The earliest attempts to identify the antecedents of leadership seem to be all focused on the mystique of historic figures who proved themselves as exceptional leaders. The secret to their admirable success was deemed to originate from some innate qualities and characteristics that separated born-to-be leaders from the rest of the population. In essence, as Northouse (2016) points out, “it was believed that people were born with these traits, and that only the “great” people possessed them” (p.19). The nature vs. nurture contraposition for this line of argument clearly favored the former. Interestingly, while this particular perspective on leadership, known as the trait approach, has been challenged over the last century due primarily to its dubious focus on universality of these traits (Stoghill, 1948 as cited in Northouse, 2016), we seem to be returning to the idea of leadership based on certain measurable individual characteristics.
While Northouse (2016) offers some reasonable criticism to the continuous development of the trait approach, he focuses primarily on the subjectivity of determination of the most important traits to leadership development. In my opinion, such criticism falls short of recognizing the essence of the problem with relying on certain traits as leadership predictors. As it stands, such approach lacks any consideration of how it defines the most prominent gender issues in our contemporary workplace. As Eagly (2007) openly suggests, more people still prefer male than female bosses despite the persistent increase of fully employed women in the workplace. The question remains, why are women still disadvantaged in their role to leadership positions? Are the societal stereotypes of genders possessing only certain traits at play here? Ayman and Korabik (2010) further point out to the limitations to the current leadership theories, including the trait approach, as being largely studied in White male in the United States. Indeed, as authors argue, “at a basic scientific level, failure to include diverse groups in research limits the validity and generalizability of findings and the inclusivity of theories” (Ayman & Korabik, 2010, p. 157).
With regards to various lines of research within the trait theory, the Big Five factor structure (Goldberg, 1990 as cited in Northouse, 2016) appears to have some significant weight in predicting leadership outcomes. The observed traits, including neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and, in particular, extraversion, are expected to exhibit a strong correlation with leadership (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002 as cited in Northouse, 2016). On the other hand, once controlling for gender and culture the same factors lack significant correlation to leadership outcomes (Marsella et al., 2000 as cited in Ayman & Korabik, 2010). In fact, only in situations that are consistent with gender roles, does the application of extraversion seem to be correlated to leadership development, thus suggesting that women’s leadership “may be constrained to more stereotypically feminine areas” (Ayman & Korabik, 2010, p.162). In other words, the very applicability of extraversion as a leadership antecedent is highly dependent on the given leadership position.
It is clear that personal traits have a significant impact on how we perceive others. It also appears that similar personal traits of individuals with opposing gender can lead to starkly different outcomes in leadership development. Does it mean that the trait theory is indeed an outdated approach that cannot fully describe the realities of the contemporary workplace? Chances are, the continuous expansion of the observed traits as leadership predictors might actually speak of this theory’s strengths and future applicability. Perhaps, there can never be a definitive list that accounts for all the combinations of traits that can result in successful leadership. As such, the trait approach could offer those, who traditionally might not be expected to become leaders, a chance to utilize their innate characteristics towards effective leadership. The main suggestion for further research is to continue redefining what it means to be the “great man” or the “great woman” as a reflection of our continuously changing society as well as the workplace.
References:
Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157-170.
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of women quarterly, 31(1), 1-12.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. 7th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Jason Raymond Johnson says
You make some great points regarding the use of trait theory when looked at from historical perspective, and also when issues of gender stereotyping are at work. Certainly the evolution of trait theory began with a flawed premise what traits were necessary to be a great leader by the very nature of the pool of people being studied. These people would naturally have more in common with each other and display similar traits because of the similarity of their upbringings and shared value systems. I think the type of workplace makes a difference in who might be perceived as a successful leader. For instance, at my workplace, which is a financial institution, three of the top four corporate officers are female, and more than half of the branch managers are female, so being female is not perceived to be an impediment to progressing in leadership roles. That being said, most Fortune 500 companies are headed by men, and women still face difficulties breaking those “glass ceilings.” Women are breaking into more leadership roles, but change is slow. Gender stereotypes definitely persist as far as character traits are concerned. The trait approach emphasizes that having a leader with a certain set of traits is crucial to having effective leadership (Northouse, 2016). As the nature of the workplace becomes less “traditional,” with increased use of technology, and things like flex hours, more people working from home, etc., I believe the view of what makes a good leader will also evolve.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications LTD.