Its fourth down, your uptown rivals are up by 1 with 30 seconds on the clock. The ball is on your 45 yard line and you have to travel 55 yards down the field to score a touchdown. A field goal would be possible in 35yards but your kicker has missed every kick this game. Your hands are clammy, sweat is pouring down your face, you look into the eyes of your team mates who are exausted from what has been the toughest game all season. Your dad is in the crowd looking down on you like a pile weights, hoping you have what it takes to live up to his expectations. Your heart beat slows and the roar of the crowd becomes a stifled hiss. You walk up to the line and in an instance time stands still. Does everyone have the ability to pull the very best out of the ones around them when the times get tough. Could you make the pass and win the game. Not just anyone can be a leader or everyone would be. There is a reason why the study of leadership started with Traits. “Early researchers believed that leaders were born with certain personality traits and only “great” people had these traits. Thus, they believed that leaders were born, not made.” (lesson 2 Commentary). Now I am a Firm believer In this way of thinking because there are millions of examples like the one I just described that people cant replicate. Out of the millions of military members why are there so few Medal of Honor recipients. Out of all the names in all the world, why do we remember names such as Martin Luther King, George Washington, Julius Cesar, and Gandhi. Its because these men did things that others didn’t. They lived their life and through their leadership captured moment of greatness.
There is always two sides to every coin and the study of leaderships is no different. Situational leadership is the term that should be used to describe our devils advocate. “Leaders in one situation were not necessarily leaders in another situation.”(Lesson 2 Commentary). The example used to illustrate this quote was Michael Jordan. A man of pure greatness on the court of basketball who hosted several world championships. The main point of the argument was he is considered a horrible General Manager if not the worst of all time. This may seem like a valid argument to those of you who are aware of his inconsistencies as a GM, or to those of you who take the text at face value and know nothing about sports or of Michael Jordan. I’d like to ask one question. How Many professional athletes after they retire continue to make 100 million dollars a year and go on to be worth 1.2 billion dollars? (Dods 2016). I can tell you right now there are thousands of athletes world wide who make a lot of money playing sports but very few go onto make that kind of money after retirement. Does a leader have to be perfect at all times to prove that Great Man Theories are true or does one example of bad leadership prove that Great Man Theories are wrong.
Leadership isn’t so black and white because there is a lot of gray area in regards to the amount of variables associated with it. Take the Personality Models we Looked at in Chapter Two in our commentaries. Stogdill, Kirkpatrick, and Locke listed traits like confidence, competitiveness, dependability, work ethic, and open mindedness. Do we really need to narrow down the possibilities or limit what a leader is capable of by words and a list or are leaders truly situational which means there is no difference between a leader and follower?. “Stogdill (1948) suggested that there was no consistent set of traits that were different in leaders and followers”. If there is no difference between the two why is their Great Men for Great Man Theories to be based on. We know Great Leaders posses qualities that lead to some form of greatness. We need a new context for which we think about leadership and following. In stead of discussing the difference between a Leader and a follower. We need to Look at followers in a different light. The term followers seems to be associated with the lack of ability or trait required to lead. Instead I would rather label them as lesser leaders. Men and woman born with traits that could lend themselves to being a leader but lack in comparison to Greater leaders. Someone with more accumulated traits seems to shine in more areas which lends to higher levels of accepted follower-ship from lesser leaders. With this new context I think The Great man theories have a chance at competing against our devils advocate.
References:
Dodds, C. (2016, March 28). Michael Jordan: Net Worth. Retrieved January 20, 2018, from https://www.investopedia.com/university/michael-jordan-biography/michael-jordan-net-worth.as
Williams, J (2018) Leadership in Work: Lesson 2: Trait Approach [Lesson Commentary] Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1923777/modules/items/23736127
jzb5922 says
Hi William,
I can see where you are going with your opinion that leaders are born which you illustrated by listing several great leaders throughout history. There are many great men and woman throughout history, and many of these great people have accomplished countless achievements as great leaders. However, our opinions vastly different when it comes to whether or not the trait approach is valid. What I feel is missing in this approach is the fact that each of those great leaders spent their lives becoming great, they did not come out of the womb with all of the traits and knowledge necessary to be a great leader. They had to learn about leadership in the context of their time and, perhaps today, if they were in a position of leadership in 2018, they might not be considered great based on what we define today to be a successful or great leader. I feel like the definition of leadership is ever-shifting, but DNA and the natural tendencies born into humans have not changed. Based on this alone, I honestly do not think leaders are born, but I do believe that they are formed; somewhat a result of nature but more largely a result of nurture.
The example of Michael Jordan seems a little off to me. The ability to make money in a new phase of a career does not, to me, define good or bad in the context of leadership. Michael Jordan became a great athlete and eventually a great leader on the court through hard work and development by his coaches. Of course, his physical ability in part comes from his DNA, but I believe that like all people, his leadership skills were formed through practice, feedback, and more practice. The fact that Michael Jordan is not a good general manager now that he is off the court is not mitigated by the fact that he makes much money.
I believe that the term followers is a necessary result of the English the language but not necessarily a denigrating term to show followers as not capable of leadership. The term lesser feels more reductive than the term follower to me. However, I do understand that depending on your understanding of the words, and personal context, the term lesser could present itself as more aggrandizing than follower. I am interested to see more of your blog posts. It is always good to read the opinions of a person that has different beliefs than me. It helps to expand my knowledge and help me to acknowledge that, while different than my opinions, yours are no less valid as part of the greater conversation in this course.
Thank you,
Jesyca
Hannah J Mcmanis says
Hi William,
I enjoyed reading your post, and I like the sports approach you took to illustrate your viewpoints on leadership and the trait approach. You provided some really great examples, like the Michael Jordan as a GM, I think that is a perfect example of how someone can be a leader in one situation, but not another. Although, your comment about his net worth seems out of context a bit to me. Not to offend, but I just don’t see what a person’s net worth has to do with their ability or inability to be a successful leader.
I personally feel that traits are essential to a leader’s success. I do not believe that traits cannot be taught and learned, I feel that anyone can learn anything if they’re motivated to do so. Just because someone is not born with a trait associated with leadership does not mean they cannot learn and develop that trait later in life. I think what depends on the person is how much later in life they develop those traits, but that thinking, to me, feeds into the trait of drive and motivation.
I think that a successful leader must demonstrate charisma, and good decision making. They must also possess good emotional intelligence, you have to be able to connect with your people and meet their needs. Countless times, I have seen people leave my company because they felt that their professional and developmental needs were not being met by our general manager. Being a leader is so much more than just being the boss, and making decisions. It is about your people, and if your people are not happy and successful, you as a leader will not be successful