Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Over the years, many reviewers of trait leadership theory have commented that this approach to leadership is "too simplistic", [41] and "futile". [42] Additionally, scholars have noted that trait leadership theory usually only focuses on how leader effectiveness is perceived by followers [23] rather than a leader's actual effectiveness. [8]
In reviewing the older leadership theories, Scouller highlighted certain limitations in relation to the development of a leader's skill and effectiveness: [3] Trait theory: As Stogdill (1948) [4] and Buchanan & Huczynski (1997) had previously pointed out, this approach has failed to develop a universally agreed list of leadership qualities and "successful leaders seem to defy classification ...
In other traits, such as extraversion vs. introversion, each person is judged to lie along a spectrum. Trait theory suggests that some natural behaviours may give someone an advantage in a position of leadership. [2] There are two approaches to define traits: as internal causal properties or as purely descriptive summaries.
This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the "trait theory of leadership". A number of works in the 19th century – when the traditional authority of monarchs, lords, and bishops had begun to wane – explored the trait theory at length: especially the writings of Thomas Carlyle and of Francis Galton.
Prior to 1945 most studies of leadership sought to identify the individual traits of effective leaders. Trait theories of leadership were the first to attempt a systematic approach of studying leadership. However, these studies yielded disappointing results when no set of traits were found that explained effective leadership.
Trait activation theory posits that within a person trait levels predict future behavior, that trait levels differ between people, and that work-related cues activate traits which leads to work relevant behaviors. Role theory suggests that role senders provide cues to elicit desired behaviors.
The original theory had already proposed moderators that act as substitutes and moderators that act as neutralizers. Howell and colleagues added enhancers to these. [12] Substitutes for leadership theory was a heavily researched area until the late 1980s when transformational leadership became the focus of the majority of leadership research. [13]
Fiedler's situational contingency theory holds that group effectiveness depends on an appropriate match between a leader's style (essentially a trait measure) and the demands of the situation. In other words, effective leadership is contingent on matching leader's style to the right setting. [4]