Summary
The Trait Approach to leadership represents a step forward from the Great Man Theory. Beginning in the 1920’s or so, some began to see leadership not as much as belong to a few, almost divinely anointed men. Theorists who embraced the Trait Approach believed that there were certain qualities which made people leaders. Fleenor (2006) quoted a list of traits found in one study to be associated with leaders; these included stamina, intelligence, decisiveness, trustworthiness, and skill in dealing with people.
Roberts (2007) describes in more detail the advent of this theoretical framework. He wrote that “early twentieth century industrialization inspired fabled stories of men and women who rose to great power and privilege from immigrant and poor backgrounds” (Roberts, 2007, p. 42). Men such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller fit this profile. Seeking an explanation for the ascent of these people, theorists examined who they were. Roberts noted that “these new industrial-era leaders were distinguished by their imposing or attractive appearance, ingenuity, perseverance, and intelligence” (Roberts, 2007, p. 43) to go along with “the sheer force of their interpersonal influence” (Roberts, 2007, p. 43).
Research using this approach has not been uniformly successful. Komives, Lucas, and McMahon (2013, p. 62) believed that “research failed to produce a list of traits to insure which characteristics leaders must have to be effective.” Fleener (2006) noted that many early studies found no differences in leadership characteristics between leaders and followers. Some studies found only small relationships between traits and leadership effectiveness. As seen above, it is difficult to separate out the many traits which might be related to leadership.
Fleener (2006, p. 831) noted “somewhat of a resurgence in research on the trait approach to leadership.” He touted “conceptual models linking leadership attributes to organizational performance” (Fleener, 2006, p. 831) as a positive development. Researchers have done successful studies about traits and performance or situational success.
The Trait Approach, which lives on, represents a bridge between the Great Man Theory and other approaches which emphasize behavior and situation.
Pros of the theory
- It advances the concept of leadership from a quality that a few people are born with into a set of characteristics which may be more available to common people.
- It is slightly less sexist than the Great Man Theory.
- We all kind of know at some level that personality has something, perhaps much, to do with leadership.
- This approach has inspired much research on leadership, which has led to the development of later theories.
Cons of the theory
- It is fairly difficult to measure traits and their effectiveness for leaders.
- A few traits, such as height, can not be taught; others are difficult to teach.
- It is still sexist, because many of the traits associated with leadership are associated with men (Fleenor, 2006).
- Behavior may be more important than traits, at the end of the day.
- It fails to account for the role of followers.
- It does not account for the critical role the situation plays.
Practical implications for teaching college students
The trait theory may provide values or skills which could be taught to college students. A student or a group which lacks a certain trait may find success after adding it (which can be a complicated process). The Trait Approach may well be most beneficial in combination with other approaches. For example, an understanding of which traits are conducive to success in a given setting could inform or customize leadership training. It could be argued that the trait theory stands in the background of much training in behavior. It is often the case than an external behavioral change will lead to an internal change; for example, someone who learns techniques for talking with people may very well become more extraverted over time.
References
Fleener, J. W. (2006). Trait approach to leadership. In Rogelberg, S. G. (ed.). 2006. Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/northouseintro2e/study/chapter/encyclopedia/encyclopedia2.1.pdf
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2013). Exploring leadership for college students who want to make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, D. C. (2007). Deeper learning in leadership: Helping college students find the potential within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leadership Development for Higher Education | Saint Louis University 
Do you think that trait theory may have been less popular because our culture tends to downplay “traits” as they pertain to males and females? That being, as I think of what traits the perfect quarterback is “supposed” to have Tom Brady fits the bill, however, Tim Tebow does not, particularly in the physical aspect, which would overshadow his ability to perform. As such those traits which are found to be “attractive” in western culture are heavily discouraged as they are unhealthy for young women. With this in mind, do you think that research tapered off because of our cultural biases and/or preferences?
I see the decline in the popularity of the trait approach as part of the evolution of leadership theory. In the scientific world, theories are modified or abandoned when the fail to explain subsequent phenomena. Later theories appropriately recognized that the situation plays a critical role and that behaviors are easier to measure and easier to change. Leadership theory acquired more of an egalitarian flavor. It is not a stretch to speculate that in the United States, Watergate reduced the amount of trust people had in leaders.
The Tebow/Brady comparison is interesting. Tebow and Brady are of similar height and weight. One could say that they both have leadership qualities, as they both have led (if you will) their teams to championships (college for one, professional for the other). The big difference is their ability to throw the ball. Brady can throw the ball all over the field, while Tebow is mediocre at throwing. I don’t know that throwing ability is necessarily a leadership skill. I recall hearing a sports commentator say that they would like to transplant Tebow’s heart into the body of a player who was more gifted physically but didn’t put forth the effort. While writing this, I wondered where the border between a trait and a skill is- this could be a topic of further discussion.
Do you mean that while males might be praised for being assertive, women who act in the same way are seen as bossy? If so, I agree that this is a concern. This kind of double standard could threaten the trait approach, but I think the move away from the trait approach began before this double standard reached widespread public awareness. I may have missed your point about unhealthy characterisitcs.
I thought Tebow was shorter than 6’3″, good catch, but the traits that essentially keep him from an NFL career do center around skill, and being a lefty. I can’t deny his leadership ability on the field, at least in college and his first year in the NFL. However, I think he has traits that keep him from playing. As far as women, bossy isn’t necessarily what I was eluding to, but it does fit. I was thinking more along the lines of body image, that being what models portray is becoming more socially unacceptable. I hate to have to dance around this issue, but I’m going to.
To be more precise with Tebow, I am not sure whether it is a matter of his throwing ability or his technique; it could be a little bit of both. Being left-handed is not a total deal-breaker for quarterbacks, but left-handed quarterbacks seem to be rare; Steve Young was left-handed, for example. This is relevant to his performance on the field but would not be relevant in a different setting, of course. I kind of want to separate the throwing ability and technique from leadership, but I am not sure I can totally do this.