The Traits Theory of Leadership - Assignment Example

What do you understand by the traits theory of leadership? Discuss whether this is an  adequateexplanation or whether other factors play a part in the achievement of  successful leadership. In its proposition, the theory on leadership traits assumes that either leaders or people with leadership potentials may be identified through the presence of character traits since birth (Shead). As it appears, the sole argument rests on the idea that the traits attached with the personality of an individual are mostly natural and such premise imposes a type of personality that eventually classifies and dictates whether the person is a leader or not. The obvious insufficiency in its point suggests neglect of traits that can be acquired in the making of a leader based on the real sense of ‘what ought to be’ and not ‘what is’. If one opts to view leadership at this perspective, the person is likely to make his choice of a candidate according to the criteria that are much inclined to get into the leading position one whose known attributes are not foreseen to change in the process. There are circumstances in an organization which in a way or another may shape a person and adopt new set of values to follow as seen fit as he accepts to work with unique, more challenging tasks and thus step up onto a higher level of responsibility. This way, a huge probability of evolving with the occurrences may affect his nature and leave behind some traits that have not been necessary and instead gain unconscious acquisition of traits which develop out of the will to proceed with or remain in the dynamic organizational environment. Leadership theories and research, prior to the outbreak of World War II, had been considerably involved on efforts dealing with the identification of personal traits which especially distinguish leaders from their followers. As such, intelligence, dominance, self-confidence, level of energy and activity, and task-relevant knowledge were sorted out. Though further evaluation of these studies have been made and the results indicate less credibility upon implementation of appropriate methodical measures, in general, there exists proofs that enable these findings to reflect behavioral patterns that aid most people on deciding which traits best describe a leader (Trait Theories). Likewise, it helps properly advance the manner by which these people perceive a well-informed, educated preference. Out of the twenty character traits that have been associated with good leaders by tradition in the context of “The Leadership Challenge” book, the first five stand out to be honest, inspiring, forward-looking, competent, and intelligent (Shead) whereas to McCall and Lombardo, the four primary traits which could make or break a leader are emotional stability and composure, admission of error, good interpersonal skills, and breadth of intellect (Trait Leadership). One recent approach to such inference, as tackled by Jim Collins, promotes Level 5 Leadership which argues that leaders “who build enduring greatness” for their organization possess certain characteristics that rather contradict a collective, projected vision or aim the leader’s company has become accustomed to live by and with which he is expected to align his own set of values in directing its course towards meeting the desired ends. Leaders who seem to exhibit contradictory characteristics possess modesty, shyness, humility, and timidity at one side, while unwavering resolve, professional skills, and fearlessness weigh on the other (Trait Theories). According to Collins, these characteristics are not entirely operating by themselves instead, they only attain to independence or prominence as a consequence of a driving force which entails the passion to contribute, create, or invest into something that fulfills objectives beyond personal cares. In the long run, like an instinct, the growing need to pursue goals that serve an interpersonal interest impels the leader to execute into the system pertinent actions by which enduring greatness in an organization may be achieved. On this ground, the drive to sustain leadership traits forms an evidence that factors other than the existing traits play a significant role in building a character of a successful leader. Considering that the traits, whether inherent or acquired in time and experience, are subject to change due to external influences of an individual with leading tasks then the traits theory of leadership may only apply to an extent wherein the working atmosphere is steady and lacks control over a person whose stability is held by the constant encounter of such condition. Because if is inevitable to meet complex situations which often require adequate management of risks and emotional, besides intellectual, strengths at overcoming weaknesses that might emerge along the way, it is therefore logical for a leader to necessitate expanding from his original functions. Upon seeking resolution at depth, he may find himself moving borders and discover principles that would later allow disclosure of hidden potentials or strategies never sought after in the past. Apart from the traits that have quite placed distinction between a leader and the rest who are supposedly bound to be ordinary subjects, several other factors may determine the measure of success in leadership. As long as the leading figure maintains courage and chooses to remain in the organization and the variable scenarios to confront, the amount of victory does not limit dependence to the initial traits. While factors to affect these traits range from singular to many in numerous possibilities and involvement of being undertaken, they constitute in the attitude of people surrounding the leader, the current status of the company, risks to be facilitated in relation to it, the setting of priorities which normally tends to reassess traits to employ as well as the chosen means and degree by which the leader responds to a stimulus that either directly or indirectly causes organizational transformation. In this regard, Collins came up with a hypothetical model conducive in modifying the conventional traits theory in the order that essentially begins with the needs that apparently make up the foundation of the leader’s characteristics to create and reinforce a culture of discipline from which to obtain a long-term organizational effectiveness. Within diversity in terms of unpredictable circumstances or special incidences which may press or constructively challenge the company and its leader, hence, the key to addressing any moderate or tough concerns is in the dynamic traits of a leader who could reach the flexibility of enabling such trait and corresponding skills to get every member to actively participate in schemes that guide every operation with triumph. Once the leader takes into his system this approach with frequency in practice, qualified by a suitable trait, the entire company can certainly imbibe the synergy through the resulting interdependence which gradually heads towards healthy working relations, good vibes, productivity, as well as efficiency in every other aspect at work. Each follower may then correspondingly provide a wiser critical assessment and express a scrupulous judgment over recognition of sound leadership traits not only by the strong manifestation of personality at the start but also with the progress of solidity in character of a deserving leader. Moreover, reports which were drawn from various researches show ideal traits that are not consistent with good leadership in reality. Trait leadership theory may be claimed to not sufficiently yield to the targeted success due as well to the issue with universalism that situate traits to be optimum in general conditions but may not follow as such when narrowed to specifics. Theatrics and cultural factors, in the similar manner, also take to account limited avenues to leadership success with relative traits (Trait Leadership). Aside from allowing oneself to undergo change with traits and regarding effects through interaction or how a leader manages to express himself and deliver strategically, cause and effect concern or confusion on whether it is the leader who goes after an ambition or otherwise amounts to an elaboration why traits theory alone would not suffice to place success with leadership in its whole dimension (Trait Leadership). Works Cited Shead, Mark. “Leadership Trait Theory.” Leadership 501 / Examining the Gears of Leadership. 2010. http://www.leadership501.com/leadership-trait-theory/22/. 20 Nov 2010. “Trait Theories of Leadership.” 2010. http://www.hscanada.com/Level5LeadershipandLSITraitTheoriesofLeadership.pdf. 22 Nov 2010. “Trait Leadership Theory.” 25 Nov 2010. http://www.12manage.com/description_trait_leadership_theory.html 21 Nov 2010. Read More