Organizational Leadership: An Overview Of Trait Theory

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

The first theory of leadership is the theory of the "great man", which later grew into the theory of leadership traits. This concept assumes that a person becomes a leader due to a unique set of personal qualities that he acquires at birth.

This theory is based on a general approach to the study of personality traits of a person, dominant for a particular period of time, i.e., if at a certain point in time the main tool for diagnosing personality traits is the 16-factor Cattell questionnaire, then leadership traits will be determined in accordance with with these sixteen factors. And as soon as another, more accurate tool for determining personal qualities is created, then the approach to determining the qualities of a leader also changes.

Pre-scientific premises of the theory of traits

The history of the theory of the "great man" dates back to the pre-scientific period and finds its expression in the treatises of ancient philosophers, depicting leaders as something heroic and mythical. The very term "Great Man" was used because, at that time, leadership was thought of rather as a masculine quality ("man", in the title of the theory, is translated from English as "man", and like a man").

Lao Tzu identified two leadership qualities, writing two thousand years ago: "The country is governed by justice, war is waged by cunning" [1].

Confucius (551 - 479 BC) identified five qualities of a worthy husband:

1. Be kind, but not wasteful.
2. Make others work in such a way that they will hate you.
3. Having desires, don't be greedy.
4. Having dignity, have no pride.
5. Be strong, but not ferocious.

In ancient Greece, a "virtuous" leader or citizen was one who did what was right and avoided extremes.

In Homer's poems The Iliad and The Odyssey, mythical heroes (who acted as leaders) were judged by their noble behavior. Odysseus was endowed with patience, generosity and cunning. Achilles, although he was a mere mortal, was called "godlike" for his qualities.

According to Aristotle, practical morality and intelligence, manifested on the battlefield and in life, became an important attribute of society. He singled out twelve virtues, the main of which are: courage (the middle between courage and cowardice), prudence (the middle between licentiousness and insensitivity), dignity (the middle between arrogance and humiliation) and truthfulness (the middle between boasting and understatement).

Plato portrayed a leader with an innate inclination for knowledge and a love of truth, a decisive enemy of lies. He is distinguished by modesty, nobility, generosity, justice, spiritual perfection [2].

Plutarch, in Parallel Lives, continued the Platonic tradition, showing a galaxy of Greeks and Romans with high moral standards and principles.

In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli (Niccolo Machiavelli) in the treatise "The Emperor" wrote that the leader combines the qualities of a lion (strength and honesty) and the qualities of a fox (hoax and pretense). He has both innate and acquired qualities. He is straightforward, cunning and talented from birth, but ambition, greed, vanity and cowardice are formed in the process of socialization [3].

The Great Man Theory

The theory of the "great man", suggesting that the development of history is determined by the will of individual "great people", originates with the works of T. Carlyle (T. Carlyle, 1841) (described the leader as having qualities that amaze the imagination of the masses) and F. Galton (F Galton, 1879) (explained the phenomenon of leadership on the basis of hereditary factors). Their ideas were supported by Emerson, who wrote: “All deep insights are the lot of outstanding individuals” [4].

F. Woods (F. A. Woods), tracing the history of the royal dynasties of 14 nations for 10 centuries, concluded that the exercise of power depends on the abilities of the rulers. Based on natural gifts, the kings' relatives also became influential people. Woods concluded that the ruler determines the nation according to his capabilities [5].

G. Tarde believed that the source of society's progress is discoveries made by proactive and unique personalities (leaders) who are imitated by followers who are incapable of creativity.

F. Nietzsche (F. Nietzsche) in 1874 wrote about the superman (man-leader), who is not limited by moral norms. He can be cruel to ordinary people and condescending in relationships with peers. He is distinguished by vitality and will to power.

Nikolai Mikhailovsky wrote in 1882 that personality can influence the course of history, slowing down or speeding it up and giving it its own individual flavor. He distinguished between the concepts of "hero", ie. a person who takes the first step and captivates by his example and a “great personality” who stands out depending on his contribution to society.

Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote in 1930 that mass does not act by itself, but exists to be led until it ceases to be a mass. She needs to follow something higher, coming from the elect.

A. Wiggam argued that the reproduction of leaders depends on the birth rate among the ruling classes, since their representatives differ from ordinary people due to the fact that their offspring is the result of marriages between aristocratic clans [6].

J. Dowd rejected the concept of "leadership of the masses" and believed that individuals differ from each other in abilities, energy and moral strength. Whatever the influence of the masses, but people are always led by leaders [7].

S. Klubech (C. Klubech) and B. Bass (B. Bass) discovered that people who are not naturally inclined to leadership can hardly be made leaders, except to try to influence them with psychotherapy [8].

The theory of the “great man” was finally formalized by E. Borgatta and his colleagues in 1954 [9]. In groups of three, they found that the highest score from the group was given to the one with the highest IQ. Leadership abilities, participation in solving a group problem and sociometric popularity were also taken into account. An individual chosen as a leader in the first of the groups retained this position in the other two groups, that is, he became a “great man”. Note that in all cases, only the composition of the group changed, with unchanged group tasks and external conditions.

The theory of the great man was criticized by thinkers who believe that the historical process takes place regardless of the wishes of people. This is the position of Marxism. So, Georgy Plekhanov insisted that the engine of the historical process is the development of productive forces and social relations, as well as the action of special causes (historical situation) and individual causes (personal characteristics of public figures and other "accidents"). [10]

Herbert Spencer argued that this historical process is not the product of a "great man", but, on the contrary, this "great man" is a product of the social conditions of his time. [11]

However, the theory of the "great man" gave birth to an important new idea: if a leader is gifted with unique qualities that are inherited, then these qualities must be determined. This thought gave rise to the theory of leadership traits.

Leadership theory

The theory of traits was a development of the theory of the "Great Man", which asserts that outstanding people are endowed with leadership qualities from birth. In accordance with it, leaders have a common set of traits, thanks to which they take their positions and acquire the ability to make power decisions in relation to others. The qualities of a leader are innate, and if a person was not born a leader, then he will not become one.

Cecil Rhodes gave further impetus to the development of this concept, pointing out that, if possible, identifying common leadership qualities, it would be possible to identify people with leadership inclinations from an early age and develop their potential. [12]

E. Bogardus in his book “Leaders and Leadership” in 1934 lists dozens of qualities that a leader should have: a sense of humor, tact, ability to foresee, external attractiveness and others. He is trying to prove that a leader is a person with an innate biopsychological complex that provides him with power.

In 1954, R. Cattell and G. Stice identified four types of leaders:

1. "Technical": solves short-term problems; most often affects group members; has high intelligence;
2. Outstanding: has a strong influence on the actions of the group;
3. "Sociometric": a favorite leader, the most attractive for his comrades;
4. “Selective”: it is revealed in the course of activity; more emotionally stable than others.

When comparing leaders with other members of the group, the former were ahead of the latter in eight personality traits:

1. moral maturity, or the power of "I" (C);
2. influence on others, or domination (E);
3. integrity of character, or the power of "Super-I" (G);
4. social courage, enterprise (N);
5. discernment (N);
6. independence from harmful drives (O);
7. willpower, control of one's behavior (Q3);
8. absence of unnecessary anxiety, nervous tension (Q4).

The researchers came to the following conclusions: an individual with a low level of H (shyness, self-doubt) is unlikely to become a leader; someone with a high Q4 (excessive caution, excitement) will not inspire confidence; if the group is focused on the highest values, then the leader should be sought among people with a high G (integrity of character, or the power of "super-ego"). [13]

O. Tead (O. Tead) names five characteristics of a leader:

1. physical and nervous energy: the leader has a large supply of energy;
2. awareness of purpose and direction: the goal should inspire followers to achieve it;
3. enthusiasm: the leader is possessed by a certain force, this inner enthusiasm is transformed into orders and other forms of influence;
4. politeness and charm: it is important that the leader is loved, not feared; he needs respect in order to influence his followers;
5. decency, loyalty to oneself, necessary to earn trust.

W. Borg [14] proved that the orientation towards power is not always associated with self-confidence, and the factor of rigidity negatively affects leadership.

K. Byrd (S. Byrd) in 1940, having analyzed the available research on leadership and made a single list of leadership traits, consisting of 79 names. Among them were named:

1. the ability to please, to win sympathy, sociability, friendliness;
2. political will, willingness to take responsibility;
3. sharp mind, political intuition, sense of humor;
4. organizational talent, oratorical skills;
5. the ability to navigate in a new situation and make decisions adequate to it;
6. the presence of a program that meets the interests of followers.

However, the analysis showed that none of the traits occupied a stable place in the lists of researchers. Thus, 65% of features were mentioned only once, 16–20% - twice, 4–5% - three times, and 5% of features were named four times. [15]

Theodor Tit (Teodor Tit) in his book "The Art of Leadership" highlighted the following leadership qualities: physical and emotional endurance, understanding of the purpose of the organization, enthusiasm, friendliness, decency.

R. Stogdill reviewed 124 studies in 1948, and noted that their results are often contradictory. In different situations, leaders appeared with sometimes opposite qualities. He concluded that “a person does not become a leader just because he has a set of personality traits” [16]. It became apparent that there were no universal leadership qualities. However, this author also compiled his list of common leadership qualities, highlighting: intelligence and intelligence, dominance over others, self-confidence, activity and energy, knowledge of the business.

R. Mann suffered a similar disappointment in 1959. He also highlighted the personality traits that define a person as a leader and affect the attitude of those around him [17]. These include:

1. intelligence (the results of 28 independent studies indicated a positive role of intelligence in leadership); (according to Mann, the mind was the most important trait of a leader, but practice has not confirmed this);
2. adaptability (found in 22 studies);
3. extroversion (22 studies have shown that leaders are sociable and extroverted) (however, if you are guided by the opinions of group mates, extroverts and introverts have an equal chance of becoming leaders);
4. ability to influence (according to 12 studies, this property is directly related to leadership);
5. lack of conservatism (17 studies have identified a negative impact of conservatism on leadership);
6. receptivity and empathy (15 studies suggest empathy plays a minor role)

In the first half of the 20th century, M. Weber concluded that “three qualities are decisive: passion, responsibility and the eye … Passion as an orientation towards the essence of the matter and dedication … people … The problem is to combine in one person, and hot passion, and a cold eye”[18]. By the way, it is Weber who introduces the concept of "charisma", on the basis of which the theory of charismatic leadership is built (the successor to the theory of traits).

In conclusion, we present a couple of interesting patterns discovered within the framework of this theory:

1. Leaders are often driven by a desire for power. They have a strong concentration on themselves, concern for prestige, ambition. Such leaders are better socially prepared, flexible and adaptable. Lust for power and the ability to intrigue help them stay "afloat." But for them there is a problem of efficiency.
2. A study of historical records showed that among the 600 monarchs, the most famous were either very highly moral or extremely immoral personalities. Hence, two paths to celebrity stand out: one must either be a model of morality or have unprincipledness.

Trait theory has several disadvantages:

1. The lists of leadership qualities developed by various researchers turned out to be almost endless, and, moreover, contradicted each other, which made it impossible to create a single image of a leader.
2. At the time of the birth of the theory of traits and the "great man", there were practically no accurate methods for diagnosing personal qualities, which did not allow to single out universal leadership qualities.
3. Due to the previous point, as well as reluctance to take into account situational variables, it was not possible to establish a connection between the considered qualities and leadership.
4. It turned out that different leaders can carry out the same activity in accordance with their individual characteristics, while remaining equally effective.
5. This approach did not take into account such aspects as the nature of the interaction between the leader and followers, environmental conditions, etc., which inevitably led to conflicting results.

In connection with these shortcomings and the occupation of a leading position by behaviorism, researchers turned to the study of the styles of the leader's behavior, trying to identify the most effective of them.

The theory of features at the present stage.

At the moment, researchers have more accurate methods for diagnosing personality traits, which allows, despite all the problems and shortcomings of the theory of traits, to return to this concept.

In particular, D. Myers analyzes the developments made over the past ten years. The result was the identification of the traits of the most effective leaders in modern conditions. The following features are noted: self-confidence, generating support from followers; the presence of convincing ideas about the desired state of affairs and the ability to communicate them to others in simple and clear language; a sufficient supply of optimism and faith in your people to inspire them; originality; energy; conscientiousness; complaisance; emotional stability [19].

W. Bennis has been publishing books on leadership since the 1980s. Having studied 90 leaders, he identified four groups of leadership qualities [20]:

1. attention management, or the ability to present a goal in an attractive way to followers;
2. value management, or the ability to convey the meaning of an idea in such a way that it is understood and accepted by followers;
3. trust management, or the ability to build activities with consistency and consistency in order to gain the trust of subordinates;
4. self-management, or the ability to know and acknowledge one's weaknesses and strengths, in order to attract other resources to reinforce one's weaknesses.

A. Lawton and J. Rose in 1987 give the following ten qualities [21]:

1. flexibility (acceptance of new ideas);
2. foresight (the ability to shape the image and objectives of the organization);
3. incentivizing followers (expressing recognition and rewarding success);
4. the ability to prioritize (the ability to distinguish between the important and the secondary);
5. mastery of the art of interpersonal relations (the ability to listen, prompt, be confident in their actions);
6. charisma, or charm (a quality that captivates people);
7. "Political flair" (understanding the requests of the environment and those in power);
8. firmness (steadfastness in front of the opponent);
9. ability to take risks (transfer of work and authority to followers);
10. decisiveness when circumstances call for it.

According to S. Kossen, a leader has the following traits: creative problem solving; ability to convey ideas, persuasiveness; desire to achieve a goal; listening skills; honesty; constructiveness; sociability; breadth of interests; self-esteem; self-confidence; enthusiasm; discipline; the ability to "hold on" under any circumstances. [22]

R. Chapman in 2003 identifies another set of traits: insight, common sense, wealth of ideas, ability to express thoughts, communication skills, expressiveness of speech, adequate self-esteem, perseverance, firmness, poise, maturity. [23]

In a more modern interpretation, leadership qualities are divided into four categories:

1. Physiological qualities include: weight, height, physique, appearance, energy and health. It is not always necessary for a leader to have high performance according to this criterion; it is often enough to have knowledge to solve a problem.
2. Psychological qualities such as courage, honesty, independence, initiative, efficiency, etc., are manifested mainly through a person's character.
3. Studies of mental qualities show that leaders have higher levels of intelligence than followers, but the correlation between these qualities and leadership is quite small. So, if the intellectual level of followers is low, then being too smart for a leader means facing problems.
4. Personal business qualities are in the nature of acquired skills and abilities. However, it has not yet been proven that these qualities define a leader. So, the business qualities of a bank employee are unlikely to be useful in a research laboratory or in a theater.

Finally, Warren Norman identified five personality factors that form the basis of the modern Big Five questionnaire:

1. Extraversion: sociability, self-confidence, activity, optimism and positive emotions.
2. Desirability: trust and respect for people, obedience to rules, frankness, modesty and empathy.
3. Consciousness: competence, responsibility, pursuit of results, self-discipline and deliberate action.
4. Emotional stability: confidence, an optimistic approach to difficulties, and resilience to stress.
5. Intellectual openness: curiosity, exploratory approach to difficulties, imagination.

One of the modern approaches is the concept of leadership styles by T. V. Bendas. She identified 4 leadership models: two of them are basic (competitive and cooperative), the other two (masculine and feminine) are varieties of the first. The author of the article analyzed this approach [24], and on its basis, the author's typology of leaders was created, which includes both a description of the behavioral manifestations of a leader and a list of personal qualities, which allows us to consider the typology within the framework of the theory of leadership traits:

1. The dominant style is determined by characteristics: the best physical parameters; persistence or determination; excellence in the chosen field of activity; high indicators: dominance; aggressiveness; gender identity; self-confidence; egocentrism and selfishness; self-sufficiency; power motivation and achievement; Machiavellianism; emotional stability; focus on individual achievement.
2. The complementary style presupposes: good communication characteristics; attractiveness; expressiveness; such individual characteristics as: female sex (or male with feminine characteristics); young age; high rates of: femininity; subordination.
3. The cooperative style presupposes such qualities as: the greatest competence in solving group problems and initiative; high performance: cooperativity; communicative characteristics; leadership potential; intelligence;

Nevertheless, at the present stage there are critics of the theory of traits. In particular, Zaccaro notes the following shortcomings of trait theory [25]:

1. The theory considers only a limited set of qualities of a leader, overlooking his abilities, skills, knowledge, values, motives, etc.
2. The theory considers the characteristics of a leader separately from each other, while they should be considered in a complex and in interaction.
3. The theory does not distinguish between innate and acquired qualities of a leader.
4. The theory does not show how personality characteristics are manifested in the behavior necessary for effective leadership.

In conclusion, it should be noted that there is no consensus on what qualities a leader should have. When approaching leadership from the point of view of trait theory, many aspects of this process remain unaccounted for, for example, the relationship "leader-followers", environmental conditions, etc.

However, the identification of leadership qualities, now that we have more accurate methods of diagnosing them, and more universal definitions of personality traits, can be called one of the main tasks of leadership theory.

It should be remembered that not only the presence of leadership qualities helps a person to fulfill the functions of a leader, but also the fulfillment of leadership functions develops the qualities necessary for this. If the key characteristics of a leader are correctly identified, then it is quite possible to make up for the shortcomings of trait theory by combining it with behavioral and situational theories. With the help of accurate diagnostic methods, it will be possible to identify leadership inclinations, when necessary, and subsequently develop them, teaching the future leader in behavioral techniques.

Bibliographic list

1. Lao Tzu. Tao Te Ching (translated by Yang Hing-shun). - M.: Thought. 1972
2. Ohanyan N. N. “Three epochs of state and power. Plato, Machiavelli, Stalin. " M.: Griffon, 2006
3. Machiavelli N. Sovereign. - M.: Planeta, 1990.-- 84 p.
4. Journals of R. Emerson with Annotations. Vol. 8. Boston, 1912. p. 135.
5. Woods F. A. The Influence of monarchs. Vol. 11. N. Y., 1913.
6. Wiggam A. E. The Biology of Leadersship // Business Leadership. N. Y., 1931
7. Dowd J. Control in Human Societies. N. Y., 1936
8. Klubech C., Bass B. Differential Effects of Training on Persons of Different Leadership Status // Human Relations. Vol. 7.1954. pp. 59-72
9. Borgatta E. Some Findings Relevant to a Great Man Theory of Leadership // American Sociological Review. Vol. 19. 1954. pp. 755-759
10. Plekhanov, G. V. Selected philosophical works in 5 volumes. T. 2. - M., 1956, - 300-334 p.
11. Robert L. Carneiro “Herbert Spencer as an Anthropologist” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 5, 1981, p. 171
12. Donald Markwell, “Instincts to Lead”: On Leadership, Peace, and Education, Connor Court: Australia, 2013.
13. Cattel R., Stice G. Four Formulae for Selecting Leaders on the Basis of Personality // Human Relations. Vol. 7.1954. pp. 493-507
14. Borg W. Prediction of Small Group Role Behavior From Personality Variables // Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. 60. 1960. pp. 112-116
15. Mokshantsev R. I., Mokshantseva A. V. Social psychology. - M.: INFRA-M, 2001.-- 163 p.
16. Stogdill R. Personal Factors associated with Leadership: A Survey of Literature // Journal of Psychology. 1948. Vol. 25. p. 35-71.
17. Mann R. A. Review of the Relationships Between Personality and Performance in Small Groups // Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 56 1959. pp. 241-270
18. Weber M. Selected Works, - M.: Progress, 1990. - 690-691 p.
19. Myers D. Social psychology / per. Z. Zamchuk. - SPb.: Peter, 2013.
20. Bennis W. Leaders: trans. from English - SPb.: Silvan, 1995.
21. Lawton A., Rose E. Organization and management in public institutions. - M.: 1993.-- 94 p.
22. Kossen S. The Human Side of Organizations. - N. Y.: Harper Collins College. 1994.-- 662 p
23. Chapman A. R., Spong B. Religion and reconciliation in South Africa: voices of religious leaders. - Ph.: Templeton Foundation Press. 2003
24. Avdeev P. A modern view on the formation of leadership styles in an organization // Prospects for the world economy in conditions of uncertainty: materials of scientific and practical conferences of the All-Russian Academy of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia. - M.: VAVT, 2013. (Collection of articles of students and graduate students; Issue 51)
25. Zaccaro S. J. “Trait-based perspectives of leadership”. American Psychologist, Vol. 62, Illinois. 2007. pp. 6-16.