In the 21st century, asserting that leaders are born, not made, would discredit an entire curriculum dedicated to teaching about leadership. Although the trait approach has over a century of research and appears to be intuitively appealing, it is only one piece of the puzzle. Studies that were derived from the initial research were responsible for identifying traits that differentiate leaders and non-leaders, which serves as a strong background as to what to look for in aspiring leadership, but the trait approach cannot be the only answer to what constitutes a good leader. If this approach were valid, not only could there be a stringent application process for applying to the Organizational Leadership program at Penn State, but aspiring leaders would be discredited on account of their innate personalities.
According to Skattebo (2017), extroversion is a trait that is strongly related to leadership effectiveness. Many hiring managers look for extroversion in face-to-face interviews because it has been positively related to job performance. In fact, of the Big Five leadership traits, extroversion has also been positively related to salary levels, promotions and career satisfaction (Skattebo, 2017). Thus, if the trait approach were still valid, introverts would be discredited as less favorable to extroverts in leadership positions. However, there are now many more approaches to leadership, so there is now contrary evidence to the century-old trait approach. Grant, Gino and Hofmann (2010) note that “introverted leaders tend to listen more carefully and show greater receptivity to suggestions, making them more effective leaders of vocal teams (para. 2). So if you were the doctor in the cartoon above, would you call the man about an extrovert or an introvert being the next generation leader?
One of the ironic downfalls of the trait approach is that it has failed to provide a definite list of leadership traits (Northouse, 2016). How can there be validity in an approach that emphasizes seeking out specific traits that leaders are born with, when we can’t be sure what those traits even are? The above example clearly exhibits this conflict. Furthermore, with all of this different research on traits that are positively correlated with effective leadership, how do we know which research is the most accurate or well supported? For instance, Stogdill (1974) identified 10 traits positively associated with leadership, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) identified 6 traits, and then the “Big Five” are popular for identifying 5 traits (Northouse, 2016). A lack of an agreed upon framework demonstrates the contradictions that refute the trait approach.
Lastly, the trait approach places no importance on the relationship between the leader and his/her followers. Without followership there would be no leadership, since leadership involves influence and occurs within a group context. If the trait approach were valid, how could a situation where an individual who exhibits extroversion, open mindedness, and conscientiousness (Big Five traits) that is disliked by his/her followers be explained? Or vice versa; why would a group of people strongly support an individual that displays a multitude of traits that are commonly believed to be negatively related to leadership?
I am pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree in Organizational Leadership. If the trait approach were valid in the modern day, this degree would be irrelevant if I did not possess the traits that are commonly associated as related to strong leadership. I tend toward introversion, although I can wear the façade of an extrovert, but I have been in many leadership positions throughout my life. I was the Student Council President for three years of high school, a District Manager of a sales office, and the lead role of many theater productions. But I was not discredited by my introversion. In the 21st century, the trait approach may provide the foundation for supplementary leadership theories, but its validity is decreasing considerably as more research reveals that you can turn average people into champions.
References:
Anderson, M. (n.d.) Baby Cartoon #6018. Andertoons. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from https://www.andertoons.com/baby/cartoon/6018/you-see-any-next-generation-leadership-you-call-me
Grant, A., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2010). The hidden advantages of quiet bosses. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from https://hbr.org/2010/12/the-hidden-advantages-of-quiet-bosses
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Skattebo, A.L. (2017). Personality. Lecture presented at Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Kevin Jones says
Your argument about trait leadership in my opinion is sound. I enjoyed reading your entire post. The trait approach cannot be the number one or only measure to determining leadership. As you expressed there are a multitude of traits that are positively correlated to being an effective leader by numerous researchers. I do believe that some leaders are born with traits that “can” help them be an effective leader but it does not mean they will ever become one. I also believe someone that initially does not exhibit those traits that are defined as being leadership traits can learn to be an effective leader through the process of leadership.
I have found that in order to be an effective leader it is not always about the leadership traits that I have but more so the followers I have working for me. They are the ones that have helped me succeed in being an effective leader and without them I would just be myself with leadership traits and no one to lead. I also believe that when you allow those followers control in some circumstances it allows them in the leadership process to show off what they are capable of.
You can see the process leadership through emergent leadership. “The person assigned to a leadership position does not always become the real leader in a particular setting. When others perceive an individual as the most influential member of a group or an organization, regardless of the individual’s title, the person is exhibiting emergent leadership” (Northouse, 2016).
Like you I am an introvert who can be an extrovert when needed but unlike you I was not a Student Council President nor did I have a lead role in any theater productions but I worked through the leadership process in my company and have become a supervisor. I never really had a lot of leadership traits but I was able to learn the skills necessary to get where I am at now in my career. I am a firm believer that anybody can become a leader in the right setting, with the right people and being able to acquire the right skills.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership, theory, and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Kirk says
Hello there,
First and foremost, I’d like to commend you on your well-written post. You did an excellent job providing a strong background for your posting by providing us with a comprehensive background and historical context relative to the trait approach. In my own posting, I also found independent research supporting the assertion that extroversion was strongly correlated to leadership effectiveness. In my post, I actually focused on the distinction between leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness, and while extroversion was strongly correlated with leadership emergence, it was not correlated strongly with leadership effectiveness in the long term. Meta-analysis supports that leadership emergence positively correlates with extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness as predictors of emergence (Judge et al, 2002). Extraversion is the factor most positively associated with leadership (Northouse, 2016). I took this to mean that, basically, an outgoing person is more likely to get “noticed” for anything (leadership included) than an introverted person. I found the research you located to be very interesting in the sense that introverted individuals can be seen as more effective in vocal teams. That was very reassuring to me. Throughout my leadership study and career, I’ve continuously struggled with hearing that extroverts are great leaders, when I consider myself to be more introverted naturally. “Leader emergence, rather than effectiveness, is often a product of others’ perceptions of an individual’s abilities” (Reichard et al, 2011). Emergence does not equal effectiveness. Leadership effectiveness does not merely exist through titles or rank, it is a continuous cycle between leaders and followers of expectations and performance. Naturally, leadership effectiveness will be ultimately judged by those in the position of followers. An ineffective leader can fade as quickly in the minds of their followers just as quickly as they’d previously emerged. Despite being in an executive position in my career now, I’ve always felt deep-down like I wasn’t good enough because of my natural tendency towards introversion. It seems based on your last paragraph that you’ve faced this struggle as well, and introversion has not held you back either. Your research and post helps reassure me that perhaps I’ve been successful due to my introversion. My study helped to show me that although extroverts tend to emerge more, it has no bearing on their leadership effectiveness.
Thanks again!
Kirk Petty
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Reichard, R. J., Riggio, R. E., Guerin, D.W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of relationships between adolescent personality and intelligence with adult leader emergence and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 471-481.