the edge and either end up overestimating their abilities or inflating their sense of purpose and self worth to the point where they end up looking down on or “hold others in contempt” (PSU WC Lesson 2, 2016). Being able to empathize, or put one’s self in other’s shoes (the antidote to the dark-side trait of insensitivity) also referred to as emotional intelligence, helps one balance their sense of self, and supplements one’s personal perception.
A shortcoming of the trait-approach, then, is it’s focus on the leader component of leadership, while leadership as a whole Northouse writes, “is composed of leaders, followers, and situations,” (Northouse, 2016), Maccoby discusses how even the productive narcissists expect qualities from their followers, empathy being one, listening skills, an openness to criticism, yet they themselves are not capable of encompassing those same qualities as a direct effect of their narcissistic tendencies. Yet, this does not necessarily limit their success in leadership or even their effectiveness (Maccoby 2004).
It bears concluding therefore, that to distinguish the great leader from a mere successful leader is to ask the question ‘Who is a great leader’ rather than simply ‘what makes a leader’, because, as Trask mentions in her piece, and Maccoby is concerned with in his article, who a person is at their core determines whether they are liked to be followed or not.
The great leader is the one who can overcome “the traps of their own personality” (Maccoby 2004).
References:
Maccoby, M. (2004, January). Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons. Retrieved September 06, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2004/01/narcissistic-leaders-the-incredible-pros-the-inevitable-cons
Northouse, Peter G.. Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th ed. (Kindle Locations 682-932). SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition [Ebook]. Digital.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2016). Lesson 2: Trait Approach. PSYCH485: Leadership in Work Settings. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/fa16/21681–13148/content/02_lesson/printlesson.html.
Trask, J. (2016, January 19). The Personality Approach to Leadership in Making the Good or the Bad Man [Web log post]. Retrieved September 6, 2016, from https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2016/01/19/the-personality-approach-to-leadership-in-making-the-good-or-the-bad-man/
jwc226 says
One thought that kept coming to mind as I read your blog post was how much the type of leadership we are questioning plays into the whole discussion of leadership. The high value that we placed on leadership in our society leads to an enormous amount of time spending on defining and explaining it so we can figure out how to get it if we so desire. The business success of Tony Robbins proves how hungry people are to find out what the secret recipe for mastering leadership success is. According to Forbes list in 2007, Robbins was bringing in approximately $30 million in revenue annually (Forbes). In his leadership program, Creating Lasting Change, it states on his website that it was developed to help the listener master the skill of influence. He claims that, “anyone who masters the skill of influence is a person who moves faster and is more effective through the world” (Robbins, n.d) and this suggest that when you have the ability to master influence it will give anyone the ability to be a leader. The ability to influence is based on attaining a certain level of social intelligence that allows one to interpret the situation surrounding emotions and to react appropriately (PSU, L2). Tony undoubtedly has mastered the art of influence but it that the only secret to leadership in every situation?
As a critical thinker, one of the concerns that comes to mind with these types of programs are that they tend to promise success in leadership from one program however while navigating the myriad of research that has been done to date to me it seems as if these programs cannot possibly apply to the masses. While searching the term “leadership” at the Barnes & Nobel website this morning it revealed 17,787 books that matched (2016). With so many opinions or ideas on the topic how can the general population quickly find which tool or perspective is the one that works best for them? You state that “one might be a leader in one capacity and not necessarily a leader in others” and I agree that in different situation leadership must be looked at with various lenses (Abdalla, 2016). What type of leader would one like to be and who would you want to lead? You use the terms “effective, productive and successful, unproductive and failed” (Abdalla) as descriptive words in defining the type of leadership you are pointing to. I have noticed that I do this myself when discussing leadership. The current perspective that posits that leadership is a process and moving away from a set definition of leadership is allowing us the ability to look at leadership holistically.
From a personal growth standpoint, you transition from asking “what makes a leader” to “who is a great leader” however, I suggest that asking the question ‘why is he/she a good leader’ and in the process would lead to a personally intuitively deeper and more complex look into leadership (Abdalla). What is your leadership goal? Do you want to inspire others? If so, you will want to explore the research related to transformational leadership as it is a process that changes and transforms people and is concerned with emotions, values, ethic, standards and long term goals” (Northouse, p161). On the other hand, perhaps you want to be seen as genuine and authentic then you would concentrate on the study of leadership that is focused on trust and explores “whether leadership is genuine and real (Northouse, p196).
The more we look at all the facets of leadership the more complicated web it reveals. As research in the field of leadership has evolved from the basic trait theory approach to the current perspectives such as transformational leadership, you can see how leadership needs a descriptive word to precede it. What type of leader do you want to be?
Abdalla, M. (2016, September 7). Some are born great: To lead or not to lead [web blog post]. Retrieved from http://sites.psu.edu/leadership/blog/
Barnes and Nobel (n.d.) [Leadership search]. Retrieved on September 6, 2016 from http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/leadership?_requestid=109333
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.161,196
Penn State World Campus (2016). PSYCH 485: Leadership in Work Settings. Lesson 2: Introduction to Train Approach. Retrieved from: https://psu.instructure.com
/courses/1803831/modules/items/21139796
Robbins, T, (n.d). Creating lasting change. Retrieved on September 6, 2016 from https://store.tonyrobbins.com/collections/leadership/products/creating-lasting-change
Forbes (2007, June 14). Celebrity 100. Retrieved on September 6, 2016 from http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/53/07celebrities_Anthony-Robbins_428T.html