Trait Leadership

Abstract

Trait leadership, a concept which began to develop in earnest in the nineteenth century, was the first attempt to theorize the factors considered essential to efficient leadership. There are many branches of trait leadership, across a wide variety of organizational and academic fields. However, critics warn that the widespread prevalence of trait beliefs contributes to the development of stereotypes. Most contemporary personality trait theories take into account, to different degrees, the influence of sociocultural phenomena such as physiology, psychology, culture, socioeconomic status, and globalization.

Overview

Since the ancient Greeks, thinkers have sought to identify and understand what makes some people become leaders while most others do not. They have also examined if there are special characteristics that make for an effective leader and the extent to which leadership is related to the achievements of a leader’s followers. The nineteenth century saw the rise of the "Great Man Theory," which synthesized ideas about great leaders being born to their position. In other words, some men—for leaders were usually male—were born with genetic or inheritable characteristics called "traits" that marked them as natural leaders. These traits were varied and invariably identified as masculine. Followers or people considered inferior, were believed not to possess such traits. Trait theories, then, stemmed from the idea that people were born with an inherent set of traits that flourished into leadership, and these could not be acquired in any other way.

The "Great Man" theory was first proposed by a Scottish historian and essayist named Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881). In Carlyle’s view, history and great leaders were inextricably linked, because great leaders were the movers and shakers of great historic events. Carlyle believed that men such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or Abraham Lincoln were born with extraordinary natural traits, which at the time included martial virtues—the ability to lead men in battle and strategize successfully. This theory became very influential, for it provided an easy to comprehend explanation for many complex sociological phenomena.

Trait theory did not shed light, however, on the ways in which privilege and political mythmaking, for example, make some leaders appear more effective at their job than they are in reality. Carlyle’s view seems quaint in the twenty-first century, as decades of research shows that the behavior of people is largely situational and contextual, and human beings are born with characteristics that develop and express differently throughout their lives. Moreover, the status of leaders often colors the perception of their followers, who may ascribe to them traits they do not have. Nevertheless, Carlyle’s ideas inspired early empirical research on leadership. In fact, it is still considered the first theory of leadership of the modern era.

Trait theories and those related to it focus on different personality traits that are usually expected to remain constant across a wide variety of situations. Some of the influence of Carlyle is clear in theories that examine how certain traits produce specific behaviors and how behavioral traits may be consistent or change across different situations. Moreover, experts in some fields continue to believe that people are born with traits that help them become successful leaders (Cherry, 2014). Early trait theories, then, used successful leaders as their case studies, seldom questioning the conditions that bolstered their leadership, such as the social class they were born into. In other words, individuals with similar traits who were born into less privileged status seldom achieved extraordinary levels of leadership.

Other thinkers of the time, such as scientist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), disagreed with Carlyle’s view and proposed that it was the impact of their environment that which made individuals who they were. Nevertheless, the idea that prominent leaders have the right traits or personality for their position—and that these traits are inherent—continues to be a popular idea. The traits considered imperative for successful leadership vary, with the most common across the board being intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability (Schriberg & Schriberg, 2010).

In fact, studies show that there are very few traits that can be identified that distinguish between leaders and followers. One of these is extroversion, which leaders seem to express more, but the differences tend to be minimal. In time, then, trait theories began to run into problems, such as the fact that some obviously strong leaders did not possess the leadership traits supposed to identify great men. Theories that focused on traits became more nuanced and empirical, so that these were modified to take into account other variables, such as gender, social class, the ways in which people interpret the elements of success, and others (Cherry, 2014). Other research results suggest that people with some specific traits may be effective leaders in one specific context, while much less so in others. In other words, leadership is contingent and contextual. Moreover, there is no definite list of traits that guarantees leadership success in all circumstances (Lussier & Achua, 2012).

By the mid-twentieth century, studies performed by Ralph M. Stodgill (1904–1978), a leading expert in leadership research, suggested that successful leadership resulted from the interaction between an individual and his or her social environment, rather than from inborn traits. In following studies, Stodgill added more variables to his studies, including age, appearance, knowledge, responsibility, emotional control, social skills, self-confidence, and integrity. By 1974, a study conducted by leadership researchers Barry Posner and Jim Kouzes interviewing over 1,500 managers, determined that there are four main traits associated with leadership: honesty, forward looking, the ability to inspire, and competence. In 1989, another study found that some traits can be associated with good leadership across situations: task competence, intelligence, people skills, the ability to motivate others, self-confidence, assertiveness, flexibility, courage, credibility, empathy, and decisiveness (Cherry, 2014). Leadership and personality theories tend to incorporate some trait research, because it is an invaluable asset for leaders and organizations to understand how personality affects performance.

Trait theories have raised concerns among some scholars. For instance, they claim that the lists of traits linked to strong leadership are usually perceived as being "male" traits, according to several surveys worldwide, or neglect to take into account cultural differences. Others argue that traits in general are often ineffectual predictors of behavior. Many trait theories do not explain why individual differences emerge nor why some individuals score high when measured on some traits but do not always behave the same way in similar situations (Cherry, 2014).

Further Insights

Trait theories are mainly concerned with measuring individual personality traits or dispositions. Not all of them, however, argue that traits are all that determine how an individual behaves in different contexts or scenarios. Most contemporary trait theories take into account different social, cultural, environmental, and psychological variables, as opposed to early trait theory, which simply argued that leaders had different—and better—traits than most other people (Unsar & Karalar, 2013).

Social scientists who focus on trait theories, generally believe that there are general and specific traits linked to leadership, some of which are inheritable and others are acquired or developed. In fact, most traits are acquired or developed, and many characteristics long believed to be unchangeable traits, have been shown to change with the passage of time, experience, or under specific sets of circumstances. Among the most influential contemporary theories are the works of Gordon Allport, Raymond Catell’s, Hans Eysenck’s and Geert Hofstede’s.

In the mid-1930s, Gordon Allport created a list of 4,000 words from the English language that described different personality traits, and organized them into three kinds of traits: (1) Cardinal traits; (2) Central traits; and (3) Secondary traits.

Cardinal traits are the dominant and outstanding characteristics of a specific individual. In fact, these characteristics may be so salient among extraordinary leaders that they become known for that individual’s name and become part of the vocabulary: Christ-like, Machiavellian, the "Napoleon complex" and so on. Cardinal traits, however, are found solely among a few unique individuals and are not common to the general population. On the other hand, everybody has central traits, that is, those characteristics that prove foundational to each personality. These are not salient to the extent that cardinal traits are, but are prevalent enough that they are used by others to describe the person who possesses them. For instance, a person may be described by most who know him or her as honest, intelligent, energetic, shy, and so on. These are coherent with cardinal traits, when an individual possesses both. Finally, secondary traits are related to tastes, preferences or attitudes; that is, they are contextual or expressed only under some circumstances. For instance, a person may become anxious only when he or she has to speak in public—also known as stage fright—or become impatient when he or she has to wait in traffic. What is unique to each person, according to Allport, is his or her specific pattern of traits

(Cherry, 2014; Unsar & Karalar, 2013).

Raymond Cattell followed up on Allport by reducing the number of main personality traits from Allport’s list of 4,000 to 171, and surveyed a large sample of individuals along these traits. This was further reduced to 16 key personality traits, from which he created one of the most important personality measures, known as the Cattell’s Sixteen Factor Questionnaire or 16PF (Cherry, 2014).

British psychologist Hans Eysenck developed a model of personality based upon three universal traits: (1) Introversion/Extraversion; (2) Neuroticism/Emotional Stability; (3) Psychoticism. Introversion/Extraversion measures the extent to which people are inner- or outer-directed, and so does Neuroticism/Emotional Stability. After studying people affected by mental disease, Eysenck added the dimension of psychoticism. Individuals who rate high on this trait have difficulties dealing with people, and may lack empathy or have problems dealing with reality (Cherry, 2014).

The work of Cattell and Eysenck is the basis for considerable contemporary research and personality test instruments, some of which built upon it while tweaking the lists of traits used to identify strong leadership. One of these is the "Big Five" theory, which proposes 5 core personality traits that interact with each other in every human being. These are commonly known as (1) Extraversion, (2) Agreeableness, (3) Conscientiousness, (4) Neuroticism, and (5) Openness.

The twenty-first century saw a surge in interest in the personality attributes of effective leaders, in part due to the resurgence of theoretical and empirical work on charismatic and transformational leadership approaches. Charismatic and transformational leaders are those believed to be able to change the status quo by inspiring and energizing their followers, capable of moving them to respond quickly and efficiently to a call for action. These studies, then, focus on personality attributes as a way to predict future leadership performance and effectiveness. Studies suggest that individual leadership styles exist, and much of the current theories focus on "trait activation," the idea that traits require specific situations to be activated or expressed. Therefore, individuals who possess specific traits will behave in "trait-like" ways only in situations that actually prompt or cause those traits to spring into action.

On the other hand, because of globalization and the growing diversity in the workplace, much of business training is based on building up emotional intelligence, communication and interpersonal skills, mentorship and coaching, and other skills and methods based on development rather than purely activating traits. Some of these theories, however, are based on Hofstede’s findings on cultural studies. Hofstede takes a similar approach to modern trait theories upon examining different cultures, and posits that different cultures have different attributes or characteristics that are so prevalent as to be practically inherent. These characteristics are: (1) power distance, (2) uncertainty avoidance, (3) humane orientation, (4) collectivism, (5) assertiveness, (6) gender-egalitarianism, (7) future orientation, and (8) performance orientation. Based on this theory, then, although a culture may have trait-like characteristics that are crucial to understand in a globalized world, perceptions of desirable leadership traits are societal; that is, they are embedded in a society’s culture and beliefs, and thus may differ across cultures (Pressentin, 2015).

On the other hand, some studies have identified a few leadership traits across cultures. Research shows some correlations in traits such as extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness across graduate-level (MBA) business students in different cultures. Globalization and the internationalization of business schools have had an impact on how new generations are educated for leadership. The links between personality traits and leadership continues to be a popular subject in the leadership research in many fields, including education and the military (Unsar & Karalar, 2013).

Viewpoints

Research on traits and personality attributes has become more sophisticated, reflecting increasingly complex societal dynamics and the diverse interests of leaders and organizations. Some of these include the expansion of businesses across borders into other countries and others, growing awareness of diverse workplaces.

Not only are different sets of leadership traits viewed as desirable across cultures, there may be different perceptions of desirable leadership traits intra-culturally. Authoritarian, and paternalistic leadership traits may be preferred among organizational leaders from an older generation while a younger generation may connect better with transformational leadership. Very hierarchical environments, as well, may promote traits that are better expressed in a vertical power structure whereas organizations based on transformational leadership, based on consensus and motivation, are suited to different leadership traits (Pressentin, 2015). Situations such as these are increasingly common as businesses continue to grow and internationalize.

Other issues uncovered by trait-based studies, is the extent to which the perception of desirable traits is cultural and gender-based. For example, researchers question the extent to which a recognized leader truly possesses leadership traits, and the extent to which such traits are in the eye of the beholder. Studies have shown, for example, that once a person is identified as a leader, it is common for others to assign to the leader attributes considered crucial for good leadership. Such traits include intelligence, ability, empathy, support, creativity, consistency, and power. Traits negatively related to perceived leadership are suspiciousness, self-centeredness, radical tendencies, and hypocrisy. A 1960s study found that leadership stereotypes were prevalent and that these perceptions and stereotypes affected the rating behavior of those assessing the leaders (Frye, 1965).

Twenty-first century studies suggest that stereotypes continue to affect the ways in which people perceive and rate leaders according to traits. For example, in a study across Australia, Germany, and India managers are perceived as possessing traits that are stereotypically male. People surveyed in all three countries assessed traits for male and female executives, as well as individuals identified solely as "an executive" in general. Both men and women rated women executives as more interested in people. In fact, men were consistently rated as more pro-active ("agentic") than women, and women more communally oriented than men, reflecting age old stereotypes of women as caretakers and nurturers, and men as breadwinners and active. In fact, the results supported the contention that many visualize of a male when they think about a manager. These trait-based gender stereotypes can be observed in studies performed in other advanced countries (Sczesny, Bosak, Neff, & Schyns, 2004).

Moreover, male participants were likelier to describe female executives as having negative traits such as nervousness, passivity, and uncertainty, and male executives as competent, ambitious, and objective. Therefore, when women reach leadership roles, they may be rated and evaluated according to biased perceptions and stereotyped trait attributions (Sczesny, Bosak, Neff, & Schyns, 2004).

Despite these concerns, some experts advocate for studying and taking into account the impact of personality traits, albeit within certain parameters. Admittedly, abundant research supports the argument that psychological factors such as temperament, emotions and biases affect decision making. Traits may be important in some contexts but, even in the presence of traits, emotions and beliefs affect the rational processes and contribute significantly to decisions and behavior (Rzeszutek, Szyzska, & Czerwonka, 2015).

Terms & Concepts

Bias: An inclination, preference or prejudice in favor or against something. A bias may be unconscious.

Charismatic Leadership: The ability to be perceived as heroic and to inspire people to follow enthusiastically and unquestioningly.

Personality: The combination of an individual’s cognitive and emotional qualities, traits, temperament, and other intangible characteristics.

Stereotypes: Generalized and over-simplified ideas about another person or group. The idea that all individuals belonging to a group share the same set of characteristics, for example, that all women are emotional.

Traits: A genetically or ingrained feature or characteristic.

Transformational Leadership: A type of leadership that energizes and inspires people to enact positive changes.

Bibliography

Cervone, D., Pervin, L. A. (2013). Personality: Theory and research (12th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Cherry, K. (2014, September 18). What is the trait theory of leadership? About Health. Retrieved December 28, 2015 from http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/fl/What-Is-the-Trait-Theory-of-Leadership.htm

Frye, R. L. (1965). Relationship between rated leaders and the traits assigned to these leaders. Journal of Social Psychology, 66(1), 95–99. Retrieved December 28, 2015 from EBSCO SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16476820&site=ehost-live

Lussier, R., & Achua, C. (2012). Leadership: Theory, application, and skill development. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Pressentin, M. (2015). Universal leadership approaches and cultural dimensions: The expression of Asian leadership traits. Amity Global Business Review, 10, 19–38. Retrieved December 28, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=101518080&site=ehost-live

Rzeszutek, M., Szyzska, A., & Czerwonka, M. (2015). Investors’ expertise, personality traits, and susceptibility to behavioral biases in the decision making process. Contemporary Economics, 9(3), 337–351. Retrieved December 28, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=110784427&site=ehost-live

Sczesny, S., Bosak, J., Neff, D., & Schyns, B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 51(11/12), 631–645. Retrieved December 28, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16165450&site=ehost-live

Shriberg, A., & Shriberg, D. (2010). Practicing leadership principles and applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Unsar, A. S., & Karalar, S. (2013). The effect of personality traits on leadership behaviors: A research on the students of business administration department. Journal of Economics and Business, 11(2), 45–56. Retrieved December 28, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=94624665&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

DuBois, M., Koch, J., Hanlon, J., Nyatuga, B., & Kerr, N. (2015). Leadership styles of effective project managers: Techniques and traits to lead high performance teams. Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance & Marketing, 7(1), 30–46. Retrieved December 28, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=101746680&site=ehost-live

Mallia, K. L., Windels, K., & Broyles, S. J. (2013). An examination of successful leadership traits for the advertising-agency Creative Director. Journal of Advertising Research, 53(3), 339–353. Retrieved December 28, 2015 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=93987816&site=ehost-live

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.