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 ...
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.
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.
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]
Trait theory tends to focus on the individual over the situation in which they are in. [10] This focus has relaxed within modern studies allowing for a consideration of the external factors outside of the self. As the focus becomes more relaxed (but still prominent as it is a main part of the theory) research expands.
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]
Leadership analysis is the art of breaking down a leader into basic psychological components for study and use by academics and practitioners. Good leadership analysis is not reductionist, but rather takes into consideration the overall person in the context of the times, society and culture from which they come.