Trait Theory

• Early view: leaders are born with specific traits (Great Man Theory); trait approaches sought to identify universal qualities.

• Historical findings:

  • 100 studies summarized by Stogdill (1948) and Mann (1959) aimed to distinguish leaders from nonleaders by traits.

  • Nearly 80 different traits identified; only about five traits were common across four or more studies.

  • Common trait areas included drive (achievement, ambition, energy, tenacity, initiative); cognitive ability; honesty/integrity; self‑confidence; knowledge of business; desire to lead; interpersonal understanding.

• Key takeaways:

  • No universal trait list; power of traits to predict leadership is modest.

  • Leadership emerges from a combination of multiple traits rather than a single trait.

  • GLOBE findings: some universal leadership elements exist, but many are culturally contingent; context matters.

• Critiques:

  • Early traits often reflected the era (male, Caucasian, authoritarian norms); physical appearance not a requirement for leadership.

  • Trait power to predict effective leadership is limited; context and behaviors also matter.

Behavioral Theories

• Shift from trait focus to leadership behaviors; leadership can be learned and developed through experience, training, and motivation (not just born).

Lewin's Behavioral Study (1930s)

• Styles studied: Authoritarian, Democratic, Laissez‑Faire.

• Findings:

  • Democratic: high group morale, positive relations, creativity, and work continuity when leader absent.

  • Authoritarian: higher productivity but higher aggression and tension.

  • Laissez‑Faire: low satisfaction, poor cooperation, lowest output.

Ohio State Leadership Studies

• Focus: identify independent dimensions of leader behavior.

• Instrument: Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire.

• Two dimensions:

  • ext{Consideration for people} (relationship behavior)

  • ext{Initiating structure} (task orientation)

• Key points:

  • These dimensions are independent and can co-occur at varying levels.

  • High in both dimensions tends to associate with higher satisfaction and performance, but situational factors were not originally included.

• Figure reference: Matrix of high/low considering and structure (not shown here).

University of Michigan Studies

• Two dimensions of leadership behavior:

  • Employee‑centered (people focus, interpersonal relations, consideration of individual differences)

  • Production‑centered (task focus, technical aspects, end goals)

• Findings:

  • General supervision (supportive, nonauthoritarian) produced higher productivity than production‑centered supervision.

  • Productivity not strongly tied to employee satisfaction.

• Likert extension (1961):

  • Job‑centered managers least effective; employee‑centered managers most effective; effective managers set clear goals but empower employees to achieve them.

Blake and Mouton's Leadership Grid

• Framework: two axes from 1 to 9:

  • ext{Concern for People} (vertical)

  • ext{Concern for Production} (horizontal)

• Five major positions (grid coordinates):

  • Impoverished management: (1,1)

  • Authority‑compliance (task): (9,1)

  • Middle‑of‑the‑road management: (5,5)

  • Country club management: (1,9)

  • Team management (ideal): (9,9)

• Descriptions:

  • Impoverished: low concern for people and production; minimal effort.

  • Authority‑compliance: high focus on production, little concern for people; autocratic efficiency.

  • Middle‑of‑the‑road: balance that is hard to sustain; may appear political.

  • Country club: high concern for people, low focus on production.

  • Team: high concern for both people and production; theoretically optimal but rarely achieved.

• 1991 additions:

  • Opportunistic management: uses any style as needed for personal gain.

  • Paternalistic management: uses both (1,9) and (9,1) but does not integrate them; rewards loyalty and punishes noncompliance.

Conclusion and Contingency Perspective

• Trait and behavioral theories highlighted differences but failed to produce a single, universal set of traits or behaviors.

• Evidence shows modest relationships and context matters; no one style fits all situations.

• Evolution to contingency theories: leadership effectiveness depends on the leader, task, followers, and the organizational context.

• Contemporary relevance: contingencies help explain leadership in dynamic environments (e.g., healthcare reform, diverse workforces).

Quick Reference Concepts

• Leaders vs. Managers: Leaders inspire vision and change; managers plan and execute tasks; both are needed.

  • Key quote: "Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things."

• Traits: born with potential, but power to predict is limited; cultural context matters.

• Behaviors: can be developed; two core dimensions (Ohio State) and two dimensions (Michigan) guide understanding of leadership styles.

• Grid and styles: Blake & Mouton provide a practical map of how concern for people and production interact; 9×9 ideal is rare.

• Contingency: effectiveness depends on situational factors; adaptive leadership is emphasized.