Trait Theories of Leadership - Essay Example

Trait Theories of Leadership Name Institution Trait Theories of Leadership Leadership refers to a key means, in which, people manage to change the mind of others and drive on organization forward towards attaining its set goals and objectives (Northouse, 2004). Leadership is a process that includes impacting others so as to concur and see on what need to be carried out, how to do it, and in addition, the contained systems of helping aggregate individual endeavors to accomplish imparted destinations (Northouse, 2004). Leadership is all about influencing other people in any set up to follow oneself out of will. In this case, such followers recognize the leader as an extra ordinary person and then follow his or her directives willingly, as well. A leader tries to paint a future vision that inspires his or her followers to strive and attain the set target. Many people want to work or follow a person who lifts them instead of dragging them behind (Northouse, 2004). Therefore, leadership again is all about seeking positives among followers and helps overcome their personal feelings, spreading optimism, and self-doubt. The leadership theories are developed with an aim of enriching the leadership phenomena professional knowledge and enable future leaders to develop traits and skills that would help them succeed within a dynamic environment (Winkler, 2010). The leadership theories originally focused on the identification of individual traits that differentiates them from followers. A leadership trait is an individual characteristic that guarantees and enables sustained leadership and effectualness across diverse situations. This kind of trait is what differentiates between followers and leaders. For instance, Steve Job was well known for his charisma. He managed to demonstrate his vision passionately, which is what made other people follow his lead willingly (Geothals, 2004). Intelligence, self-confidence, dominance, and task relevant knowledge are some other trait examples. The major focus of this paper is on trait theory of leadership and tries to elucidate mainly the essential facets of trait leadership theory. The trait theory The leadership trait methodology is viewed as one of the most established speculations in initiative to have been made by people. Thomas Caryle towards the start of the twentieth century, asserted that the history that the world was made by memoirs of extraordinary men. Consequently, the convictions that people have with respect to pioneers and authority offered ascent to the development of quality administration speculations (Lussier, 2004). The trait leadership theory is directed towards the leaders’ beliefs, values, achievement desires, personality, gender, mental, orientation to power, and emotional elements. Earlier the trait theory assumptions were that people were born in possession of definite traits that were aligned with sturdy leadership. That is, people who had the right traits would turn into being the best leaders (Youngjohn, 1999). However, the issue of concern is formulating given traits, specific traits, that are portrayed by a leader, universally, making the leadership topic of great concern. It has eventually resulted into further research in this area. The theory also assumes that a great leader is different from the normal person in terms of personality traits such as intelligence, insistence, and ambition. Identification of certain personality traits that differentiates leaders from non-leaders are the objectives of trait theory in general (Winkler, 2010). The basement premise is that leaders are born rather than being made. This implies that the only key way of having effective leaders is largely innate rather than developing it through learning. The relationship between personality and leadership has shown little supporting evidence. Leader’s traits solely views leadership form an individual leader point of view. The inherent in this approach is the supposition that patterns of behavior are produced by traits whereby they are consistent across situations. This means, leadership characters are taken to be lasting enduring characteristics that humans are born with and that continue relatively being stable over time. The Trait Approach Many researchers in the trait approach did not find any existing difference between leaders and their followers. There were researchers who identified that there were persons who were in possession of these traits, but were less likely to become leaders. These traits also showed little relationship with leadership effectiveness. For instance, how traits assist leaders in clearing the roadblocks that may be constraining their followers. This is because few of the traits had clear difference between effective and ineffective leaders (Townsend, 1997). This resulted into the limitation that existed in the selection of individual leaders’ efficacy. There were numerous leadership variables, which were in possession of low reliabilities, and there was not any rationale in existence to help in the selection of certain variables that resulted into dustbowl empiricism (Hiebert, 2001). The procedure through which people obtain leadership capacity has not been made clear. Therefore, it is clear that if initiative is in reality an individual distinction variable, in that case there is very little that is known very concerning the origin of these dissimilarities Weakness and strength The theory is characteristically satisfying hypothesis. It is legitimate, as lot of research has approved the establishment and premise of the hypothesis. It serves as a measuring yardstick against which the initiative characteristics of an individual can be evaluated. It gives a definite information and comprehension of the pioneer component in the initiative methodology (Bush etal, 2003). The most prominent quality of trait theory is its clarity, which makes it effortlessly to understand. This simplicity of comprehension makes the trait theory simple to execute, encouraging its utilization in the improvement of a few evaluation gadgets for patients. Its real shortcoming is that it doesn't completely address why or how characteristics create (Bush, 2003). Because of its measurable nature, quality hypothesis offers no elucidation of personality improvement. In the trait theory, it is more of bound subjective judgment in the determination of individuals regarded as successful leader. The list of probable traits has a tendency of being very long because a very large number of traits in numerous leadership positions have been acknowledged. Most of this description is just mere generalities. A disagreement is evident on the traits are the most crucial for an effective leader (Lynch, 2012). Physical traits such as height and weight have been have been related to effective leadership. It is clear that almost all of these aspects relates to the situational factors (Ulrich etal, 1999). For instance, a minimum height and weigh mat is crucial to carry out the tasks professionally in a military leadership situation. In a businesses point of view these requirements are not the requirements to become an effective leader. Additionally, the theory is not in a position to predict future behavior. This is following the fact that it does not substantially have account for trait changes temporarily and in the end. It is not clear on how to change personality aspect due to lack of knowledge in trait development (Redmond etal 2004). Moreover, the theory does not address on how positive traits can be highlighted and ameliorate the negative ones. As a result, of the above points it is notable that, trait theory is very complex. Having in mind that application of special techniques and skills is still needed by leaders that they should acquire through learning and training other than just having it naturally in genre. Criticisms The trait theory major critic is taking into account its shortsighted methodology. That is, the hypothesis does not consider other critical angles that can possibly impact the advancement and development of a successful pioneer. A good example in this case is the environmental and situational factors. According to Avery, Zhang, Avolio, and Kruegar (2007) study on fraternal identical twin managed to estimate the percentage of leadership emergence heritability at 30% these results implied that the remaining 70% is contributed to by situational factors such as exposure to leadership models in the course of one’s career. On the other hand, personality is widely applied as an assessment tool by much organization while selecting processes for leadership roles (Williams and Michael, 2005). The trait theory requires individual observations, which are a limiting factor that necessitates individuals to be introspective enough to be able to identify their behavior. The theory also provides clear information about how an individual might behave, but they do not give an explanation that may lead into such behavior. The trait theory strong point lies on the capability it has in categorizing observable behaviors, their application of goal oriented criteria, as well as, their genesis from aspects analysis Giuliani etal, 2002). Critics have also argued that personality has a poor job when it comes to behavior prediction in each situation. However, in order to counter this argument the theory presents a sturdy connection for aggregate behaviors. In general, this theory analysis has shown the situational and personality approaches have resulted into only inadequate progress in the indulgent of leadership (Bass etal 2008). Although the significance of situational deliberations on leadership has been highlighted by early studies, there is no situational theory of leadership that is in existence. Therefore, the pure situations approach has been abandoned by a large number of leadership researchers. In their conclusion, researchers in this field have claimed that triumphant leadership results from the interaction between the leader personality and the situation itself that is the contingency loom to leadership. This implies that these researchers have come to the realization that the interaction that occurs between the leaders and the situation is the input to indulgent leadership, alongside with the vital trait and situational variables specification. Conclusion This analysis has made it very clear the trait theory major focus is directed towards the leader and not on the situation or followers. The approach is concerned with the kind of traits that are exhibited by the leaders and those who have these traits. The assumption is that the leaders’ personality that is central to the leadership procedure. From an organization point of view, organizational effectiveness is likely to increase once the right people are selected to leadership positions. However, Northouse, 2007, indicates that the managers can also examine their own personality and comprehend their strengths and weaknesses and how they are perceived by others in an organization. The general image in the society has been supported by the fact that leaders have an ability to act in an extraordinary way. This gives people with the need to perceive their leaders as gifted society figures. There is also evident info in this paper that the trait approach has a long research custom and a crucial body of research information that holds up this approach. The trait approach analysis the leadership component thoroughly with a major focus being on the leader. This approach has also provided some benchmark on what is needed to be searched for incase one aspires and wants to become a leader. Recently, the interest in trait approach has been increasing where quite a number of researchers have tried to give b explanation on how personality influences leadership. Initially, the trait approach emphasized more on classifying the individuality of a great person. Later, it included the effects of situations on leadership, and for the most part it currently, it has swung back to reemphasize the significant task of traits in effectual leadership. References Bass, B. M., Bass, R., & Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Free Press. Bush, Tony, and Tony Bush. (2003). Theories of educational leadership and management. London: Sage Publications. Giuliani, Rudolph W., and Ken Kurson. 2002. Leadership. New York: Hyperion. Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J., Burns, J. M. G., & Sage Publications. (2004). Encyclopedia of leadership. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Hiebert, M., & Klatt, B.(2001). The encyclopedia of leadership: A practical guide to popular leadership theories and techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2004). Leadership: Theory, application, skill development. Mason, Ohio?: Thomson/South-Western. Lynch, M. 2012. A guide to effective school leadership theories. New York: Routledge. Northouse, P. G.( 2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. Redmond, A., Tribbett, C., & Kasanoff, B. (2004). Business evolves, leadership endures: Leadership traits that stand the test of time. Westport, CT: Easton Studio Press. Townsend, P. L., & Gebhardt, J. E. (1997). Five-star leadership: The art and strategy of creating leaders at every level. New York: Wiley. Ulrich, David, John H. Zenger, and W. Norman Smallwood. (1999). Results-based leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Williams, Michael. (2005). Leadership for leaders. London: Thorogood. Winkler, Ingo. (2010). Contemporary leadership theories enhancing the understanding of the complexity, subjectivity and dynamic of leadership. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Youngjohn, R. M. (1999). Is Leadership Trait Theory fact or fiction?: A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness. Read More