Target

Leadership Trait Theory

For well over 100 years researchers have been studying what makes great leaders (Arvey, et al., 2006). As Mirvis and Gunning (2006) point out, "What comes to mind when you hear the word leadership? Most often the image is of the heroic individual, often charismatic, whose positional power, intellectual strength, and persuasive gifts motivate followers" (p. 70). One of the first systematic studies in leadership was built around the idea of what has since been termed trait theory (Northouse, 2007; Smith and Canger, 2004). This theory is based on the premise that people are born with certain characteristics, such as personality traits, and therefore some are more likely to become leaders than others. This paper presents a review of literature concerning trait theory and discussion of the issues surrounding it.

Great Man Theory

The Trait Theory of leadership originated with the Great Man Theory of history. As Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) explain, "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the 'great man' leadership theories were highly popular. These theories asserted that leadership qualities were inherited, especially by people of the upper class. Great men were, born, not made (virtually all business leaders were men)" (p. 48). Furthermore, Yoosuf posits, "According to the Great Man theory of history, the fate of societies, and organizations, is in the hands of key, powerful, idiosyncratic individuals, who by force of personality reach positions of influence from which they can direct and dominate the lives of others" (p. 149). Clawson (1999) states the following about the "Great Man Theory" of leadership:

"Leaders are born, not made. Leadership ability arises from innate, internal traits. Some have them and some don't. It is our job to figure out what these characteristics are so we can use them to identify potential leaders. No amount of training or coaching will make a leader out of someone who does not possess these traits" (p. 1).

Clawson goes on to list traits thought be common to great men. These include being adaptable to situations, alert to the social environment, ambitious and achievement oriented, being assertive, cooperative, decisive, dependable, energetic, dominant, persistent, self-confident, and tolerant of stress as well as willing to assume responsibility. Finally, Dongil Jung (2006) cites Willner as describing these natural born leaders as "spellbinders, whose magnetic personalities and dynamic speaking skills motivate followers to achieve high levels of performance in such contexts" (p. 12).

Criticism of the Trait Theory of Leadership

Even though this theory was popular with researchers for at least the first half of the twentieth century, it fell out of favor in the second half. In fact, there are as many critics of Trait Theory as there are proponents. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) cite Stogdill's work in which he concludes, "A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of a combination of traits" (p. 48). This statement was based on Stogdill's extensive review of research studies from which he concluded that a specific set of traits could not be determined to produce an individual with great leadership. Kirkpatrick and Locke also argue that even if evidence does exist that effective leaders possess some characteristic similarities, "traits alone, however, are not sufficient for successful business leadership - they are only a precondition" (p. 49).

One of the most significant criticisms of the Trait Theory is its applicability to cultures other than the North American culture, which is where the preponderance of research has been conducted. Shao and Webber (2006) sought to replicate the conclusions of Bono and Judge (2004) in the Confucian culture of China. They found the following:

"...we might regard the Chinese culture as a negative moderator. The Chinese culture, characterized by high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance and collectivism, fundamentally reinforces the hierarchical and conformist attributes of the top-down command structure. This structure emphasizes a centralized authority and leadership, stability and predictability, which create barriers for the emergence of transformational leaders, who tend to challenge the status quo and raise performance expectations" (p. 943).

Finally, they add, "we want to point out that the culture of a nation where a company is operating will significantly affect many business variables" (p. 943). This is especially true in today's global business environment.

Another reason the Trait Theory, as an outgrowth of the Great Man Theory, has received criticism is just that; it assumes all great leaders are men. Bass and Avolio (1994) state:

"Women managers, on average, were judged more effective and satisfying to work for as well as more likely to generate extra effort from their people. Women were also rated higher than men on three of the '4 I's' [idealized influence or charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualize consideration] comprising transformational leadership. Such female leaders were rated as having more idealized influence or charisma, being inspirational and individually considerate than were their male counterparts" (p. 554).

In fact, the authors propose, "The profile that emerges here is of a female manager who is seen as a more proactive role model by followers, who is trusted and respected, and who shows greater concern for the individual needs of her followers" (p. 556). Finally, they conclude that "a more plausible explanation for the observed differences regarding transformational leadership ratings may lie in the tendencies of women to be more nurturing, interested in others, and more socially sensitive" (p. 556).

Why Trait Theory Persists

Despite the fact that a multitude of studies conducted on the Trait Theory of Leadership have yielded completely mixed results there has been a renewed interest in the concept (Andersen, 2005). Perhaps this is due to intuitive nature of Trait Theory. We humans believe that there just has to be something that sets great leaders apart from the rest of us. In fact, Bachiochi, et al. (2000) state, "some would argue that personal characteristics such as emotional stability, trust, and flexibility would be difficult or impossible to train". Mirvis and Gunning (2006) state, "business leaders of great companies are first and foremost great human beings. They care and live in service and they commit to a lifelong journey of personal mastery, developing all