Leading Human Resources: An Analysis (part 10)

Trait Approaches to Leadership

by

Charles Lamson

Before 1945, the most common approach to the study of leadership concentrated on leadership traits per se, suggesting that certain characteristics, such as physical energy or friendliness were essential for effective leadership. These inherent personal qualities, like intelligence, were felt to be transferable from one situation to another. Because all individuals did not have these qualities, only those who had them would be considered potential leaders. Consequently, this approach seemed to question the value of training individuals to assume leadership positions. It implied that if we could discover how to identify and measure these leadership qualities (which are inborn in the individual), we should be able to screen leaders from nonleaders. Leadership training would then be helpful only to those with inherent leadership traits.

Reviews of research using this trait approach to leadership revealed few significant or consistent findings. Eugene E. Jennings concluded that "fifty years of study have failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate leaders and nonleaders."

This is not to say that certain traits will not hinder or facilitate leadership; the key is that no set of traits has been identified that clearly predicts success or failure. As Gary Yukl has observed,

In retrospect, it is apparent that many leadership researchers overreacted to the earlier pessimistic literature reviews by rejecting the relevance of traits entirely. However, Stogdill (1984) makes it clear that recognition of the relevance of leader traits is not a return to the original trait approach. The premise that some leader traits are absolutely necessary for effective leadership has not been substantiated in several decades of trait research. Possession of particular traits increases the likelihood that a leader will be effective, but [it does] not guarantee effectiveness, and the relative importance of different traits is dependent upon the nature of the leadership situation.

What are some traits and skills found to be most characteristic of successful leaders? Yukl offered some suggestions, shown in table 1.

Table 1 Traits and Skills Found Most Frequently to Be Characteristic of Successful Leaders

Trait research is still continuing. Warren Bennis completed a five-year study of outstanding leaders and their followers. On the basis of this research, he identified four common traits, or areas of competence, shared by all 90 leaders.

1. Management of attention. The ability to communicate a sense of outcome, goal, or direction that attracts followers
2. Management of meaning. The ability to create and communicate meaning with clarity and understanding
3. Management of trust. The ability to be reliable and consistent
4. Management of self. The ability to know one's self and to use one's skills within the limits of one's strengths and weaknesses

Bennis suggested that leaders empower their organizations to create an environment where people feel significant and are part of the community or team, where learning and competence matter and where work is exciting. Leaders should also create an environment where quality matters and dedication to work energizes effort.

Bennis updated these traits with seven characteristics of effective performance:

1. Business literacy. Does the manager know the business---the real feel of it?
2. People skills. Does the manager have the capacity to motivate, to bring out the best in people?
3. Conceptual skills. Does the manager have the capacity to think systematically, creatively, and inventively?
4. Track record. Has the manager done it before and done it well?
5. Taste. Does the manager have the ability to pick the right people---not clones, but people who can make up defenciencies?
6. Judgment. Does the manager have the ability to make quick decisions with imperfect data?
7. Character. The core competency of leadership is character, but character and judgment are the qualities we know least about when trying to teach them to others.

Negative Leadership Traits

As Yukl indicated, there may be negative traits that hinder a person from reaching leadership potential. In one study, John Geier found three traits that kept group members from competing for a leadership role. Those three traits were, in order of importance, the perception of being uninformed, of being nonparticipants, or of being extremely rigid. Why were these traits so critical? Because the other group members believed that members who were uninformed, uninterested, or overly rigid would hinder the group's accomplishment of its goals. 

Morgan McCall and Michael Lombardo examined differences between executives who went all the way to the top and those who were expected to go to the top but were "derailed" just before reaching their goal. Both winners and losers had strengths and weaknesses, but those who fell short, seemed to have one or more of what McCall and Lombardo called "fatal flaws."

1. Insensitive to others: abrasive, intimidating, bullying style
2. Cold, aloof, arrogant
3. Untrustworthy
4. Overly ambitious: always thinking of next job, playing politics
5. Having specific performance problems with the business
6. Unable to delegate or build a team---overmanaging
7. Unable to staff effectively
8. Unable to think strategically
9. Overdependent on advocate or mentor

The most frequent cause for derailment was insensitivity to others, but the most serious was untrustworthiness. Betrayal of trust---not following through on promises or double-dealing---was the one "unforgivable sin."

Shelley Kirkpatrick and Edwin Locke in the Academy of Management Executive reinforced the reviews of Bennis, Yukl, and others:

Recent research, using a variety of methods, has made it clear that successful leaders are not like other people. The evidence indicates that there are certain core traits which contribute to business leaders' success. . . . Leaders do not have to be great men or women by being intellectually geniuses or omniscient prophets to succeed, but they do need to have the "right stuff" and this stuff is not equally present in all people.

Table 2 lists the traits Kirkpatric and Locke say do matter.

Table 2 Leadership Traits That Do Matter

Drive: achievement, ambition, energy, tenacity, initiative Leadership motivation (personalized versus socialized) Honesty and integrity Self-confidence (including emotional stability) Cognitive ability Knowledge of the business Other traits: charisma, creativity, originality, flexibility

In summary, empirical research suggests that leadership is a dynamic process, varying from situation to situation with changes in the leader, the followers, and the situation. Therefore, although certain traits may help or hinder in a given situation. There is no universal set of traits that will ensure leadership success in a given situation. The lack of validation of trait approaches led to other investigations of leadership. Among the most prominent areas were the attitudinal approaches.

*SOURCE: MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: LEADING HUMAN RESOURCES, 8TH ED., 2001, PAUL HERSEY, KENNETH H. BLANCHARD, DEWEY E. JOHNSON, PGS. 89-92* 

end

Drive: achievement, ambition, energy, tenacity, initiative

Leadership motivation (personalized versus socialized)

Honesty and integrity

Self-confidence (including emotional stability)

Cognitive ability

Knowledge of the business

Other traits: charisma, creativity, originality, flexibility