Three Approaches to Leadership and the Trait Theory

Leadership research has had a long argument with itself. Each generation of researchers asked a different question. Are leaders born? Are they made? Does the situation matter more than the person? Three streams of theory developed over the twentieth century, often in dialogue with each other. The first stream, the Trait Theory, started the argument by asking what kind of person becomes a leader.

The three streams

The handout names the three approaches that have dominated leadership research:

Trait theories deal with the personal characteristics of the leaders. Behavioural theories deal with the behaviour of leaders. The two view the principles of effective leadership as being universally applicable to any situation and to any organisation. The contingency theories do not deal with the universal applicability. Instead, they deal with leadership in the context of specific situations.

Two important points sit in this summary.

1. Trait and Behavioural theories claim universality. The right traits or the right behaviours work everywhere. The school can teach them. The leader can practise them.
2. Contingency theories deny universality. What works depends on the situation. The same leader who succeeds in one school may fail in another. The same approach that fits one staff may not fit another.

Management theory followed the same arc. Both fields started with universal claims and ended with contingency. The pattern is too neat to be coincidence: any field that studies people working in groups eventually discovers that context matters.

Bryman’s four phases

Alan Bryman, a British social science researcher, looked at the history of leadership research in 1992 and identified four phases:

1. Trait approach (up to the 1940s). Search for the qualities of born leaders.
2. Behavioural approach (1940s-1960s). Identify what leaders actually do.
3. Contingency approach (1960s-1980s). Match leader style to situation.
4. New leadership approach (1980s onwards). Charismatic and transformational leadership, where the leader transforms followers and organisations.

A key point from Bryman:

Although research trends have changed over the years, each new stage did not signal the end of its predecessor. Rather, a change in emphasis and perspective was indicated.

Trait research did not stop in 1940. It continues today, with newer findings on personality and leadership. Behavioural research continues too. The phases describe shifts in emphasis, not replacements.

The Trait Theory

The first stream, the Trait Theory, asked a simple question: what kind of person becomes a leader? The answers, accumulated over decades, became a long list of personal characteristics associated with leadership.

Trait theory: People are born with inherited traits. Some traits are particularly suited to leadership. People who make good leaders have the right or scientific combination of traits.

The Trait Theory is sometimes mocked as old-fashioned. It deserves a fairer reading. Modern personality research has revived parts of it, finding real (if modest) correlations between personality and leadership effectiveness. The early Trait theorists overclaimed; they were not entirely wrong.

What traits the research identified

The handout quotes Stogdill, whose 1974 review of trait research produced one of the most-cited lists:

Adaptable to situations, alert to social environment, ambitious and achievement-oriented, assertive, cooperative, decisive, dependable, dominant.

The original Stogdill list went further: persistent, self-confident, tolerant of stress, willing to assume responsibility, clever, conceptually skilled, creative, diplomatic and tactful, fluent in speaking, knowledgeable about the group’s task, organised, persuasive, socially skilled.

The list reads like a description of an idealised public figure. A skeptic would point out that very few real people have all these traits. The skeptic is right. Trait research never claimed leaders had all traits; it claimed leaders had the right combination of some of them.

A useful test

A school can ask of any candidate for a senior role: which of the trait clusters does she have, and which does she lack? A candidate strong in social skills but weak in stress tolerance will succeed in calm schools and fail in turnaround schools. A candidate strong in decisiveness but weak in diplomacy will produce results and friction at the same time. No candidate is strong in all traits; the school’s job is to match the trait profile to the role.

Emotional Intelligence and leadership

A more recent finding in the trait tradition involves emotional intelligence, popularised by Daniel Goleman in the 1990s.

EI is the best predictor of who will emerge as a leader. IQ and technical skills are threshold capabilities. They are necessary but not sufficient requirements for leadership.

Emotional intelligence has five components in Goleman’s framework:

1. Self-awareness. Knowing one’s own emotions, strengths, and weaknesses.
2. Self-management. Managing one’s emotions effectively, especially under pressure.
3. Motivation. Internal drive towards goals; persistence.
4. Empathy. Understanding others’ emotions and perspectives.
5. Social skills. Building relationships, influence, conflict handling.

The finding that EI predicts leadership emergence better than IQ shifted the conversation. A school principal does not need to be the smartest person in the building. She needs to be the most emotionally intelligent person in the building.

This is good news for hiring and developing leaders. EI can be measured (imperfectly) and can be developed. The framework is testable and trainable in a way that older trait theories were not.

The limits of Trait Theory

The Trait Theory has been criticised on several grounds. Three matter most.

1. The traits list keeps growing. Each new study adds traits without removing old ones. The list becomes unwieldy.
2. The traits do not predict outcomes reliably. A person with the trait profile of a leader sometimes fails to lead. A person without it sometimes succeeds. The correlation is real but weak.
3. The theory ignores the situation. A trait that works in one situation fails in another. A decisive leader in a crisis is essential; the same trait in a quiet steady-state school can produce abrasive results.

The criticism opened the door to the second stream of research: the Behavioural Theory, which asked not what leaders are but what they do.

Flashcard

What are the three streams of leadership research, and what does each ask?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Trait, Behavioural, and Contingency.

1. Trait. What kind of person becomes a leader? Looks at personal characteristics. Universal claims: the right traits work everywhere.

2. Behavioural. What do leaders actually do? Looks at observable behaviour. Universal claims: the right behaviours work everywhere.

3. Contingency. Which approach works in which situation? Looks at context. No universal claims: what works depends on the situation.

Each stream continues today. Newer phases (charismatic and transformational leadership) build on top, but none of the earlier streams stopped. Bryman (1992) calls these the four phases of leadership research.