TRAIT APPROACH

Some of the leaders in the history have always been identified as strong leaders based on
the qualities or traits that they display. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi,
Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, Narayana Murthy of Infosys, Apple‟s Cofounder
Steve Jobs etc. has been identified, based on the traits that they displayed. For Thus, the trait
theories of leadership consider personal qualities and characteristics that differentiate
leaders from non-leaders (Robbins et al, 2007).
In the beginning, the assumption behind trait theory was that „leaders are born and not
made‟. This concept was popularly known as the „Great Man Theory‟ of leadership. The
great man theory was originally proposed by Thomas Carlyle in 1949 and the assumption
behind this theory is that „great leaders will arise, when there is great need‟. The theory
also assumes that a leader cannot be a normal person and they are different from theaverage
person in terms of personality traits such as intelligence, perseverance and ambition. However,
a proposition of „Great Woman‟ finds no place, especially in leadership studies mainly due to
the fact that gender issues were out of context, when the theory was proposed and moreover,
it was only male members of the society who were into such research and such biasness was
hardly realized by the people then.
In the period of 1960s, various research studies were made on the traits of a leader and
about 80 traits that a leader could display was identified. The trait theory assumes that
leaders are born with inherited traits and good leaders have the right combination of
traits. In 1974, stogdill identified certain traits that are essential for a leader,
which are Adaptable to situations, Alert to social environment, Ambitious and achievement
oriented, Assertive, Cooperative ,Decisive dependable, desire to influence others, Energetic
(high activity level), Persistent, Self-confident, tolerant to stress and willing to take
responsibility etc.

A related line of research addresses leader skills, as opposed to personality traits, in

the belief that skill is required to implement the traits in leadership roles. Three basic cat-
egories of skills have been proposed: technical, conceptual, and interpersonal. Technical
skills include knowledge of work operations; procedures and equipment; and markets,
clients, and competitors. Conceptual skills include the ability to analyze complex events
and perceive trends, recognize changes, and identify problems.Interpersonal skills include
an understanding of interpersonal and group processes, the ability to maintain coopera-
tive relationships with people, and persuasive ability. In general, the research supports
the conclusion that technical, conceptual, and interpersonal skills are necessary in most
leadership positions.

Most reviews of leadership traits have been qualitative. In addition, they have lacked a
common organizing framework. A breakthrough came when researchers began organizing traits
around the Big five personality factors, giving support to traits as a predictors of leadership.
Over the past 25 years, a consensus has emerged among researchers regarding the basic
factors that make up what we call personality. These factors, commonly called the Big Five, are
neuroticism, extraversion (surgency), openness (intellect), agreeableness, and
conscientiousness
Judge et al. (2002) conducted a major meta-analysis of 78 leadership and personality studies
and 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.
Another trait that has been identified with leadership is the Emotional Intelligence (EI).
Advocates of EI argue that without it, a person can have outstanding Training, a highly
analytical mind, a compelling vision, and an endless supply of terrific Ideas, but still not make a
great leader. The general assumption is that, empathetic leaders, (empathy a component of EI)
can sense others‟ needs, listen to what followers say (and don‟t say), and are able to
understand and relate with others.

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
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.
the trait approach has been able to provide us with a deeper and more intricate understanding
of how the leader and the leader’s personality 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 and how to improve them.
Criticism
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
Another criticism is that the trait approach has failed to take situations into account. People
who possess certain traits that make them leaders in one situation may not be leaders in
another situation 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 these—leaders.
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 The trait approach is weak in describing
how leaders’ traits affect the outcomes of groups and teams in organizational settings.
A final criticism of the trait approach is that it is not a useful approach for training and
development for leadership. Even if definitive traits could be identified, teaching new traits is
not an easy process because traits are not easily changed.

Behavioural Theories
In the 1940s, apart from the research studies being conducted on the traits displayed by
leaders, research was also conducted on the behaviours exhibited by leaders. The first and
foremost study on leadership was carried out by psychologist, Kurt Lewin and his
associates in 1939 and identified different styles of leadership, viz. autocratic, democratic
and laissez-faire leadership. While the assumption behind traits theory is that „leaders are
born, rather than made‟, behavioural
theories assume that specific behavioural patterns of leaders can be acquired through
learning and experience. While the trait theory concentrates on „what the leaders are‟, the
behavioural theories concentrate on „what the leaders do‟.
(1) Ohio State Studies
In one research project meant to study leader behavior, known as the Ohio State Leadership
Studies, at least two research teams worked separately on the research data before the two
underlying factors finally emerged and became popular. The study narrowed the leadership
behaviours into two categories, viz. initiating structure and consideration, under which the
various leadership behaviours were included.
(i)
Initiating Structure: Initiating structure refers to the extent to which a leader is
likely to define and structure his or her role and those of employees in the search
for goal attainment. It includes behaviour that attempts to organize work, work
relationships, and goals. A leader with initiating structure is generally task
oriented, with focus on performance of employees and meeting of deadlines.
(ii)
Consideration: As per „consideration‟ category, a leader pays more attention to
the employee of the organization rather than the task and shows concern for thewell-being,
comfort and satisfaction of employees. That is, a leader focuses on the

relationships that are characterised by mutual trust, respect for employees‟ ideas,

and regard for their feelings.

The University of Michigan also started their research almost the same time as the Ohio state
research. They identified clusters of effective leader behaviour that contributed to
effectiveness. Originally, these were thought to be the opposite ends of a continuum, but later
on, they were reconceptualized as two separate dimensions:
(a) Employee orientation: The supervisor’s behaviour conveys his belief that ‘human relations’
are an important aspect of the job, and that he considers employees to be human beings of
intrinsic importance, takes an interest in them, and accepts their individuality and personal
needs.
(b) Task / Production orientation: A production oriented-leaders paid attention to the technical
aspects of the job or the tasks assigned to the employees, rather than on employees. Such
leaders gave least importance to the group members, and regarded the employees as only a
means to achieve the ends, that is, the goals of an organization.
The implication was that while the behaviour of all leaders contained elements of both, some
leaders appear more task-oriented and some appear more relationship oriented.
(3) The Managerial Grid
Like the Ohio State studies and Michigan studies, the Managerial Grid theory of
leadership was also based on the styles of „concern for people‟ and „concern for production‟.
The Managerial Grid theory of leadership was proposed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in
1964. This theory which is depicted in a graphical form is also known as the „Leadership Grid
Theory‟. The grid is a nine-by-nine matrix which outlines 81 different styles of leadership. The
Grid has 9 possible positions along each axis creating 81 different positions in which the
Leader‟s style may fall. Through the Managerial Grid, 5 kinds of Leadership Style was identified,
which include the following:
1. The impoverished (1, 1) manager is least concerned about people as well as for production.
This leadership style is dominated by the desire to avoid risk, postpone dealing with difficult
issues within the organisation, such as conflict, meet the lowest job requirements and pay
attention to the people so as to get the minimum required production. Organisational purpose
or positive relationships among personnel are not important for such managers.
2. The ‘task-master’ style (9, 1) manager, as can be easily predicted, is highly concerned about
production and least concerned about people. Operating out of the ‘control’ paradigm, this
style is characterized by measurements of output, strict adherence to authority and obedience
by the staff. This leadership style focuses on task completion towards achieving the
organisational purpose, allowing little consideration for the needs and problems of the
personnel.
3. The ‘country club’ style (1, 9) manager is a conceptual opposite of the task-master. This style
is characterised by concern for people so high that it overshadows the production—that is how
the style derives its name—such that it seems as if people have come to a club, not a work
organisation, in order to have a nice time. Accordingly, happiness and harmony among the staff
as well as their protection by the leader enjoy the highest priority, while the organisational
goals or purpose take a back seat.
4. The ‘middle-of-the-roader’ (5, 5) manager balances the organisational demands and the
needs of the people who work towards those. Superficially, it might appear to present the best
of both. However, a closer examination reveals that neither orientation is developed to its
fullest, and that under the declaration of concern for the employees, the manager’s
preoccupation with control may be very strong.
5. The effective style (9, 9) shows high concern for both people and production. This style of
managers is called effective because the involvement of the people in organisational processes
is believed to be important. Unlike the country club style were keeping people happy is
sometimes to the detriment of the organisation, under this style, the relationships are
appropriately based around task issues. Conflict is treated as a natural phenomenon.
This theory, thus offers a useful framework for conceptualizing and understanding the
leadership styles.
Though behavioural theories make its contribution in understanding leadership effectiveness, it
cannot be considered as the utmost option, to determine the success of leadership. In other
words, it cannot be said with utmost clarity that a leader depicting a certain kind of leadership
traits and behaviours are always successful. At times, the situational contexts play a strong role
in determining the effectiveness of leaders.
Contingency Theories
Because researchers were unable to discover a specific set of traits or behaviors that predicted
effective leadership, they began to consider the role of the situation. In the 1960s, contingency
theories grew out of this new approach to the study of leadership. Contingency theories differ
from both trait and behavioral theories by formally taking into account situational or contextual
variables. These theories examine the interaction of characteristics of the leader and the
situation, stating that effective leadership depends on the proper match between the two.
Contingency theories recognise the interaction of leader behavior and the situation. Following
are the major contingency theories as discussed below:
The Fiedler Model
Fred Fiedler developed the first comprehensive contingency model for leadership.15 The
Fiedler contingency model proposes that effective group performance depends on the
Proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives
The leader control.
Identifying Leadership Style Fiedler believes a key factor in leadership success is
The individual’s basic leadership style. He created the least preferred co-worker (LPC)
Questionnaire to identify that style by measuring whether a person is task or relationship
oriented. The LPC questionnaire asks respondents to think of all the co-workers
They have ever had and describe the one they least enjoyed working with by rating
That person on a scale of 1 to 8 for each of 16 sets of contrasting adjectives (such as
Pleasant–unpleasant, efficient–inefficient, open–guarded, supportive–hostile). If you describe
the person you are least able to work with in favorable terms (a high LPC score),
Fiedler would label you relationship oriented. If you see your least-preferred co-worker
In unfavorable terms (a low LPC score), you are primarily interested in productivity and
Are task oriented.
Fiedler assumes an individual’s leadership style is fixed. This means if a situation
Requires a task-oriented leader and the person in the leadership position is relationship
Oriented, either the situation has to be modified or the leader has to be replaced to achieve
Optimal effectiveness.
Defining the Situation After assessing an individual’s basic leadership style
Through the LPC questionnaire, we match the leader with the situation. Fiedler has identified
three contingency or situational dimensions:
1. Leader–member relations is the degree of confidence, trust, and respect members
Have in their leader.
2. Task structure is the degree to which the job assignments are procedurized (that
Is, structured or unstructured).
3. Position power is the degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as
Hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases.
Situations are favorable to the leader if all three of these dimensions are high. In other
Words, if the leader is generally accepted and respected by followers, if the task is very
structured and If a great deal of authority and power are formally attributed to the leader’s
position (high
Third dimension), the situation is favorable. If the opposite exists (if the three dimensions
Are low), the situation will be very unfavorable for the leader. Fiedler concluded through his
Research that the favorableness of the situation in combination with the leadership style
Determines effectiveness.
Through the analysis of research findings from all types of situations, Fiedler was able to
Discover that under very favorable and very unfavorable situations, the task-oriented ,type of
leader was most effective. However, when the situation
Was only moderately favorable or unfavorable (the intermediate range of favorableness), the
Relationship-oriented type of leader was most effective. Combining the three contingency
dimensions
yields eight possible situations in which leaders can find themselves. Fiedler model proposes
matching an individual’s LPC score and these eight situations to
achieve maximum leadership effectiveness.17 Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders
perform better in situations very favorable to them and very unfavorable. So, when
faced with a category I, II, III, VII, or VIII situation, task-oriented leaders perform better.
Relationship-oriented leaders, however, perform better in moderately favorable situations—
categories IV, V, and VI.
Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model : One of the major models that were
developed in the leadership studies is that of
the Situational Leadership Theory (SLT), that was put forward by Paul Hersey and Ken
Blanchard. The focus of this theory is laid on the followers and the readiness that
followers show in accepting a leadership. The basic assumption behind this theory is that,
it is the followers who accept or reject a leader and thus, effectiveness of a leader also
depends on their followers. Thus, regardless of what a leader does, effectiveness of
leadership depends upon the actions of the followers. By readiness, Hersey and
Blanchard mean to say the extent to which people have the ability and willingness to
accomplish a specific task set by the leader. According to Hersey and Blanchard there are four
types of leadership behaviour that depends upon the ability and willingness of followers to
perform a given task. A leader should choose one of four behaviors depending on follower
readiness. If followers are unable and unwilling to do a task, the leader needs to give clear and
specific directions (“telling” style, low follower readiness [R1]); if they are unable and willing,
the leader needs to display high task orientation and high relationship orientation (“selling”
style, low-to-moderate follower readiness [R2]). If followers are able and unwilling, the leader
needs to use a supportive and participative style (“participating” style, moderate-to-high
follower readiness [R3]); if they are both able and willing, the leader doesn’t need to do
much(“delegating” style, high readiness [R4]).
This theory, thus gives a new dimension to the study of leadership, and the aspects that
appeals in this theory is the importance given to the followers and the capacity of the
leader to compensate for the ability and motivational limitations in their followers.
However, in spite of the wide recognition and popularity that this theory has gained, it is
said to have internal ambiguities and inconsistencies.

Path-Goal Theory was developed by Martin Evans and Robert House in 1970-71, taking
inputs from the concept of initiating structure and consideration of the Ohio State
Studies and the Expectancy Theory of Motivation. The base behind Path-Goal theory is
that effective leaders clarify the path to help their followers to move forward from their
current position towards achieving the work goals which enhaces their motivation and provides
satisfaction. In this process, the leader reduces the
roadblock that occurs in the path of the followers, and makes their journey easier. Thus,
the essence of path goal theory is that, it is the leader‟s job to provide the followers with
the information, support and other resources, necessary for them to achieve their goals
(Robbins, Judge, & Sanghi, 2007).
This theory identifies four types of leadership behaviour, viz. directive leader, supportive
leader, participative leader and achievement-oriented leader. Unlike Fiedler, who
assumes the leader to follow a fixed leadership style, the theory put forward by House,
assumes the leader to be a flexible person, who can display different kinds of behaviours
based on a given situation. The four types of leadership behaviour, identified by Robert
House are as follows:
(i)
Directive Leader: A directive leader clarifies the followers of the role expected of
them, schedules the work to be done and gives the needed direction or guidance
as to how to accomplish tasks;
(ii)
Supportive Leader: A supportive leader behaves in an friendly manner with the
followers, and the main concern of the leader is placed on the needs of the
followers, rather than on accomplishing the tasks;
(iii)
Participative Leader: A participative leader involves the followers in the
consultation process and also gets the suggestions or views of the followers,
before making a decision;
(iv)
Achievement-Oriented Leader: An achievement oriented leader set challenging
goals for the followers and expects them to perform at their highest level.
The above mentioned leadership styles under the path-goal theory is contingent upon two
factors such as, characteristics of employees and environmental factors. While
environmental factors include aspects such as task structure, formal authority system, work
group, etc. employee characteristics include aspects like locus of control,
experience, perceived ability, etc.

(5) Leader-Participation Model

The Leader-Participation Model was developed by Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton in
1973 and this theory is called Normative Model. This model was called normative, as it provided
a sequential set of rules that should be followed in determining the form and amount of
participation in decision making, as determined by different types of situations.
According to this model, three set of variables affect the performance of the leader in
terms of his/ her capacity as a decision maker, which include:
 Quality of the decision;
 Degree of acceptance of the decision by subordinates; and
 Time required in making the decision.
Thus, based on the variables identified, Vroom and Yetton defined 5 different kinds of
decision making procedures. That is, it represents a continuum from authoritarian
approaches (AI, AII), Consultative approaches (CI, CII) and a group based approach (G2)
which is as follows:
 A1: Leader takes known information and then decides alone.
 A2: Leader gets information from followers, and then decides alone.
 C1: Leader shares problem with followers individually, listens to ideas and then
decides alone.
 C2: Leader shares problems with followers as a group, listens to ideas and then
decides alone.
 G2: Leader shares problems with followers as a group and then seeks and accepts
consensus agreement.
The contingency theories that make an analysis of situational context, thus brings to light

The challenging role that a leader has to play