In an increasingly politically correct, democratic society—where equality of treatment and equity of outcome oftentimes overshadow individual performance—trait theory of leadership has managed to survive. Instead of focusing on the context of a specific leadership situation or the subordinates in an organization, trait theory targets only the man or woman in charge. Essentially, trait theory suggests that potential leaders and great leaders who have already demonstrated success are best analyzed in a vacuum. While trait theory may have fallen in an out of favor over the past century, it does have certain advantages that are especially pertinent to those in the military. Before treading any further into its occupational applicability, …show more content…
My approach to selecting team members best aligns with trait theory. Although the theory generally leans toward identifying a leader for an organization, it is useful in sifting through potential employees (players) based on the needs of the mission. With respect to floor hockey, I was specifically looking for people who I believed demonstrated tenacity, endurance, and a “never say die,” optimistic attitude. Looking back on my selection criteria, the characteristics I screened for dovetail with a variety of the leader traits arrived at by Stogdill, Mann, Lord, DeVader, and Alliger to name a few. No doubt, measuring for these characteristics is a difficult task, but by sitting down face-to-face with potential players, I was able to make spontaneous judgments. While this approach—and trait theory in general—has inherent weaknesses, I attempted to play to the theory’s strength. As Northouse (2010) suggests, “Using trait information, managers can develop a deeper understanding of who [players] are and how they will affect others in the organization” (pg. 28). Just as I screened for certain traits to form the team, I analyzed myself at the trait level in order to find out where I could best serve the team. For example, I classify myself as having self-confidence, motivation, masculinity, and intelligence. Given
19). Still a part of the Great Man Leadership era, these trait theories just went a step further in attempting to pinpoint exactly which traits of these “great men” were consistently associated with the leaders, in an effort to more clearly define what a great leader was. This was again a further attempt to be able to identify a leader early on and predict which individuals were born to become leaders. It is thought that a major flaw with these theories was the failure to account for external factors, such as the environment in which the individuals were brought up in, as well as the situations they experienced (Horner, 2007, p. 270). Still today we do continue to study the characteristics of leaders in order to better define and understand what makes someone a good leader.
Leadership can be viewed in many different ways and possess many different qualities. There are courageous leaders, respectful leaders, terrible leaders, and seemingly insignificant leaders but leaders nonetheless. But what is it that differentiates between a strong leader and a weak leader, or a powerful leader and an insignificant one? Is it the qualities in the leader or the decisions they make in key situations that define good leadership qualities? Some would define a good leader by their ability to do the right thing even if it is not the easiest choice. Others might define a good leader as one that possesses great integrity and leads by example. The military possesses many great leaders through a process of development and molding individuals to meet expected leadership qualities like honor, courage, commitment and integrity to accomplish any mission or goal. However, this process doesn’t always create the desired effect. So, let’s examine some good and bad examples of leadership qualities and break down what and how we can emulate them.
Is the “traits” approach to the study of leadership valid? If so, in what ways? How does recent research on the links between personality and individual behavior contribute to our understanding of leadership?
As was mentioned earlier, the trait theory contains highly subjective perspectives. It means that the perception of leadership traits is associated with the assessment of leadership. Barry et al (2003) conducted an
“Military leadership qualities are formed in a progressive and sequential series of carefully planned training, educational, and experiential events—far more time-consuming and expensive than similar training in industry or government. Secondly, military leaders tend to hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organizations. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, military leadership is based on a concept of duty,
As a growing debate, the question at hand is whether great leaders are born with specific leadership traits, or if one can be taught certain traits over time. According to (Wikipedia.com) the approach of listing leadership qualities, often termed "trait theory of leadership", assumes certain traits or characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. I believe that leadership traits such as honest, competent, initiative, inspiring, hardworking, intelligent, and the ability to lead the masses, are some of the leadership traits one should possess. Within this paper, I will examine the overall concept of leadership traits, while observing the traits that were, or can be associated with successful leaders.
The Biological and Psychological Trait Theories are theories that are used to try and explain deviance. Biological Trait Theory stems from the Italian School of Criminology (mid-nineteenth century), head by criminologist Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso argued that criminality was a biological trait found in humans. Lombroso’s idea of atavism connected an individual’s appearance and their biological inclination to criminal activity. The Psychological Trait Theory focused on the mental aspects of explaining criminal activity by evaluating their intelligence, personality, and learning behavior. There are three subunits of the Psychological Trait Theory, which are the psychodynamic theory, behavioral theory, and cognitive theory. Sigmund Freud developed the psychodynamic theory with his research of the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious functions of the mind. The behavioral theory is about developing human actions through learning experiences. It explains that crime is learned from life situations. People aren’t born with violent tendencies, rather it’s learned from life experiences. Three sources of this behavior are family, the media, and the environment. Cognitive theory focuses on how people perceive and mentally represent the world around them and solve problems. In the case of Jared Loughner, the psychological trait theory is the most applicable. With his diagnosis of being a paranoid schizophrenic, that connects him to both the psychodynamic perspective and
When it comes to biosocial and trait theories we ask ourselves at times, do some of the previous studies and ideas still relate to some of the new biosocial and trait theories we have in today’s day and age? In the article in Medical News today “Childhood poverty linked to brain changes related to depression by Honor Whiteman. The study provides information as to why children who are poor are more likely to become depressed. The Study shows that children between the ages nine or ten year olds have a higher risk at becoming depressed. (WorkCite).
Leadership philosophy is who we are as a human being and what we believe. Everyone is a leader but do you believe it? That’s the question. To be a leader you have to possess certain traits according to writers and philosophers. I believe that leadership comes over time; you have to make mistakes to make things better. You need to realize what kind of leader you want to be. I Also, believe that to be a good leader I need to possess my own personal beliefs and values, Family, Humility, Responsibility. As I think about all the leadership in my military career and the ones I read about such as Colin Powell; I noticed that all of them have their own value to accomplish greatness in their life. Each Leader is distinctly unique individual. Leaders always take a bath for a change everyday. In this paper I will explain my values in detail. (Dr. Denis Waithley).
Leadership, according to the Army doctrine, represents individuals’ ability to influence people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization (“Leadership” FM 6-22). However, the varying characteristics of individuals that the Army attracts may instill this doctrine in many different ways, leading to different representations of leadership. Some individuals choose to lead their subordinate in a stern matter, only displaying matured emotions and a “tough-loving” attitude to guide them in the right direction. Others
The trait leadership theory focuses on the individual leader’s personal characteristics as the basis of its investigations. It is one of the earliest leadership theories upon whose tenets many researches on leadership have been done. Although it is not very coherent, its heuristic nature has contributed to its significance in leadership research. Zaccaro and Klimoski (2002) define traits of reference to leadership as the stable personality characteristics, which result in a consistent leadership performance pattern, given different scenarios and groups. They include individual personalities, temperament, rationale, prowess, as well as cognitive abilities. Initially, the theory explored both physical and psychological characteristics that tell apart leaders from non-leaders.
The Trait Approach was the 1st systematic attempt to study leadership. In the 20th century it was known as the “great man” theory. This approach takes a look at the leaders personal attributes such as but not limited to: motivation, energy, intuition, creativity, persuasiveness and foresight. Some of the traits that are essential to this list include: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability. Thus it focuses mainly on the leader and not on the followers or situations. The strengths of the Trait Approach includes: 1) it is intuitively appealing, 2) it has research to back it’s theory, 3) it highlights the leader, 4) it identifies what the traits of a leader should have and whether the traits we do
R. Bolden et al (2003) discussed that the trait approach stemmed from the great man approach and that trait approach was common within the military and is still used as a set criteria today to commission candidates. It’s clear from the case study that Peter Ridge has quite a military style of leadership of command and control style. Bass (1981) stated that leadership is still classified as a critical factor in military success and has been continually recorded. Trait theories are qualities that are within a human being which constitutes a leader. Stogdill (1974) spoke about there being a list of leadership traits and related skills, he sees leaders as adaptable to situations, ambitious and achievement orientated, assertive, energetic,
Moreover, the trait approach gives a deeper understanding of the leader element in the leadership process by emphasising exclusively on the leader, (Gore et al, 2011). The trait theory does not offer hypotheses about the role of situational variance or characteristic of the followers. Instead, this approach provide information about leaders, and about which traits cause which behaviours and that certain set of traits are central to the leadership process and play an indispensible part of effective leadership.
This theory is based on the premise that there are certain personality characteristics that are essential for a person to possess in order to be a leader. The main emphasis is on what the person is in terms of a constellation of personality traits. This theory searches for that set of universal leadership traits that will assure success. Numerous traits have been suggested: courage, integrity, loyalty, charisma, ambition, intelligence, honesty, clairvoyance, persistence, arrogance, health, political skill, confidence and vision.