The Trait Theory Of Leadership

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What is "Leadership?"…………………………………………………………………………………

Differences between Leadership and Management………………………………………………..

Leadership…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Management……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Difference in working style…………………………………………………………………………..

The Trait Theory of Leadership………………………………………………………………………………..

Charismatic Leadership……………………………………………………………………………………………

Kurt Lewin’s Leadership Style…………………………………………………………………………………..

Mahatma Gandhi’s Charismatic Leadership……………………………………………………………..

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

INTRODUCTION

Leadership is an essential element of human existence. It has served as an indispensable factor in defining our civilization throughout the history. Our understanding of the past is greatly concerned with studies of leaders, who have shaped the course of history. Today people look at leaders and try to predict what lies ahead of their life. Our vision of contemporary leaders is believed to provide the hints about how our future will look like in years from now. From this perspective studies of ancient political thought and concept of leadership play a vital role for deep analysis of contemporary leaders.

According to Shockley- Zalabak (2009) Leadership is a process of guiding individuals, groups, and entire organization in establishing goals and sustaining action to support goals. What exactly does leadership mean? There are literally hundreds of definitions about who a leader is and what is considered as leadership. Each definition may vary from one individual to another and may change from one situation to the other. For example we might call an individual a leader because of the persons’ election to the presidency of an institution. Other times we say he/she is not a leader because he/she does not exhibit leadership behaviors expected of a leader. In other words, we expected leadership from the legitimate position of the presidency, but when that president does not exhibit leadership behaviors, we say that the president is not a leader.

Leadership is defined as ‘the process in which an individual influences the group of individuals to attain a common goal’. The goal is attained by mutual cooperation and cohesive behavior. A leader infuses a sense of positivity and directs others to reach the specified goal. Various theories since years have been formulated by psychologists to explain the traits of a leader. Certain traits of a good leader were listed by the researchers as: intelligence, extraversion, and adjustment, openness to experience, general self-efficacy and conscientiousness. It has been inferred that an individual possessing these traits results as a good leader.

Another theory suggests that great events lead an ordinary individual to emerge as a leader. Then there is a third theory, which emphasizes that leadership is a transformation or a process. Anyone can become a leader by learning the leadership skills.

A leader is someone who stands not only for his cause but takes responsibility and motivates other individuals also. There is a clear difference between being a boss and a leader. A leader is a motivation for others and inspires individuals to aim high and attain that aim. However a boss only supervises over his subordinates. Power naturally comes to a leader but that power is not a tool of leader. Rather if one tries to control the circumstances with power it turns out to be authoritarian or even suppressive in its expression.

Leadership is not a quality but it is an individual’s behavior. A leader showcases a positive attitude and high self-esteem. He assertively works towards the goal but never gets pushy for it. A continuous self study, training, evaluation and imbibing positive things in life develop the characteristics of a leader. Situations are never in our hands but reaction is always that we can control. A leader not only reacts positively but also helps other members of the group to see the brighter side of the picture.

It has also been noticed that only those persons are considered as good leaders who have gained the trust and confidence of their subordinates. Communication plays a vital role in this regard. The other thing that people respect is knowledge. Proficiency in subject is the main driving force. The next factor is the execution of idea. A leader always executes the things effectively. He works as a team and team welfare is his primary goal. A leader is looked upon by his subordinates critically also. A man of high moral values and integrity can only become a good leader.

It has always been a matter of controversy as to what makes an individual different from others. Some emphasize that is an innate quality while some advocate that it is a matter of practice only. To sum up, leadership is a quality, which is if present naturally is welcome or otherwise can be developed by acquiring desired skills.

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

Leadership is setting a new direction or vision for a group that they follow, ie: a leader is the spearhead for that new direction.

Management controls or directs people/resources in a group according to principles or values that have already been established.

There is a lot of overlap between leadership and management. Often the two are part of the same role, because many leadership or management roles involve a combination of both - i.e. there is a continual adjustment of the direction (leadership) and controlling resources to pursue that direction (management).

Managers are more concerned about planning, controlling, staffing and organizing. Leaders are more concerned about directing and organizing people. They act more as a representative of the followers. People follow leaders voluntarily than by virtue of their position. Leaders should have high emotional intelligence. In Emergency Medical Service leadership qualities are more sought after than mere management skills. Managers with good leadership skills can produce best result. Successful business people are good leaders as well as good manager. To be successful in the long run a manager should have leadership skills.

Leadership and Management: Difference in working style

There is a big difference in the working style of a manager. A leader attracts the people with the charisma he is having. He used to have an upper hand in technological knowledge than the workers. Leadership may not have any relevance with the functioning of the organization. On the other hand the management is different in its way of functioning. A manager keeps the organizational priority at his best. He has to do certain tasks as per the guidelines set by the organization. He then plans to achieve this by his people. Here the manager uses the modern management tools. He is interested in directing, planning and organizing. To make this effective he also uses modern management tools. A leader innovates and the manager administers (Bennis W, Doyal S, 2006). Leadership is setting up vision and Direction and management is implementation of this (Doyal S, 2006).

A leader set his vision and the followers follow his vision almost voluntarily. He seldom needs force to attract towards him in execution of his direction and vision. On the other hand the manager executes the vision of the organization. On his journey towards this he will also be using leadership skills to effectively manage his people. A manger with leadership skills can effectively manage the organization. There should be a force attracting the followers or a subordinate to the person directs them. In case of leadership it is often the quality of the leader or his charisma that attracts the people to him. On the other hand the manager and the leader should be the two sides of the coin. Latest management trends show an inclination towards improving the leadership qualities of a manager. It is accepted that a manager should improve the output of the organization but it should be on the cost of the people working in the organization.

THE TRAIT THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

The trait model of leadership is based on the characteristics of many leaders - both successful and unsuccessful - and is used to predict leadership effectiveness. The resulting lists of traits are then compared to those of potential leaders to assess their likelihood of success or failure.

Scholars taking the trait approach attempted to identify physiological (appearance, height, and weight), demographic (age, education and socioeconomic background), personality, self-confidence, and aggressiveness), intellective (intelligence, decisiveness, judgment, and knowledge), task-related (achievement drive, initiative, and persistence), and social characteristics (sociability and cooperativeness) with leader emergence and leader effectiveness.

Successful leaders definitely have interests, abilities, and personality traits that are different from those of the less effective leaders. Through many researchers conducted in the last three decades of the 20th century, a set of core traits of successful leaders have been identified. These traits are not responsible solely to identify whether a person will be a successful leader or not, but they are essentially seen as preconditions that endow people with leadership potential.

The trait theory gives constructive information about leadership. It can be applied by people at all levels in all types of organizations. Managers can utilize the information from the theory to evaluate their position in the organization and to assess how their position can be made stronger in the organization. They can get an in-depth understanding of their identity and the way they will affect others in the organization. This theory makes the manager aware of their strengths and weaknesses and thus they get an understanding of how they can develop their leadership qualities.

The traits approach gives rise to questions: whether leaders are born or made; and whether leadership is an art or science. However, these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Leadership may be something of an art; it still requires the application of special skills and techniques. Even if there are certain inborn qualities that make one a good leader, these natural talents need encouragement and development. A person is not born with self-confidence. Self-confidence is developed, honesty and integrity are a matter of personal choice, motivation to lead comes from within the individual, and the knowledge of business can be acquired. While cognitive ability has its origin partly in genes, it still needs to be developed. None of these ingredients are acquired overnight.

Given the recent increase in evidence and support of trait leadership theory (Ng et al., 2008), scholars have suggested a variety of strategies for human resource departments within organizations. Companies should use personality traits as selection tools for identifying emerging leaders (Ng et al., 2008). These companies, however, should be aware of the individual traits that predict success in leader effectiveness as well as the traits that could be detrimental to leader effectiveness. For example, while Derue and colleagues (2011) found that individuals who are high in Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness are predicted to be more likely to be perceived as successful in leadership positions, Judge, Woolf, Hurst, & Livingston (2006) wrote that individuals who are high in narcissism are more likely to be a liability in certain jobs.

CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

Weber defines charismatic leadership as "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him". He envisaged religious leaders like Jesus as charismatic leaders. Later researches considered various social-political leaders like Mahatma Gandhi as charismatic leaders. Dictators like Hitler also had some charismatic traits. These were the leaders with exceptional qualities, which made them almost god-like for their followers.

The charm of such people made their followers go behind these leaders without questioning them. While analyzing such a strong bond between the leaders and his followers Weber focuses on the social patterns and conditions under which the leader exists. However, the later researches throw light on the psychological attributes of the leaders, which make them successful charismatic leaders.

Research shows that charismatic leaders appeal strongly to the values of the followers and it is this psychological bondage between the two, which makes the charismatic leadership succeed. Neither the sociologically oriented Weberian approach nor the psychological approach alone can explain charismatic leaders. The approaches together, however, give the better analysis of charismatic leadership.

Charismatic leadership process is seen as a compound product of three factors: The leader and his attributes, the social situation, which demands for such a leader and the interaction between the leader and his followers. Charismatic leadership process undergoes six steps from the rise of the leader to the final routinization and thus the fall of the leader.

KURT LEWIN'S LEADERSHIP STYLE

Kurt Lewin and colleagues did leadership decision experiments in 1939 and identified three different styles of leadership, in particular around decision-making. In the autocratic style, the leader takes decisions without consulting with others. The decision is made without any form of consultation. In Lewin's experiments, he found that this caused the most level of discontent.

An autocratic style works when there is no need for input on the decision, where the decision would not change as a result of input, and where the motivation of people to carry out subsequent actions would not be affected whether they were or were not involved in the decision-making.

In the democratic style, the leader involves the people in the decision-making, although the process for the final decision may vary from the leader having the final say to them facilitating consensus in the group. Democratic decision-making is usually appreciated by the people, especially if they have been used to autocratic decisions with which they disagreed. It can be problematic when there are a wide range of opinions and there is no clear way of reaching an equitable final decision.

The laissez-faire style is to minimize the leader's involvement in decision-making, and hence allowing people to make their own decisions, although they may still be responsible for the outcome.

Laissez-faire works best when people are capable and motivated in making their own decisions, and where there is no requirement for a central coordination, for example in sharing resources across a range of different people and groups.

In Lewin’s experiments, he discovered that the most effective style was Democratic. Excessive autocratic styles led to revolution, whilst under a Laissez-faire approach, people were not coherent in their work and did not put in the energy that they did when being actively led. These experiments were actually done with groups of children, but were early in the modern era and were consequently highly influential.

MAHATMA GANDHI'S CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

After having described what is charismatic leadership and how does it work, it is interesting to find out what makes one a charismatic leader. What are the attributes that charismatic leader posses or what are the traits that make someone a potential charismatic leader? It is clear from the above discussion that the actual rise of such a leader is a composite function of various variables. However, this section will try to describe the personal traits that make a person a potential leader. There are some attributes which are exhibited by a person at his childhood or adolescence which make a person potential charismatic leader.

One very good reference of a Charismatic leader is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was a nationalist leader, humanist, visionary, social and political reformer and most importantly a spiritual leader who has been critically instrumental in shaping a new India, firmly rooted in its historical past and at the same time welcoming the progressive trends of modernity.

Gandhi connected with Indians at their own level while most personalities in India’s checkered history could inspire only a fraction of the population. Gandhi entered the troubled scenario of the Indian nationalist movement against the British colonialist rule in the early 1900s and immediately shot to fame with his non-violent modes of civilian resistance. He is history’s most creative theorist and practitioner of mass non-violent resistance .His spiritual beliefs revolutionized all aspects of Indian life. His works became an inspiration to millions and his mission became an ideal to follow. His doctrine of non-violent action had a profound influence on Martin Luther King Junior, the leader of the civil rights movement in the US, and Nelson Mandela, the most prominent figure of the black opposition to apartheid in South Africa. Gandhi is in the hearts of millions of Indians as the Father of the Nation for the path-breaking role that he played for molding the national character and the lives of Indians alike. When still alive, Gandhi had many admirers, both in India and abroad. But his martyrdom in 1948 made him an even greater symbol of peace. Paying tribute on Gandhi’s death, Albert Einstein said, "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a man as this walked the earth in flesh and blood."

Gandhi connected the spiritual with the temporal. Gandhi, drawing on the time-honored Indian theory of the ‘Purusharthas’ or ‘the aims of life’, fitted his ethical, political, economic and religious ideas together. According to the theory of Purusharthas, a well-lived life requires the coordinated pursuit of all canonical goals of life: wealth and power (artha), ethics of duty-based on experience (dharma) pleasure, both sexual and aesthetic (Kama), and spiritual freedom (moksha). What we find in Gandhi then is a philosophy of life that deserves to be the public philosophy of India. His ideological basis was much derived from the liberal-humanist values he had absorbed in England exemplified by the works of Ruskin, Thoreau and Emerson.

Influenced by Henry David Thoreau, his ideas on socio-economic issues sought to develop ways to fight India’s extreme poverty, backwardness and socio-economic challenges. His championing of Swadeshi and non-cooperation were centered on the principles of economic self-sufficiency. Gandhi led farmers in a Satyagraha. Satyagraha is a method of direct social action based on the principles of courage, non-violence and truth. It promoted non-violence and civil disobedience as the most appropriate methods for obtaining political and social goals. He pioneered the concept of ashram, which has been compared with commune.

CONCLUSION

There is an old saying, which says, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We may assume that it’s only natural if a leader, who is granted with power to manage the country and respond to threats against this country, is taking his responsibilities seriously and is driven to gain more power in order to accomplish these tasks most successfully. However, even the founding fathers recognized the need for human beings to be limited in their power over the country and other peoples’ lives, since only then the government could function in the best interest of its nation and would not allow tyranny to develop. Since our system of government was developed in a way that doesn’t tolerate tyranny, the imperial presidency therefore is not our way to defend long-term interests of democracy and therefore the current unlimited presidential powers should be reconsidered in the nearest future.