The trait approach is interesting but problematic because, in a society that is very focused on individuality and what makes each person unique, there is also a constant drive to improve oneself. The evidence of this is everywhere we look, on bookshelves, in advertisements touting self-improvement products, and just about anywhere else information is shared. If we are all trying to improve, then the concept that leaders are born and not formed seems counterintuitive. If we are born with these leadership traits, why would we need to constantly self-improve? I agree that some traits found in leaders could be born into people. However, I have a greater belief that leadership can be taught and improved upon throughout the life of a leader. Are traits, similar to our DNA, born into us and predefined? If that is the case, why, as Northouse (2016) states, is there not a decisive list of traits that define the leader or DNA markers that are specifically attributed to the leadership traits we are supposedly born with or without.
How does the concept of traits being an immanent part of a person align with the concepts of nature versus nurture? If two identical twins were separated and raised in completely different environments and nurtured differently, would they both live to adulthood and present the same traits? These are all question that cannot possibly be answered definitively because the concept of the leadership trait approach is a theory and not a law. In my experience, leaders can change with time and effort. For example, I have been working with my current boss for about four years, and he is the leader who makes the majority of all operations decisions and is in charge of over one hundred employees. When he first started, many people disliked and mistrusted him as a leader. He was antisocial and did not seem to have great confidence or particularly special levels of intelligence. Over the last few years, his confidence has grown, and his social skills have become much more relatable. He has been working on himself to improve the traits that make him a good leader. He does not seem to inherently have many of the traits that can be said to make a good leader. With feedback and hard work, he has started to embody better leadership traits. He does not seem to be a born leader but has worked hard to act the way a good leader should.
My example of a leader who is not a natural leader but a learned one shows how a person can learn, practice, and improve their leadership skills over time whether or not the traits are born into that person. The trait approach seems to be a theory that has become less relevant with time. We all live in a country whose foundations are built on people who figured it out, were self-made, and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps to achieve the American Dream. I do not think that the trait approach gives credit where credit is due to all of the self-made, hard-working leaders who had to work hard to become a great leader.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice (7th ed). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA
Zoe Elizabeth Hoch says
You have many good points in your blog. Traits are unique though, and in leadership one must need these traits or they will be walked all over when being a leader. I domt Think people are born to be leaders, but i see What you mean when you said it seems counterintuitive. Being a leader, from having to be a leader and what i habe Personally learned is all about making improvements and learning how to become a better leader. It’s more a learned thing than anything. I think You did a good job explaining the importance of learned leaders rather than the cliche natural and born leaders.
jzb5922 says
http://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2018/01/21/maybe-shes-born-with-it-or-maybe-she-figured-it-out-and-worked-hard-for-success/