Growing up I have noticed that a lot of the characters (real or imaginary) I had looked up to were because of certain traits. Characters like Superman with his strength, Batman’s investigative brains, James Bond’s relentless charm, or Michael Jordan’s athletic skills. I had believed that traits like these were necessary for one to be a good leader since these characters, in their own rights, were.
Traits are theoretically a straightforward way that can distinguish a person. This is perhaps why researchers began some of their first attempts to study leadership through what became known as “great man” theories (PSU, 2018). It was generally believed that leaders were born with these innate qualities, not made after a dramatic origin story as many of the great superheroes have.
An analysis of much of the earlier trait research by Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) found that traits were strongly associated with individuals’ perceptions of leadership. Over the past century, many have tried to understand and promote what a good leader is by labeling necessary traits that will fit one’s own opinion just as one may have done idealizing heroes as a child. The Marine Corps is no different as it publishes a set of 14 Leadership Traits (MCRP 6-11B, 2008) it expects the individuals in its organization to build upon.
Researchers were able to categorize this mess of a seemingly endless supply of personality dimension into a simpler Five-Factor Model of personality (PSU, 2018) in which the traits used by the Marine Corps also fall into. Conscientiousness covers dependability, loyalty, integrity, and endurance. Agreeableness relates to justice and enthusiasm. Judgement, tact, and bearing fits into the category of Neuroticism. While initiative, unselfishness, and knowledge would partner with Intellect. This leaves extraversion, which has been considered as the strongest factor, decisiveness and courage.
The 19th Commandant of the Marine Corps, General C. B. Cates, said something similar in that “Leadership is intangible, hard to measure, and difficult to describe. It’s quality would seem to stem from many factors. But certainly they must include a measure of inherent ability to control and direct, self-confidence based on expert knowledge, initiative, loyalty, pride and sense of responsibility. Inherent ability cannot be instilled, but that which is latent or dormant can be developed. Other ingredients can be acquired. They are not easily learned. But leaders can be and are made” (MCRP 6-11B, 2008). Stogdill’s research (1948) also confirms that an individual does not become a leader solely because that individual possess certain traits, rather, the traits that leaders possess must be relevant to situations in which the leader is functioning.
Northouse (2016) continues to explain that the trait approach does not lay out a set of hypotheses or principles about what kind of leader is needed in a certain situation or what a leader should do, given a particular set of circumstances. Instead, this approach emphasizes that having a leader with a certain set of traits is crucial to having effective leadership which is central to the leadership process. An example of this may come from the origin story of Captain America. Once a frail boy from New York he was not taken seriously as someone who wanted to be in the military though he already possessed many of the leadership traits an organization would look for. After receiving a serum that enhanced him to the peak of human perfection (physically), he was then looked at and became a great leader to follow even though it was mainly for the traits he already possessed such as self-confidence, determination, and integrity.
A trait assessment gives individuals a clearer picture of who they are as leaders and how they fit into the organizational hierarchy. In areas where their traits are lacking, leaders can try to make changes in what they do or where they work to increase their traits’ potential impact (Northouse, 2016). Fictional German scientist Abraham Erskine saw the importance of this which led him to pick Steve. The Marine Corps uses its Performance Evaluation Manual (MCO P1610.7, 2015) to do similar evaluations that will aid in an individual’s understanding of what the organization is looking for, give them an opportunity to improve, and aspire for selection to obtainable billets and/or promotions.
Unfortunately there are some problems with following the trait approach. With every good trait that can considered, there is as many bad one. These Dark-side personality traits can be considered counterproductive in nature and create an opposite outcome for what an organization may want. These traits are usually not measured or detected with interviews or may not become obvious until someone has been in a position for a period of time (PSU, 2018). Another concern is that some of these dar-side traits have a correlation with some of the positive ones. For example, narcissism is highly related to higher extraversion scores (and those that score higher on extraversion are more successful leaders) (PSU, 2016).
Strengths
- The trait approach is intuitively appealing and fits with our belief that leaders are a special kind of people that can do certain things.
- There is over a century of research to back-up this approach.
- This approach highlights the leader component in the leadership process and as such makes very specific predictions and suggestions with regards to leaders themselves. (Remember that last lesson we talked about how leadership encompasses leaders, followers, and situations).
- The trait approach tells us what we need to look for if we want to be leaders.
Weaknesses
- The trait approach has failed to give us a definite list of leadership traits.
- The trait approach fails to take followers and situations into account.
- This approach has allowed us to be subjective in deciding what the “most important” traits are.
- The trait approach does not address how leadership traits affect group members and their work.
- This approach does not tell us how to train and develop leaders (since this approach believes that leaders are born, not made).
The trait approach has as many strengths as it does weaknesses as seen in the above chart (PSU, 2016). As continued research helps us to better understand the importance of leadership traits, we learn that they are only a part of what leadership can be defined or measured as.
Reference:
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology.
MCO P1610.7 (2015). Performance Evaluation System. Washington D.C.: The Corps
MCRP 6-11B. (2008). Marine Corps Values: Appendix A, B. Washington D.C.: The Corps.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Psychodynamic Approach. In M. Stanley, A. Rickard, L. Larson, & M. Masson (Eds.), Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pennsylvania State University. (2018). Trait Approach. PSYCH 485. Retrieved May 2018 from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1940315/modules/items/24597437
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology.
Tristan T Dickey says
This post hooked me instantly. We, as could have been assumed have a lot of the same heroes. However, what really interested me was your breakdown of strengths and weaknesses of the trait approach. Both strengths and weaknesses listed show us exactly what is necessary to accomplish simple leadership tasks while becoming a great leader. I like the idea of using Captain America in this post because he is an excellent idea of a great leader. His morals, and strong sense of integrity shine true and can be seen even by children. Keep up with the super hero posts!
Moataz Moustafa Sidahmed says
I really appreciate this post. Not only because you interconnected leadership with childhood comics, but it enables the reader to actually think back and make that connection him/her self.
You know I want to say something and I might digress, but the more you grow older with stress the more the cartoons for example are good for you.
A long time ago we use to concentrate on cartoons with a different perspective. Now we use it to distract us from our daily routines.
You made very valid points when interconnecting with leadership I’ll give you that and now when you think of it, we do have built in leadership role models and once we realize it, we would know it has been sitting in our subconscious since we were little.
ccb5182 says
I enjoyed reading your post. I am a huge fan of comics myself. I loved the way you broke down Captian America. I loved that you mentioned your perspective of leadership and that it could come from an early age interest in imaginary characters from comics. I think our televised shows also have an impact as well. Unconsciously, we also feel it’s necessary for our children in society to watch animated movies from Disney or even cartoon networks like Nickelodeon’s RugRats. I thought that was a very creative way to explain your point of view.
Several movies that I watched at an early age that derived from Disney or Pixar taught me several leadership qualities. A few of the more popular movies like Lion King and Toy Story showed forms of leadership with their main characters. Do you think watching these animated characters growing up influenced our psychodynamic approach or leadership traits as leaders?