Benchmark – Leadership Approaches
The textbook is needed for this assignment:
In 500-750 words, do the following: 1. Compare the various approaches to leadership as covered in your textbook (Leadership by Peter G Northouse 8th edition) readings for this topic. Include the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. 2. Choose one of the approaches. Describe how that approach might influence a leaders philosophy on public service. 3. Explain how principles of Christian leadership could influence a leaders philosophy on public service. Use two to three scholarly resources to support your explanations. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. Please let me know you can do it, if not then I will have to create time and do it.
Chapter 2
Trait Approach
Reference
Northhouse, P. (2019). Leading Public Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Discription
Of interest to scholars throughout the 20th century, the trait approach was
one of the first systematic attempts to study leadership. In the early
20th century, leadership traits were studied to determine what made certain
people great leaders. The theories that were developed were called great
man theories because they focused on identifying the innate qualities and
characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders (e.g.,
Catherine the Great, Mohandas Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln,
Joan of Arc, and Napoleon Bonaparte). It was believed that people were
born with these traits, and that only the great people possessed them.
During this time, research concentrated on determining the specific traits
that clearly differentiated leaders from followers (Bass, 2008; Jago, 1982).
In the mid-20th century, the trait approach was challenged by research that
questioned the universality of leadership traits. In a major review, Stogdill (1948)
suggested that no consistent set of traits differentiated leaders from nonleaders
across a variety of situations. An individual with leadership traits who was a
leader in one situation might not be a leader in another situation. Rather than
being a quality that individuals possess, leadership was reconceptualized as a
relationship between people in a social situation. Personal factors related to leadership
continued to be important, but researchers contended that these factors
were to be considered as relative to the requirements of the situation.
The trait approach has generated much interest among researchers for its
explanation of how traits influence leadership (Bryman, 1992). For example,
Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) went so far as to claim that effective leaders
are actually distinct types of people. Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) found
that traits were strongly associated with individuals perceptions of leadership.
More recently, Dinh and Lord (2012) examined the relationship bet The trait approach has earned new interest
through the current emphasis
given by many researchers to visionary and charismatic leadership (see Bass,
2008; Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015; Nadler &
Tushman, 2012; Zaccaro, 2007; Zaleznik, 1977). Charismatic leadership catapulted
to the forefront of public attention with the 2008 election of the United
States first African American president, Barack Obama, who is perceived by
many to be charismatic, among many other attributes. In a study to determine
what distinguishes charismatic leaders from others, Jung and Sosik (2006)
found that charismatic leaders consistently possess traits of self-monitoring,
engagement in impression management, motivation to attain social power, and
motivation to attain self-actualization. In short, the trait approach is alive and
well. It began with an emphasis on identifying the qualities of great persons,
shifted to include the impact of situations on leadership, and, currently, has
shifted back to reemphasize the critical role of traits in effective leadership.
Although the research on traits spanned the entire 20th century, a good
overview of this approach is found in two surveys completed by Stogdill
(1948, 1974). In his first survey, Stogdill analyzed and synthesized more than
124 trait studies conducted between 1904 and 1947. In his second study, he
analyzed another 163 studies completed between 1948 and 1970. By taking
a closer look at each of these reviews, we can obtain a clearer picture of how
individuals traits contribute to the leadership process.
Stogdills first survey identified a group of important leadership traits that were
related to how individuals in various groups became leaders. His results showed
that an average individual in a leadership role is different from an average group
member with regard to the following eight traits: intelligence, alertness, insight,
responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-confidence, and sociability.
The findings of Stogdills first survey also indicated that an individual does not
become a leader solely because that individual possesses certain traits. Rather, the
traits that leaders possess must be relevant to situations in which the leader is
functioning. As stated earlier, leaders in one situation may not necessarily be
leaders in another situation. Findings showed that leadership was not a passive
state but resulted from a working relationship between the leader and
other group members. This research marked the beginning of a new approach to
leadership research that focused on leadership behaviors and leadership situations.
Stogdills second survey, published in 1974, analyzed 163 new studies and
compared the findings of these studies to the findings he had reported in his
first survey. The second survey was more balanced in its description of the
role of traits and leadership. Whereas the first survey implied that leadership
is determined principally by situational factors and not traits, the second
survey argued more moderately that both traits and situational factors were
determinants of leadership. In essence, the second survey validated the original
trait idea that a leaders characteristics are indeed a part of leadership.
Similar to the first survey, Stogdills second survey identified traits that were
positively associated with leadership. The list included the following
10 characteristics:
1. drive for responsibility and task completion;
2. vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals;
3. risk taking and originality in problem solving;
4. drive to exercise initiative in social situations;
5. self-confidence and sense of personal identity;
6. willingness to accept consequences of decision and action;
7. readiness to absorb interpersonal stress;
8. willingness to tolerate frustration and delay;
9. ability to influence other peoples behavior; and
10. capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand.
Mann (1959) conducted a similar study that examined more than 1,400
findings regarding traits and leadership in small groups, but he placed less
emphasis on how situational factors influenced leadership. Although tentative
in his conclusions, Mann suggested that certain traits could be used to
distinguish leaders from nonleaders. His results identified leaders as strong
in the following six traits: intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance,
extraversion, and conservatism.
Lord et al. (1986) reassessed Manns (1959) findings using a more sophisticated
procedure called meta-analysis. Lord et al. found that intelligence, masculinity,
and dominance were significantly related to how individuals perceived leaders.
From their findings, the authors argued strongly that traits could be used to make
discriminations consistently across situations between leaders and nonleaders.
Both of these studies were conducted during periods in American history
where male leadership was prevalent in most aspects of business and society.
In Chapter 15, we explore more contemporary research regarding the role of
gender in leadership, and we look at whether traits such as masculinity and
dominance still bear out as important factors in distinguishing between
leaders and nonleaders.
Yet another review argues for the importance of leadership traits: Kirkpatrick
and Locke (1991, p. 59) contended that it is unequivocally clear that leaders
are not like other people. From a qualitative synthesis of earlier research,
Kirkpatrick and Locke postulated that leaders differ from nonleaders on six
traits: drive, motivation, integrity, confidence, cognitive ability, and task knowledge. According to these writers,
individuals can be born with these
traits, they can learn them, or both. It is these six traits that make up the
right stuff for leaders. Kirkpatrick and Locke asserted that leadership traits
make some people different from others, and this difference should be recognized
as an important part of the leadership process.
In the 1990s, researchers began to investigate the leadership traits associated
with social intelligence, which is characterized as the ability to understand
ones own and others feelings, behaviors, and thoughts and act appropriately
(Marlowe, 1986). Zaccaro (2002) defined social intelligence as having such
capacities as social awareness, social acumen, self-monitoring, and the ability
to select and enact the best response given the contingencies of the situation
and social environment. A number of empirical studies showed these capacities
to be a key trait for effective leaders. Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2017)
included such social abilities in the categories of leadership traits they outlined
as important leadership attributes (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 provides a summary of the traits and characteristics that were identified
by researchers from the trait approach. It illustrates clearly the breadth
of traits related to leadership. Table 2.1 also shows how difficult it is to select
certain traits as definitive leadership traits; some of the traits appear in several
of the survey studies, whereas others appear in only one or two studies.
Regardless of the lack of precision in Table 2.1, however, it represents a general
convergence of research regarding which traits are leadership traits.
What, then, can be said about trait research? What has a century of research
on the trait approach given us that is useful? The answer is an extended list
of traits that individuals might hope to possess or wish to cultivate if they
want to be perceived by others as leaders. Some of the traits that are central
to this list include intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and
sociability (Table 2.2).
Intelligence
Intelligence or intellectual ability is positively related to leadership (Sternberg,
2004). Based on their analysis of a series of recent studies on intelligence and
various indices of leadership, Zaccaro et al. (2017) found support for the finding
that leaders tend to have higher intelligence than nonleaders. Having
strong verbal ability, perceptual ability, and reasoning appears to make one a
better leader (Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015). Although it is good to be bright,
if the leaders IQ is very different from that of the followers, it can have a
counterproductive impact on leadership. Leaders with higher abilities may
have difficulty communicating with followers because they are preoccupied or
because their ideas are too advanced for their followers to accept.
In a study of the relationship between intelligence and perceived leadership
in midlevel leaders from multinational companies, Antonakis, House, and
Simonton (2017) found that the optimal IQ for perceived leadership appeared
to be just above one standard deviation above the mean IQ of the group
membership. Their study found a curvilinear relationship between IQ and
perceived leadershipthat is, as IQ increased, so did perceived leadership to
a point, and then the IQ had a negative impact on leadership. Stated another
way, it is good for leaders to be intelligent, but if their intelligence scores
become too high, the benefits appear to taper off and can become negative.
An example of a leader for whom intelligence was a key trait was Steve Jobs,
founder and CEO of Apple who died in 2011. Jobs once said, I have this
really incredible product inside me and I have to get it out (Sculley, 2011,
p. 27). Those visionary products, first the Apple II and Macintosh computers
and then the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, revolutionized the personal computer
and electronic device industry, changing the way people play and work.
In the next chapter of this text, which addresses leadership from a skills
perspective, intelligence is identified as a trait that significantly contributes
to a leaders acquisition of complex problem-solving skills and social judgment
skills. Intelligence is described as having a positive impact on an individuals
capacity for effective leadership.
Self-Confidence
Self-confidence is another trait that helps one to be a leader. Self-confidence
is the ability to be certain about ones competencies and skills. It includes a
sense of self-esteem and self-assurance and the belief that one can make a
difference. Leadership involves influencing others, and self-confidence
allows the leader to feel assured that his or her attempts to influence others
are appropriate and right.
Again, Steve Jobs is a good example of a self-confident leader. When Jobs
described the devices he wanted to create, many people said they werent
possible. But Jobs never doubted his products would change the world, and
despite resistance, he did things the way he thought best. Jobs was one of
those CEOs who ran the company like he wanted to. He believed he knew
more about it than anyone else, and he probably did, said a colleague
(Stone, 2011, p. 40).
Determination
Many leaders also exhibit determination. Determination is the desire to get
the job done and includes characteristics such as initiative, persistence,
dominance, and drive. People with determination are willing to assert
themselves, are proactive, and have the capacity to persevere in the face of
obstacles. Being determined includes showing dominance at times and in
situations where followers need to be directed.
Dr. Paul Farmer has shown determination in his efforts to secure health care
and eradicate tuberculosis for the very poor of Haiti and other third world
countries. He began his efforts as a recent college graduate, traveling and
working in Cange, Haiti. While there, he was accepted to Harvard Medical
School. Knowing that his work in Haiti was invaluable to his training, he
managed to do both: spending months traveling back and forth between
Haiti and Cambridge, Massachusetts, for school. His first effort in Cange was to establish a one-room clinic where
he treated all comers and trained
local health care workers. Farmer found that there was more to providing
health care than just dispensing medicine: He secured donations to build
schools, houses, and communal sanitation and water facilities in the region.
He spearheaded vaccinations of all the children in the area, dramatically
reducing malnutrition and infant mortality. In order to keep working in
Haiti, he returned to America and founded Partners In Health, a charitable
foundation that raises money to fund these efforts. Since its founding, PIH
not only has succeeded in improving the health of many communities in
Haiti but now has projects in Haiti, Lesotho, Malawi, Peru, Russia, Rwanda,
and the United States, and supports other projects in Mexico and Guatemala
(Kidder, 2004; Partners In Health, 2017).
Integrity
Integrity, another of the important leadership traits, is the quality of honesty
and trustworthiness. People who adhere to a strong set of principles and take
responsibility for their actions are exhibiting integrity. Leaders with integrity
inspire confidence in others because they can be trusted to do what they say
they are going to do. They are loyal, dependable, and not deceptive. Basically,
integrity makes a leader believable and worthy of our trust.
In our society, integrity has received a great deal of attention in recent years.
For example, as a result of two situationsthe position taken by President
George W. Bush regarding Iraqs alleged weapons of mass destruction and the
impeachment proceedings during the Bill Clinton presidencypeople are
demanding more honesty of their public officials. Similarly, scandals in the
corporate world (e.g., Enron and WorldCom) have led people to become
skeptical of leaders who are not highly ethical. In the educational arena, new
K12 curricula are being developed to teach character, values, and ethical leadership.
(For instance, see the Character Counts! program developed by the
Josephson Institute of Ethics in California at www.charactercounts.org, and
the Pillars of Leadership program taught at the J. W. Fanning Institute for
Leadership Development in Georgia at www.fanning.uga.edu.) In short, society
is demanding greater integrity of character in its leaders.
Sociability
A final trait that is important for leaders is sociability. Sociability is a
leaders inclination to seek out pleasant social relationships. Leaders who
show sociability are friendly, outgoing, courteous, tactful, and diplomatic.
They are sensitive to others needs and show concern for their well-being.
Social leaders have good interpersonal skills and create cooperative relationships
with their followers.
An example of a leader with great sociability skills is Michael Hughes, a
university president. Hughes prefers to walk to all his meetings because it gets
him out on campus where he greets students, staff, and faculty. He has lunch
in the dorm cafeterias or student union and will often ask a table of strangers
if he can sit with them. Students rate him as very approachable, while faculty
say he has an open-door policy. In addition, he takes time to write personal
notes to faculty, staff, and students to congratulate them on their successes.
Although our discussion of leadership traits has focused on five major traits
(i.e., intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability),
this list is not all-inclusive. While other traits indicated in Table 2.1 are
associated with effective leadership, the five traits we have identified contribute
substantially to ones capacity to be a leader.
Until recently, most reviews of leadership traits have been qualitative. In addition,
they have lacked a common organizing framework. However, the research
described in the following section provides a quantitative assessment of leadership
traits that is conceptually framed around the five-factor model of personality.
It describes how five major personality traits are related to leadership.
Five-Factor Personality Model and Leadership
Over the past 25 years, a consensus has emerged among researchers regarding
the basic factors that make up what we call personality (Goldberg, 1990;
McCrae & Costa, 1987). These factors, commonly called the Big Five, are
neuroticism, extraversion (surgency), openness (intellect), agreeableness,
and conscientiousness (dependability) (Table 2.3).
To assess the links between the Big Five and leadership, Judge, Bono, Ilies,
and Gerhardt (2002) conducted a major meta-analysis of 78 leadership and
personality studies published between 1967 and 1998. In general, Judge et al.
found a strong relationship between the Big Five traits and leadership. It
appears that having certain personality traits is associated with being an
effective leader.
Specifically, in their study, extraversion was the factor most strongly associated
with leadership. It is the most important trait of effective leaders.
Extraversion was followed, in order, by conscientiousness, openness, and low
neuroticism. The last factor, agreeableness, was found to be only weakly
associated with leadership. In a more recent study, Sacket and Walmsley
(2014) found that conscientiousness had the highest correlation with overall
job performance, task performance, organizational citizenship behavior,
and counterproductive work behavior (negative correlation). It was
found to be the most frequently assessed trait in job interviews for a
variety of occupations.
Strengths and Leadership
Very closely related to the traits approach is the more contemporary
emphasis on strengths and leadership. The idea behind strengths leadership
is that everyone has talents in which they excel or thrive and leaders are able
to recognize and capitalize on not only their own strengths but those of
their followers as well. A strength is defined as an attribute or quality of an
individual that accounts for successful performance. Strength researchers
(Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Rath, 2007) suggest that strengths are the
ability to consistently demonstrate exceptional work.
The seminal research in this area has been undertaken by the Gallup organization,
which has spent more than 40 years identifying and assessing
individual strengths or themes of human talent and designing and publishing
the StrengthsFinder profile, now called CliftonStrengths assessment,
an online assessment of peoples talents and potential strengths.
Talents are similar to personality traitsthey are relatively stable, fixed
characteristics that are not easily changed. From talents, strengths emerge.
Strengths are derived from having certain talents and then further developing
those talents by gaining additional knowledge, skills, and practice
(Rath, 2007).
In the strengths perspective, extraordinary individuals are distinguished less
by their impressive raw power than by their ability to identify their strengths
and then exploit them (Gardner, 1997, p. 15). MacKie (2016) suggests that
our leadership capability is enhanced when we are able to discover our fully
utilized strengths, underutilized strengths, and weaknesses.
Emotional Intelligence
Another way of assessing the impact of traits on leadership is through the
concept of emotional intelligence, which emerged in the 1990s as an important
area of study in psychology. It has been widely studied by researchers, and
has captured the attention of many practitioners (Caruso & Wolfe, 2004;
Goleman, 1995, 1998; Mayer & Salovey, 1995, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, &
Caruso, 2000; Shankman & Allen, 2015).
As the two words suggest, emotional intelligence has to do with our emotions
(affective domain) and thinking (cognitive domain), and the interplay
between the two. Whereas intelligence is concerned with our ability to learn
information and apply it to life tasks, emotional intelligence is concerned with
our ability to understand emotions and apply this understanding to lifes
tasks. Specifically, emotional intelligence can be defined as the ability to perceive
and express emotions, to use emotions to facilitate thinking, to understand
and reason with emotions, and to effectively manage emotions within
oneself and in relationships with others (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000).
There are different ways to measure emotional intelligence. One scale is the
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer,
Caruso, & Salovey, 2000). The MSCEIT measures emotional intelligence as
a set of mental abilities, including the abilities to perceive, facilitate, understand,
and manage emotion.
Goleman (1995, 1998) takes a broader approach to emotional intelligence,
suggesting that it consists of a set of personal and social competencies.
Personal competence consists of self-awareness, confidence, self-regulation,
conscientiousness, and motivation. Social competence consists of empathy
and social skills such as communication and conflict management.
Shankman and Allen (2015) developed a practice-oriented model of emotionally
intelligent leadership, which suggests that leaders must be conscious of three
fundamental facets of leadership: context, self, and others. In the model, emotionally
intelligent leaders are defined by 21 capacities to which a leader should
pay attention, including group savvy, optimism, initiative, and teamwork.
There is a debate in the field regarding how big a role emotional intelligence
plays in helping people be successful in life. Some researchers, such as
Goleman (1995), suggested that emotional intelligence plays a major role in
whether people are successful at school, home, and work. Others, such as
Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) and Antonakis (2009), made softer claims
for the significance of emotional intelligence in meeting lifes challenges.
As a leadership ability or trait, emotional intelligence appears to be an
important construct. The underlying premise suggested by this framework
HOW DOES THE TRAIT APPROACH WORK? _________
The trait approach is very different from the other approaches discussed in
subsequent chapters because it focuses exclusively on the leader, not on the
followers or the situation. This makes the trait approach theoretically more
straightforward than other approaches. In essence, the trait approach is
concerned with what traits leaders exhibit and who has these traits.
The trait approach does not lay out a set of hypotheses or principles about
what kind of leader is needed in a certain situation or what a leader should
do, given a particular set of circumstances. Instead, this approach emphasizes
that having a leader with a certain set of traits is crucial to having effective
leadership. It is the leader and the leaders traits that are central to the
leadership process.
The trait approach suggests that organizations will work better if the people
in managerial positions have designated leadership profiles. To find the right
people, it is common for organizations to use trait assessment instruments.
The assumption behind these procedures is that selecting the right people
will increase organizational effectiveness. Organizations can specify the
characteristics or traits that are important to them for particular positions
and then use trait assessment measures to determine whether an individual
fits their needs.
The trait approach is also used for personal awareness and development. By
analyzing their own traits, managers can gain an idea of their strengths and
weaknesses, and can get a feel for how others in the organization see them.
A trait assessment can help managers determine whether they have the
qualities to move up or to move to other positions in the company.
A trait assessment gives individuals a clearer picture of who they are as
leaders and how they fit into the organizational hierarchy. In areas where
their traits are lacking, leaders can try to make changes in what they do or
where they work to increase their traits potential impact.
Near the end of the chapter, a leadership instrument is provided that you can
use to assess your leadership traits. This instrument is typical of the kind of
assessments that companies use to evaluate individuals leadership potential.
As you will discover by completing this instrument, trait measures are a good
way to assess your own characteristics.
STRENGTHS ______________________________________
The trait approach has several identifiable strengths. First, the trait approach
is intuitively appealing. It fits clearly with our notion that leaders are the
individuals who are out front and leading the way in our society. The image
in the popular press and community at large is that leaders are a special kind
of peoplepeople with gifts who can do extraordinary things. The trait
approach is consistent with this perception because it is built on the premise
that leaders are different, and their difference resides in the special traits they
possess. People have a need to see their leaders as gifted people, and the trait
approach fulfills this need.
A second strength of the trait approach is that it has a century of research to
back it up. No other theory can boast of the breadth and depth of studies
conducted on the trait approach. The strength and longevity of this line of
research give the trait approach a measure of credibility that other approaches
lack. Out of this abundance of research has emerged a body of data that
points to the important role of various traits in the leadership process.
Another strength, more conceptual in nature, results from the way the trait
approach highlights the leader component in the leadership process.
Leadership is composed of leaders, followers, and situations, but the trait
approach is devoted to only the first of theseleaders. Although this is also
a potential weakness, by focusing exclusively on the role of the leader in
leadership the trait approach has been able to provide us with a deeper and
more intricate understanding of how the leader and the leaders traits are
related to the leadership process.
Last, the trait approach has given us some benchmarks for what we need to
look for if we want to be leaders. It identifies what traits we should have and
whether the traits we do have are the best traits for leadership. Based on the
findings of this approach, trait assessment procedures can be used to offer
invaluable information to supervisors and managers about their strengths and
weaknesses and ways to improve their overall leadership effectiveness.
CRITICISMS _______________________________________
In addition to its strengths, the trait approach has several weaknesses. First and
foremost is the failure of the trait approach to delimit a definitive list of leadership
traits. Although an enormous number of studies have been conducted over
the past 100 years, the findings from these studies have been ambiguous and
uncertain at times. Furthermore, the list of traits that has emerged appears endless.
This is obvious from Table 2.1, which lists a multitude of traits. In fact,
these are only a sample of the many leadership traits that were studied.
Another criticism is that the trait approach has failed to take situations into
account. As Stogdill (1948) pointed out more than 60 years ago, it is difficult
to isolate a set of traits that are characteristic of leaders without also factoring
situational effects into the equation. People who possess certain traits
that make them leaders in one situation may not be leaders in another
situation. Some people may have the traits that help them emerge as leaders
but not the traits that allow them to maintain their leadership over time. In
other words, the situation influences leadership. It is therefore difficult to
identify a universal set of leadership traits in isolation from the context in
which the leadership occurs.
A third criticism, derived from the prior two criticisms, is that this approach
has resulted in highly subjective determinations of the most important leadership
traits. Because the findings on traits have been so extensive and broad,
there has been much subjective interpretation of the meaning of the data.
This subjectivity is readily apparent in the many self-help, practice-oriented
management books. For example, one author might identify ambition and
creativity as crucial leadership traits; another might identify empathy and
calmness. In both cases, it is the authors subjective experience and observations
that are the basis for the identified leadership traits. These books may
be helpful to readers because they identify and describe important leadership
traits, but the methods used to generate these lists of traits are weak. To
respond to peoples need for a set of definitive traits of leaders, authors have
set forth lists of traits, even if the origins of these lists are not grounded in
strong, reliable research.
Research on traits can also be criticized for failing to look at traits in relationship
to leadership outcomes. This research has emphasized the identification
of traits, but has not addressed how leadership traits affect group
members and their work. In trying to ascertain universal leadership traits,
researchers have focused on the link between specific traits and leader emergence,
but they have not tried to link leader traits with other outcomes such
as productivity or employee satisfaction. For example, trait research does not
provide data on whether leaders who have high intelligence and strong
integrity have better results than leaders without these traits. The trait
approach is weak in describi
