Pros and Cons of Trait Theory

There have been several ideologies that attempted to formulate what exactly makes up a great leader. One of the earlier assumptions of what makes up a great leader is "the Great Man Theory", in which history is highly impacted by certain individuals who were genetically equipped with the correct traits to empower them to make an impact on history. This theory played great influence on Trait Theory of Leadership, which claims that leaders are born with certain traits that make them a leader. Trait Theory is highly associated with the quote "Leaders are born, not made" with the defining assumption that traits are a manifestation of a specific innate output that is genetically inherited.

Trait Theory has been argued to be correct to a certain extent is highly supported by several business articles, such as Kirkpatrick's and Locke's article "Leadership: Do Traits Matter?", in which Kirkpatrick and Locke suggest that there is irrefutable evidence that traits do matter and even go as far as defining it to 6 definite traits that make a leader, a leader. Kirkpatrick and Locke exclaim that the term "trait" is employed vaguely and is interpreted as an individual's "generic characteristic" (capacities, motives, patterns of behaviors). They argue "trait theories do not make assumptions about whether leadership traits were inherited or acquire", but rather "asserted that leaders' characteristics are different from non-leaders". They define that the 6 traits that will determine a leader's success is their individual measure of drive (determined by achievement, ambition, energy, tenacity, initiative), leadership motivation (on a personalized and socialized level), honesty & integrity, self-confidence (including emotional stability), cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business they work in.

While Trait Theory may be correct in several forms, it does pose some controversy and several counterarguments. In Judi Brownell's excerpt "Leadership in the Service of Hospitality', Brownell criticizes that one of Trait Theory's flaws that is it's inability to recognize that "no single characteristic distinguishes effective leaders from less effective ones", as later concluded from studies by Stogdill and others. It is difficult to asses what precisely is needed in leaders that accentuate success in leadership, as there are too many variables to consider (work place, work people, matter of work, condition, culture, location, demographics, etc.). Furthermore, Trait Theory downgrades an individual's ability to learn and adapt necessary skills, making a strong argument that people are unable to change. Brownell discusses in her article that during the 1950s-1960s, there were several theorists that suggested that "individuals could learn to be leaders through skill development and deliberate action". It is argued that leadership can be a transformational process for an individual, and part of leadership is growing one's self.

In summary....

Pros:

Great Man theory helps explain how some of the most renown historical figures are equipped for history-making leadership.

Traits defined by supporting articles of Trait Theory Leadership show realistic evidence of benefits of listed traits.

As it turns out, traits do undeniably play a critical role in the success of leadership.

The "term" trait is a debatable, such that there are different ways to define traits. Trait can be assumed to be something that is genetically inherited, or a characteristic that exemplifies a certain quality of an individual.

Cons:

Great Man theory does not encompass all leaders, as the term "leader" has drastically changed from the 19th century.

Individuals grow and change throughout the course of their life. Their traits are not defined by what they've inherited genetically.

Definite distinct and precise necessary traits for leadership can be challenging with the amount of variables to consider.