Trait Leadership Theories - YouTube

There are a lot of theories regarding leadership.

One of the oldest, the trait perspective, examines the traits, or characteristics, of

individuals to predict the likelihood that they will become leaders.

That’s what this video will focus on: the Trait perspective of leadership.

There are a lot of aspects of the trait perspective, so we will cover the original trait leadership

theory as well as an updated approach, and then briefly cover a few other theories that

are grounded in the trait perspective.

Let’s start with the oldest explanation of the trait theory of leadership which dates

back to the 1800’s.

Multiple scholars have been credited with the theory, in particular Francis Galton,

an Englishman during the Victorian era, and Scotsman Thomas Carlyle, also from the Victorian

era.

Both of whom have way too many credentials for me to list here).

There’s a reason to mention these scholars, which I’ll get to in a moment.

Both theories operate under the assumption that leadership comes from the personal qualities

of the leader, and those qualities are present at birth.

Carlyle called his theory “the great man theory.”

He analyzed successful leaders of his time to determine which traits they possessed and

concluded that leaders are born, not made.

If you didn’t have those traits, you would never be a leader.

Galton’s claim was similar: In his book, Hereditary Genius, he proposed that leadership

could only be found in a small number of people with specific, unchanging traits.

They are born with these traits—they are inherited or part of their genetic make-up.

If you were not one of the lucky few, you were out of luck because these traits could

not be developed.

What traits?

Think back to the 1800’s when these men were around and you can probably come up with

them: Physical traits: Leaders at that time tended

to be tall, of “ideal weight,” and attractive (or, at least, not unattractive).

You’ll probably notice that “male” is not on the list; not a surprise considering

that it was the Victorian era when women didn’t even have the right to vote, so it was likely

assumed and not worthy of listing.

Remember that Carlyle called his theory the great MAN approach.

Notice also that ethnicity, specifically “white,” wasn’t on the list—Carlyle and Galton

were from Scotland and England so, again, likely assumed.

Effective leaders shared communication traits, like being talkative, expressing confidence,

motivated, knowledgeable, punctual, adaptable, and good listeners.

And they shared some psychological traits, such as having a high need to influence others

and being friendly.

There are several problems with this approach and it lost favor in the mid-20th century.

This approach ensured that we would get the same type of people as leaders.

It also ensured that people who didn’t share these characteristics would not be considered

as leaders.

Even thoughpart of this theory has been questioned, at least the physical trait criterion, you

can likely see some traces of it in the viability of many of our political candidates.

That brings us to a more modern-day approach to the “trait” theory, as proposed by

Stephen Zaccaro of George Mason University.

Let me preface this by saying that there is much more to this theory than I will cover,

and I’m going to focus on the traits part of his approach.

Zaccaro includes an aspect that he calls “Leadership Criteria,” which includes the operating

environment of the leader and the leader processes which contribute to the leader’s emergence,

effectiveness, and advancement and promotion.

His main argument is that a leader’s attributes influences how that leader performs.

But we’ll focus on the first two sections of his model: the Distal and Proximal attributes.

Both of these terms are related to anatomy.

Proximal—think proximity—are those things that are closer to the torso or, in the case

of this theory, closer the problem at hand.

Distal—think distance—are those things that are still part of the body but are further

away from the torso, or further away from the problem but still related.

Other descriptions are of distal being disposition, or “trait-like” and proximal as more malleable,

less of a trait and more of a state.

Let’s start with “Distal”—those attributes that are more of the person—the “traits”

that the person brings to situation at hand.

Zaccaro broke these down into three categories: Cognitive abilities, personality, and Motives/Values.

Cognitive abilities are what your brain does: your intellectual capacity and your creativity.

o Openness, emotional adjustment, honesty and integrity, and charisma.

Motives and Values relate to motivation to achieve, and the need for power.

These, combined, make the core of Distal Attributes.

Moving to Proximal attributes—those attributes that apply to the actual situation being addressed—the

skills that someone can use in a leadership situation.

Zaccaro broke these down into three categories as well:

Social Appraisal Skills, sometimes shortened to just Social Skills, includes communication

skills (both oral and written) and interpersonal skills.

Problem-Solving Skills included a general ability to think through and solve problems

and decision-making skills.

Expertise/Tacit Knowledge is made up of technical knowledge and management skills.

“Tacit” means “understood without being stated” which, in this case, means someone

may not have been trained in this areas but has an instinctual knowledge of them.

Again, just as in the case of Distal attributes, the combination of these three contribute

to the core of Proximal attributes.

Zaccaro suggests that it is the combined influence of these traits that contributes to leadership

and that they are significant precursors of leadership effectiveness.

Further, he suggests that these traits allow people the ability to adjust their leadership

styles to different situations.

Finally, let’s briefly look at two traits that have garnered their own perspectives:

charismatic and Machiavellian.

Charisma is defined as a “compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.”

Even Zoccaro included “charisma” as part of the distal attribute of personality.

Charismatic leadership is leadership where people follow those who are charming and positive—you

just feel good around them.

This is a little different from a type of leader who may also have charisma: transformational

leaders.

While transformational leaders may also be charming, positive, and electric, they go

beyond just charisma to create a vision, stimulate intellect, consider moral ethics, and so on.

As the name says, they “transform” people and are inspirational.

What’s the difference?

First, surprising as it may seem, the term “charismatic leadership” has a negative

connotation.

The cliché “All flash but no substance” comes to mind.

Also, negative or unethical motives are often ascribed to charismatic leaders; they are

considered to be narcissistic, to have a lack of morals, and grounded in emotion rather

than reason.

Transformational leaders are viewed more positively as they appeal to intellect and reasoning

and use their persuasion and charisma for what some call more “ethical” or moral

purposes.

The flip side of this is a Machiavellian leader.

The name comes from Niccolò Machiavelli who, in the 1500’s wrote The Prince, a political

treatise with a general theme that you’ve probably heard before: “The ends justify

the means.”

In the treatise, he argued that the goals of princes, or those in charge, are of supreme

importance and, thus, can justify any means to achieve those goals.

Ethics are not considered; it’s more important to get to the end goal.

Machiavellian leaders are often described as “ruthless” and will do anything to

get what they want.

Processing time What are the traits of a successful leader?

Thinking of the leaders today, what would the differences be as compared to the original

trait theory?

What similarities do you see between the original trait theory and Zoccaro’s revisions?

Do you think Zoccaro’s revisions “revive” trait theory as a viable explanation for who

becomes leaders and who does not?

Regardless of whether you agree with the theory or not, there are probably still some skills

you can develop that will increase your leadership potential.