Trait Theory vs Behavioural Theory
Similarities
- Both emphasise that there are identifiable actions any leader must be capable of doing.
- Both see leadership as an objective set of qualities or actions to be mastered.
- Both see mastery as the path to leadership: whether through inheritance or training, the leader must acquire the right qualities or behaviours.
Differences
| Dimension | Trait Theory | Behavioural Theory |
|---|---|---|
| Where leadership comes from | Inherited innate qualities | Proper training |
| Who can lead | Those born with the right traits | Anyone who learns the behaviours |
| Implication for development | Limited | Optimistic |
| Politics of leadership | Aristocratic / inegalitarian | Democratic / egalitarian |
A worked example
Two people, one from a “weak willed” family, one from a “powerful executive” family.
- Trait Theory. The second is more likely to be a good leader by inheritance.
- Behavioural Theory. Their upbringings produced different habits; either could be a good leader with proper training. Switching their upbringings would have switched their leadership profiles.
The Trait Theory and the Behavioural Theory are sometimes presented as opposites, but they share more than the contrast suggests. Both treat leadership as something objective, something identifiable, something studied scientifically. Where they differ is on whether the qualities are born in or trained in. Reading them side by side clarifies both and points to the move the Contingency Theory eventually made past both.
The similarities
The theories have three main similarities. Both approaches emphasise that there are identifiable actions any leader must be capable of doing in any given situation.
Three points of agreement.
- Leadership has identifiable content. It is not a vague aura. There are specific qualities or behaviours to look for.
- The content can be studied and measured. Researchers can list traits or observe behaviours. Both theories produced testable claims.
- Mastery is the path to leadership. Whether through inheritance or training, the path involves acquiring or developing the right qualities or behaviours.
These shared assumptions matter. They show that the field, even in its disagreements, agreed that leadership was an objective thing to be understood. The contingency move was a deeper break with both traditions, because it questioned whether leadership had universal content at all.
Behaviour as a kind of trait
There is a subtle point worth noticing. Behaviourism is a “trait” theory in the sense that it too says leaders must show certain common personality markers or habits of mind. Its claim is that these habits can be developed in anyone, with no single person having more inherent potential than another.
A behaviour, once learned, becomes a habit. A habit, displayed consistently, looks like a trait. The Behavioural Theory holds that what looks like a leader’s “trait” is actually a well-developed habit, learned through experience and training. This means the Behavioural Theory is not as different from the Trait Theory as it first sounds; the difference is in the origin of the qualities, not in whether the qualities exist.
The differences
Behaviourism is the more “democratic” theory. On the behaviourist view, becoming a leader is a matter of proper training. Trait theory holds that a leader must have certain inherent, innate qualities.
The core difference: where does the leadership ability come from?
| Question | Trait Theory’s answer | Behavioural Theory’s answer |
|---|---|---|
| Where does leadership come from? | Birth, inheritance, nature | Training, experience, environment |
| Who can lead? | Those born with the right traits | Anyone with proper training |
| What is development? | Of limited value; you have it or you do not | Central; training is how leaders are made |
| What about an aristocratic vs working-class candidate? | The aristocrat is more likely to lead | Either could lead, given equivalent training |
The contrast is sometimes summarised as: Trait Theory is aristocratic, Behavioural Theory is democratic. The two theories are also testimonies to their times. The Trait approach was at its strongest when the world was still largely hierarchical. The Behavioural approach grew during the post-war democratisation of work.
The worked example
A specific example makes the difference clear. Take two people. One was born into a family known for letting people take advantage of them. The other was born into a family of powerful executives, sometimes described as “born leaders”. The person from the first family is likely to develop the habits of servility; the second is likely to develop the habits of assertiveness. Behaviourism argues that if their upbringings were switched, they would each have developed differently. Either could be a good leader, given proper training.
Behaviourism rejects fixed leadership potential. Two children, swapped at birth, would have produced two different adult leadership profiles. The first child, raised in the executive family, would have developed executive habits. The second, raised in the other family, would have developed other habits. The “innate” leadership some people seem to have is, on this view, just early and consistent practice.
This worked example is sharper than most school situations, but the underlying point is useful. A school that hires only from “leadership families” is using Trait Theory thinking. A school that develops emerging leaders from any background is using Behavioural Theory thinking. Both types of schools exist. The second type tends to produce more leaders.
A practical reading of both
A school head does not have to pick one theory as her favourite. She can use both in different parts of her work.
- Trait Theory is useful for early diagnosis. A new teacher’s natural tendencies (decisiveness, warmth, social skill, persistence) shape what kind of leader she might become. Reading the tendencies helps the school place her well.
- Behavioural Theory is useful for development. Once placed, the teacher develops through deliberate practice. Specific behaviours are coached and refined. The Behavioural Theory provides the toolkit.
A school that uses only Trait Theory thinking labels people early and stops developing them. A school that uses only Behavioural Theory thinking ignores natural tendencies and tries to coach everyone in the same direction. The blended approach is what works.
Where both theories still fall short
Both theories share the same blind spot that the Contingency Theory eventually exposed.
Trait theory and behaviourism are two similar approaches to questions about effective leadership. They both see leadership as an objective set of qualities or actions that must be mastered. They differ on who can develop these behaviours.
Both Trait and Behavioural theories are similar approaches to effective leadership. Both see leadership as an objective set of qualities or actions to be mastered. They differ on who can develop those qualities. But both treat the right answer as universal, and both struggle to explain why the same person succeeds in one school and fails in another.
The Contingency Theory pulled out the missing piece: the situation. The trait and behavioural theorists had been studying half the equation. The other half was the context the leader was operating in. Putting both halves together is the modern position.
Leadership has identifiable, objective content.
Both theories agree that leadership consists of specific qualities or behaviours that can be studied and measured. Both also see mastery (through inheritance or training) as the path to leadership.
A second card draws the difference between the two.
Where the leadership qualities come from.
- Trait Theory. Inherited, innate qualities. The aristocratic son is more likely to lead than the working-class daughter, given equal opportunity.
- Behavioural Theory. Learned habits and behaviours. Either of those candidates could lead if properly trained.
That same logic applies to how whole school programmes are designed.
How was this article?