An Introduction to the Leadership
Trait Paradigm
courtesy of Kevin McGrath,
Spring 2001
-
Flourished during 1930 and 1950
-
Lost favor for due to the following problems
-
Theories of Personality
-
Not well documented
-
Sparse empirical testing
-
Offered little substantive guidance for theory development
-
Operational definitions of traits were either absent or deviant
-
The list of traits became too large and thus cumbersome
-
Inability to replicate correlations between trait and leader
effectiveness
-
Inadequate samples stymied generalization
-
Revival of Trait Theory
-
Personality theory was more developed
-
Arguments that dispositions drive behaviors became more theoretical
-
Contingencies were introduced
-
Strong environments dampen the display of driven behaviors,
whereas weak environments allow more freedom for trait behaviors to be
expressed
-
Organizations and work environments are "strong" environments
and thus convolute the trait–behavior relationship
-
Social settings are likely to be weak environments and may
allow for greater correspondence between traits and subsequent behaviors
-
Trait stability
-
Stable for a substantial time frame, but not necessarily
one’s lifetime
-
Trait stability may not transcend all situations
-
Improved empirical results
-
Acceptable samples
-
Replication of findings
-
Unrecognized yield from previous research
-
When omitting adolescence from data analysis, the relationship
between traits and perceptions of leadership increased (r > .40)
-
Meta-Analysis: several traits (intelligence, dominance, and
masculinity) were all significantly correlated with follower perceptions
of leadership
-
Recent Trait Theories
-
Social Influence Motivation and Leadership Motive Profile
(LMP)
-
Leaders are driven to compete and achieve excellence in personal
endeavors
-
Leaders are likely to demonstrate
-
High power motivation
-
High concern for the moral exercise of power
-
Greater needs for power and influence than affiliatory relationships
-
Charismatic Leadership Theory
-
Leaders are self-confident
-
Leaders challenge the "Status Quo"
-
Leaders employ self-confidence and referent power to advocate
"inspirational visions" on the future
-
Leader Flexibility
-
Leaders posses high degrees of social sensibility
-
Leaders demonstrate behavioral flexibility in response to
situational contingencies
-
Perhaps this identifies the need for empathy and emotional
intelligence
-
Summary of Trait Findings
-
Several traits differentiate leaders from others (e.g., GMA,
adjustment, self-confidence, nAch)
-
Trait driven behaviors are contingent on situational characteristics
-
Trait driven behaviors are more likely to surface in weak
environments
-
Leaders tend to demonstrate higher needs for power and tend
to have high degrees of persuasion / social influence
-
Leaders born or made?
-
Twin studies suggest that leadership traits are somewhat
genetic
-
Inheritability of leadership effectives has some shortcomings
-
Genetics explain a relatively small amount of variance between
the trait-perceptions of leadership relationship
-
Inherent limitations of twin studies (same environments)