Running head: The Ins and Outs of Being a Traitor
The Ins and Outs of Being a Traitor: The Trait Theory of Leadership Explored
Nolan Alberti
Clemson University
1
The Ins and Outs of Being a Traitor
2
The Ins and Outs of Being a Traitor: The Trait Theory of Leadership Explored
Trait theories were born out of attempts to identify what traits are possessed by effective, or great
leaders (and, as such, are sometimes called “Great Man” theories). (Northouse, p. 19) Trait
theories have taken different forms over the last several decades as various researches have
emphasized what they considered to be the key traits for leadership. Trait theory allows people to
evaluate their own leadership attributes compared to what is understood to be effective
leadership traits. This essay will discuss proponents of trait theories, studies that criticize trait
theories, and a model that examines multiple leadership theories (including trait theory) and how
valid they are.
Trait theory developed because researchers thought that it might be a legitimate theory of
leadership. Trait theories research includes notable work by Stogdill and Judge et al. Although
initially his studies challenged trait theory, in 1974 Ralph Stogdill proposed that there are certain
traits that increase the probability that certain leaders will lead their followers successfully.
(Komives, p. 46-47; business.nmsu.edu) In 2002 in another study, Judge et al found a strong
relationship between certain personality traits and leadership. The traits that this study identified
are extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, low neuroticism, and agreeableness. (Northouse,
p. 27) Other researchers emphasized the relevance of other traits in effective leadership.
(Northouse, p. 23) In my life and perception, I’ve seen the traits of extraversion,
conscientiousness, and openness present in effective leaders. All three of these traits are
characteristic of my mother (who plays a huge, positive role in my life), my boss during my
internship before my freshman year of college (who I respect immensely and learned a lot from),
popular/effective United States Presidents, and great cultural leaders like Martin Luther King.
Despite how straightforward trait theory may seem at first, there are some researchers whose
work challenges the validity of trait theory.
Critics of trait theories argue that there is not enough correlation between leadership and specific
traits, and that the theory isn’t valid because different people are leaders in different situations
(therefore situations determine leadership, not traits). Jenkins observed in his 1947 review of
military leadership that “no single trait or group of characteristics has been isolated which sets
The Ins and Outs of Being a Traitor
3
off the leader from the members of the group.” (corwin.com) In 1954, Gibb noted that
“numerous studies of the personalities of leaders have failed to find any consistent pattern of
traits which characterize leaders.” (corwin.com) In 1948, Stogdill concluded that “persons who
are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations.” (corwin.com;
Northouse, p. 20) I agree with Stogdill’s conclusions inasmuch as being a leader does not make
you a leader in every situation. For example, I am paid and qualified to lead in review of MATH
2070 as a Supplemental Instructor, but often work with/follow peers to review accounting
courses. I do not have the knowledge/abilities to lead an accounting course in the same way that I
do for business calculus.
Despite the negative feedback from many researchers regarding the validity of trait theory acting
independently, perhaps trait theory is relevant/meaningful when viewed in conjunction with
another leadership theory. In a study published in 2011, DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and
Humphrey attempted to develop an integrated model to examine the validity of theories that
leader traits and behavior explain effectiveness of that leader. The study is significant because it
attempted to quantitatively express how much leadership traits and behaviors both impact
leadership effectiveness. “Combined, leader traits and behaviors explain a minimum of 31% of
the variance in leadership effectiveness criteria. Leader behaviors tend to explain more variance
in leadership effectiveness than leader traits, but results indicate that an integrative model where
leader behaviors mediate the relationship between leader traits and effectiveness is warranted.”
(DeRue, 2011) I was intrigued by the idea of this study. One obstacle to the approach that this
study took (that I think would be practically impossible to really take into account) is that though
truly great leaders may have certain traits that make them effective, they can also gain new skills,
or at least develop them, as they develop. This study seems to favor the validity of leader
behavior in explaining leader effectiveness, which may be the case, but I don’t think that it
expresses the potential role that leader traits could play when those traits mature. As this study
shows, there are some researchers whose work challenges the validity of trait theory despite how
straightforward trait theories may seem at first.
Trait theories are appealing because they are relatively simplistic approaches to begin thinking
about leadership. They are convenient because they tend to attempt to deal in absolutes. Though
The Ins and Outs of Being a Traitor
these theories are met with opposition, trait theories are not totally useless in practice. Trait
theories are valuable because traits can be observed readily in leaders we are involved/familiar
with. Trait theory alone falls short of appropriately explaining leadership, but was a meaningful
catalyst in inspiring later research in the field of leadership theory. Perhaps, as has been argued
by some, traits alone are not a sufficient indicator of leadership, but rather a precondition after
which certain actions need to be taken to be effective. (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991)
4
The Ins and Outs of Being a Traitor
5
References
Boje (August 26, 2003). TRAITS: The Journey from Will to Power to Will to Serve. Retrieved
from http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/traits.htm#stogdill_1948
David Boje of New Mexico State University explores the origins and development of
leadership research over time.
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (in press). Trait and behavioral
theories of leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel
Psychology.
DeRue and company, who have conducted meaningful leadership theory research,
attempt to integrate multiple theories of leadership (trait and behavioral) to compare and
contrast their validity. This attempts to quantify how meaningful each theory is in
practice, and is groundbreaking in that it asses two theories rather than creating a new one
(which seems to be the common theme in leadership research).
Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991). Leadership: do traits matter? Retrieved from
http://sbuweb.tcu.edu/jmathis/Org_Mgmt_Materials/Leadership%20%20Do%20Traits%20Matgter.pdf
Kirkpatrick and Locke from the University of Maryland discuss how and if certain traits
make leaders effective. They conclude that no trait guarantees effective leadership, but
that certain traits may help the leader acquire the necessary skills to lead.
Komives, Lucas, McMahon (2007). Exploring Leadership.
Komives, Lucas, and McMahon provide an analysis of the leadership process with a
student application/challenge dynamic.
Northouse (2013). Leadership: theory and practice.
Northouse discusses a wide range of leadership theory, history, and practice, in this
prominent text in the field.
The Ins and Outs of Being a Traitor
Zaccaro, Kemp, Bader (November 26, 2003). Leader Traits and Attributes. Retrived from
http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/5014_Antonakis_Chapter_5.pdf
Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader delve into a thorough and scholarly analysis of the traits of a
leader.
6