As we all think about our own leadership abilities, sometimes we can’t help but wonder if we are made up for such a serious and responsible task. For those of us who has no knowledge of leadership and how a leader is formed or in some views born, it might be a challenging task to become one, either at our work place, school, amongst our own peers or even any given small tasks that we inherit spontaneously.
Well the truth of the matter as I have mentioned in my last blog is that not all leaders are born and now as we progress into the course and diverse types of leadership approaches, we came across trait approach. According to trait approach which believes that great leaders are born with a set of traits that qualify them and make them ideal for a leadership role and believe it or not only “great” people possess them (Northouse, 2016).
Well that couldn’t have been far from the truth in my opinion. For example, you might have heard someone say, “I can do anything” and even that shows confidence, that statement might be a bit stretched out from the actual truth.
If one individual trait is appropriate in a specific situation, it does not necessarily make them the right candidate for the next job. For example, if you were born to a family of police officers and law enforcement, chances are that at an early very age you were acquainted with the stories that your family told you about their daily activities on the patrol and (even though not all police officers patrol out streets) on the job. They even might have taken you on some ride along. That’s a perfect example of learned abilities at an early age and an example of Skills approach. With Skills Approach unlike Trait approach it is believed that leaders are trained with a set of traits and are not born with those traits.
Research for a long time has been trying to figure out leadership and they’ve come up with countless terms to define and explain personalities that would determine if we can see whom leaders are and whom are not. Research had broken down majority of these personalities into five major categories, for our sake. One, Consciousness or Dependability, Agreeableness, Neuroticism/Emotional Stability and Adjustment, Openness to Experience/ Intellectance and finally Extra version/ Surgency (PSU, 2018)
I believe there is no other book or course than can get in depth of leadership in my opinion than psych 485. The reason why I say this is that, all the material re straight forward and really explains the types of different leaderships, and leadership approaches. I have to say one thing that I know I will not forget is that, with trait approach we need to remember one size does not fit all. However, with Skilled Approach the skills necessary for the job can be taught and it has a way higher success rate than trait approach leadership.
As I bring this to an end I wanted to mention that Skills Approach has here subcategories; Technical, which in layman term “hand on” and this include factory workers, contractors, custodians and anything that involves hand on work. Second would be Human. This one would be a good example of social workers, therapists, and doctors. They have the skills that they have learned through school and obtaining knowledge to help their fellow mankind. The last one is Conceptual, and this is a notable example of the entrepreneurs. Those who want o to start their own business and think outside of the box. Always ready to make a move and start something new that could take them to the whole different level. I just wanted to mention some of the skills model that can be learned, rather than be born with according to trait approach.
Reference:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Pennsylvania State University, (2018). Psychology 485: Leadership in Work Setting, Lesson 2 and 4: Trait Approach and Skills Approach and
Armin,
I agree, leadership is a multifaceted topic which does not offer us a one, two, three, step process for becoming a great leader. I know we have only covered a few leadership approaches thus far, but I feel being versed in each one can only benefit your growth as a leader. On the trait approach, you stated it yourself, if something has a particular trait which makes them a good leader in one situation, does not mean they will be a good leader in another. However, the same could be said for the skills approach as well. According to Northouse (2016), one of the skills approach weaknesses is the fact the theory is not precise or predictable enough. For instance, if a leader is found lacking in a skill, he or she could get training to improve it but the results are not guaranteed (Northouse, 2016).
I guess what I am getting at, is you should try to find a way to implement and employ both approaches to leadership without disregarding one for another. For instance, during the first week in this course, we were asked to define the difference between a leader and a manager or are they one in the same? Just doing a simple google research will pull up plenty of results which state they are different but overlap in many ways. However, I find the trait approach compliments a leader’s perspective more than it does a manager’s perspective and I find the skills approach compliments a manager’s perspective more than it does a leader’s perspective.
First, I will expound on the skills approach using Katz (1955) three-skill approach model. First off, the Katz approach argues there are three basic leadership components, technical skills or hands-on work, human skill or people skills, and conceptual skill or the ability to assess and create solutions to problems. Then each of these skills is distributed disproportionately in lower and upper levels management with middle management require a strong balance of the three together. Thus, the skills approach is focused more on improving the leadership skills of a manager then it does a leader. Northouse (2016) concurs with this assessment in his book Leadership theory and Practice, as he confirms the approach is structured around a management environment (Northouse, 2016, p. 46).
Secondly, even though the trait approach has been overwhelmed with over a century of research. Researchers are still trying to find the “golden ticket” traits which guarantee one has the aptitude to be a leader. However, researchers have identified several traits key traits which support leadership qualities more than others. These traits being intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability. Now, going back to what you said in your post. I do concur with you that even if leaders possess some or all of these traits, it does not guarantee one could lead. For instance, former CEO of Microsoft, Bill Gates, would be a great leader to run most businesses. However, I would not expect him to be a work class leader in coaching a baseball team all the way to the world series (With his money, he would just hire the best coach). Nevertheless, the trait approach is about identifying the innate qualities which leaders possess. Thus, the trait approach to leadership is more focused on pointing out people with the aptitude to lead, not manage (Northouse, 2016).
Lastly, Northouse (2016) state one of the benefits to using the trait approach is it allows one “to analyze their strengths and weakness and to gain a clearer understanding of how they should try to change to enhance their leadership” (Northouse, 2016, p. 40). While the skills approach “was developed to explain the capabilities (knowledge and skills) that make effective leadership possible” (Northouse, 2016, p. 69). Thus, while both approaches have their downsides to them. I find both offer practical advice when approaching the topic of improving ones self-efficacy.
Great Post!
Works Cited
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice (7th Edition). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Greetings Armin,
I much prefer the skills approach to the trait approach. As you described, the trait approach limits leadership opportunities to those you are born with innate advantages, while the skills approach allows for all qualities to developed by anyone willing to put in the time and effort to do so. As our society has become more advanced and aware of personal development as an area of study and training, I feel the Big Five Personality traits your described (Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism) (Northouse, 2016, p.27) are going to be more easily incorporated into the skills approach and they will no longer be wholly separate within the traits approach.
Let me explain. Although innate ability certainly makes displaying these traits easier, new opportunities now allow individuals to develop them in ways that previous generations may not have had access to. Applications increase our habits within Conscientiousness by making it easier to plan, organize and execute tasks from our fingertips. Social media, while having the potential to be negative, can nurture our need to be connected to others and develop relationships, which brings out one’s Agreeableness. The development and expansion of the internet over my lifetime has allowed individuals to access information from around the world and nurtures our curiosity. This promotes the development of Openness by creating opportunities for people to be informed and curious. Extraversion is the trait I struggle with the most. However, I recently learned of Toastmasters and other similar groups that can help me develop extraversion qualities. In Toastmasters specifically, you meet weekly to give short speeches (toasts) and provide feedback to others. By developing public speaking skills, this addresses fears associated with putting yourself out to the world. Lastly, the recognition of mental illnesses within the health care/insurance system and the proliferation of resources at colleges and community centers has allowed for many to address areas of concern within Neuroticism. Given these advances and what I expected to be the continued expansion of resourced in these areas, I expect that the trait theory may fall out of regard to potentially be incorporated within the skills theory at some point.
Reference
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Greetings Armin,
I much prefer the skills approach to the trait approach. As you described, the trait approach limits leadership opportunities to those you are born with innate advantages, while the skills approach allows for all qualities to developed by anyone willing to put in the time and effort to do so. As our society has become more advanced and aware of personal development as an area of study and training, I feel the Big Five Personality traits your described (Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism) (Northouse, 2016, p.27) are going to be more easily incorporated into the skills approach and they will no longer be wholly separate within the traits approach.
Let me explain. Although innate ability certainly makes displaying these traits easier, new opportunities now allow individuals to develop them in ways that previous generations may not have had access to. Applications increase our habits within Conscientiousness by making it easier to plan, organize and execute tasks from our fingertips. Social media, while having the potential to be negative, can nurture our need to be connected to others and develop relationships, which brings out one’s Agreeableness. The development and expansion of the internet over my lifetime has allowed individuals to access information from around the world and nurtures our curiosity. This promotes the development of Openness by creating opportunities for people to be informed and curious. Extraversion is the trait I struggle with the most. However, I recently learned of Toastmasters and other similar groups that can help me develop extraversion qualities. In Toastmasters specifically, you meet weekly to give short speeches (toasts) and provide feedback to others. By developing public speaking skills, this addresses fears associated with putting yourself out to the world. Lastly, the recognition of mental illnesses within the health care/insurance system and the proliferation of resources at colleges and community centers has allowed for many to address areas of concern within Neuroticism. Given these advances and what I expected to be the continued expansion of resourced in these areas, I expect that the trait theory may fall out of regard to potentially be incorporated within the skills theory at some point.
Hi Armin,
Thank you for your post; it was a very interesting read.
I wanted to touch on a few of the central ideas presented in your blog entry; and that was how you broke down the three subcategories in the skills approach. I don’t know if it was intentional, but your post seemed to compartmentalize leaders existing in each of these subcategories separately. One of the key principles of the skills approach demonstrates that leaders, as they progress through an organization, exist in each one of these subcategories to various degrees simultaneously. Northouse (2016) notes “It is important for leaders to have all three skills; depending on where they are in the management structure, however, some skills are more important than others are” (p. 46). The degree of importance of certain skills is most impactful based upon a person’s position in an organization, and here’s where I think the skills approach has significant challenges in application. Lower level leaders, such as floor supervisors and managers, must obtain technical skills to be considered “leaders” in their areas. Human skills are important for every level of leadership in any organization; that is just a fact of life. If you cannot get along with others, you’re unlikely to be viewed as a leader. Technical skills and human skills can be continuously improved. There are countless workshops and seminars available to improve technical skills and interpersonal skills. In considering training for conceptual skills…this is where the challenge exists. Northouse (2016) notes “Whereas technical skills deal with things and human skills deal with people, conceptual skills involve the ability to work with ideas” (p. 44). Things and people are tangible…you can touch them and interact with them. Ideas, however, exist in the intangible. They require those inherit leadership traits that must be intrinsically present in a person from a very young age in order for a leader to be successful in the conceptual skills. Personally, I don’t believe it is realistically possible for conceptual skills to be effectively taught; but having positive traits in the five aspects of personality will effectively qualify a leader in the conceptual skills aspect. These conceptual skills will help differentiate the supervisors and managers from the executives and other leaders.
Thanks again,
Kirk
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications