Leadership Defined by the Leader: "Trait" Leadership Theory
Leadership theory is a wide ranging subject and there are many theories on what is leadership. What does define good leadership?
Is there a line that separates bad leadership from good leadership? If so, what defines that line?
The "trait" leadership theory proposes that certain attributes are required in an individual for him or her to be distinguished as a potentially good leader.
Lists of traits and properties in an individual are suggested by the proponents of this leadership theory, and these lists are expounded to contain the attributes necessary for a good leader.
Any person possessing these attributes should be capable of controlling a specific situation should the need arise.
A study of the list indicates that these traits seem reasonable and the leadership theory seems sensible at first glance. However, are they simply a list of attributes which successful leaders have been identified as having? They have these attributes, so anyone else with the same attributes should also be good leaders? This is a dangerous assumption. Judge for yourself.
Here are just some of those traits:
- Flexibility.
- Adaptability.
- Trustworthiness.
- Motivation.
- Competence.
- Skilled in handling people.
- Intelligence.
- Good physical fitness
- Courage.
- Decisiveness.
From time to time other attributes have been removed from and added to the list.
The major objective of those who proposed this leadership theory was to define the qualities required in a good leader, and distinguish potential leaders from followers.
This, in effect, presented a definition of the term 'leader'. It enabled others to identify potential leaders without the need for specialized knowledge. Such a leadership theory is simple and effective in certain situations, but can also be over-simplistic.
The postulation in the introduction of this leadership theory is that anyone who did not meet the standards set by the leadership theory could not really be a leader at all, so his leadership must be questionable.
It has been observed, however, that many great leaders did not meet the requirements of the list, and that this leadership theory, at least, is on the wrong track. Leaders cannot be typecast: each is an individual.
Indeed, it is a known fact that many with the required traits have tried and failed to make good leaders.
Every person is unique, and will react in different ways to every unique situation. Hence, no leader will ever completely conformed to then list provided by this leadership theory. Some may posses many of the traits listed, but no one will possess them all.
There may also be some characteristics of good leadership that are not on the list. Observing the traits of good leaders then suggesting that all good leaders must have these is not good science.
One aspect of leadership ignored by this theory is the fact that there are a number of types of leader, and different situations often require different leadership styles.
The great leaders became so because of their ability to lead in the face of specific situations. These same leaders may not necessarily be able to act the same during different situations: such an assumption is just plain silly. The great Sir Winston Churchill was a marvellous leader of his country in time of war, but he did not make a great peace-time Prime Minister.
In saying this, however, it should also be said that there is some truth in what this leadership theory suggests. Good leaders must be competent, trustworthy and motivated. It goes without saying, and some of the traits suggested can be adapted and used effectively in many different situations.
Other traits really are inherent in every great leader. Without decisiveness, for example, no leader could be really great. However, this does not prove the leadership theory. It simply demonstrates that some, but not all, listed characteristics are essential for a person to make a good leader.
As with most theories, whether this particular leadership theory is correct or not is irrelevant, so long as we do not hold strictly to it. Those parts which are right can be used, and those we feel wrong can be discarded. The argument then is whether or not that leaves us with a viable leadership theory, or whether it becomes a matter of opinion.
|
