Trait theory

The “great man” theory

In the 19th century Thomas Carlyle, in his lectures On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1841), presented history as the work of outstanding individuals. From this strand came the belief that leaders are born, and that science should discover the traits that mark out born leaders.

Stogdill's review (1948)

A turning point was Ralph Stogdill's 1948 review of over a hundred studies. Stogdill found traits more common among leaders (e.g. intelligence, alertness, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-confidence, sociability), but concluded that a set of traits alone does not make a leader - what matters is the relationship between the person's traits and the demands of the situation. This opened the way to the behavioural approach and contingency theories.

The return of traits

From the 1980s trait research returned in a new form. A meta-analysis by Timothy Judge and colleagues (2002) using the Big Five model found that leader emergence and effectiveness are most strongly related to extraversion, followed by conscientiousness and openness to experience; neuroticism is negatively related. Together, however, personality traits explain only part of the variance.

Other research areas include general intelligence, emotional intelligence and the “dark side” of traits such as narcissism (see selection of leaders).

Assessment

Strengths: intuitive, a long research tradition, useful in recruitment and self-knowledge.

Weaknesses: ignores the situation and relationships with others; lists of traits differ between authors; says little about how to develop leaders.

A Christian perspective

The Bible often shows God calling people who, humanly speaking, do not look like “born leaders” - Moses, who says he is not eloquent (Exod 4:10), or David, the youngest of Jesse's sons (1 Sam 16). More important than innate traits is character, shaped by grace and formation.