Trait approach

The trait approach was one of the first attempts at studying leadership. Trait theory focuses on analysing the characteristics or traits of great and effective leaders. This theory purports that certain people were born with leadership traits: this implied that only certain individuals are capable of effective leadership. Stogdill (1974, pp. 35– 63)presumedthat no consistent set of traits differentiated leaders from non-leaders. He reasoned that an effective leader in one situation might not be a good leader in another situation. According to Stogdill (pp. 35–63), the average person that fulfilled a leadership role differed from an average non-leader in terms of:

 intelligence  alertness  insight  responsibility  initiative  persistence  self-confidence  sociability

Stogdill (1974, pp. 35-63) identified traits that were positively linked to good leadership. The list includes the following characteristics:

 has the drive for responsibility and task completion

 has vigour and persistence in pursuing goals

 is venturesome and original in problem solving

43

 has self-confidence

 is willing to accept the consequences of his or her decisions and actions

 is prepared to absorb personal stress

 is willing to tolerate frustration and delay

 is able to influence others

 has the capacity to structure social interaction systems

According to Owen (2005, p. xv), key traits that were associated with top-leadership in any organisation included skills in motivating others, sustaining one’s vision, being honest and behaving with integrity, decisiveness, and the ability to handle crises. Northouse (2001, p. 19), on the other hand, asserted that leadership involved five major traits.

Intelligence. Northouse (2001, pp.19-20) assumed that intelligence was positively linked to leadership. He argued that possession of strong communicative, perceptual and reasoning abilities made one a better leader. He, nonetheless, assumed that a leader’s intellectual capacity must not exceed that of his or her followers by far. Leaders that have higher intellectual abilities than their followers, regularly have difficulty when they try to communicate their leadership to subordinates.

Self-confidence. Self-confidence is the degree to which a person is self-assured in his or her own judgments, decision making, ideas, and capabilities. Self-confidence is a trait that actually enhances a leader’s potential. According to Northouse (2001, p. 19), this quality included self-assurance. Leaders with self-confidence stood a better chance of influencing other workers, a matter that is vital in any leadership role. A leader with a positive self-image and that projected certainty about his or her ability is quite capable of fostering confidence among followers, gaining their respect and admiration, and meeting challenges. The confidence that a leader displayed and developed created commitment among followers for the mission at hand. Active leaders needed self-confidence. They initiate change and often have to take decisions based on inadequate information. Problems are continuously being solved. Leaders that lacked confidence in moving forward and doubted that things would be alright (even if an occasional decision is wrong), tended to become paralysed and inactive.

Determination. This trait refers to a leader’s desire to get the work done. It consists of taking initiative, being persistent, as well as exhibiting dominance and drive. When

44 leaders are determined, they behave proactive and tend to persevere. Determination at times meant dominance in providing direction (Northouse 2001, p. 20).

Honesty/Integrity. Honesty refers to truthfulness and non-deception. This feature implies an openness that subordinates welcome. Integrity implies that one tends to act consistent, or simply put, one’s actions are in keeping with one’s words. Leaders command respect and loyalty whenever they articulate convictions and demonstrate these throughout their daily activities. These virtues are the foundation of basic trust between leaders and their followers. In the modern world, people tend to be highly informed, are wary of authority and avoid deceptive use of power. Being honest and acting with integrity was essential in minimising scepticism and building productive leaderships (Drucker & Marciariello, 2004, p. 3; Maxwell, 2006, pp. 47-48). Leaders that act with integrity are trustworthy and inspire confidence in others. They are also loyal and dependable. Integrity made a leader credible (Turner, 2002, pp. 87–90). Successful leaders are found to be highly consistent, doing exactly what they say they will do and do so timely. Successful leaders are easy to trust. They have basic principles and consistently apply these.

Trust. Galford and Drapeau (2002, pp. 6-7) proclaimed that there were three kinds of trust.

Strategic trust prospers when the organisation is doing things right while its leaders pursue the right mission and have the tools to execute the mandate. Trust is rooted in understanding the goals and strategies of leadership.

Organisational trust determines and also questions whether there is trust in the way which things are done. Organisational trust in such circumstances is embedded in personal trust. Where this kind of trust exists, processes as well as decision-making methods and procedures are accordingly scrutinised.

Personal trust is placed in people that lead the organisation. Trust, therefore, is vested in the individual leader or leadership team. Employees tend to either trust or mistrust a leader as an individual. Galford and Drapeau (2002, p. 7) held the opinion that one could possess personal trust, yet lacked organisational trust. They believed that a leader had to purposefully develop personal trust in order to project organisational trust. The two authors presumed that one did not need personal or organisational trust to exhibit strategic trust.

45

Sociability. Sociability refers to a leader’s inclination to seek social relationships. Leaders who were able to demonstrate sociability were tactful, diplomatic, outgoing, courteous and friendly, according to Northouse (2001, p. 20). They are sensitive to others and possess sound interpersonal skills.

Stogdill (1974, pp. 35-63) examined over 100 studies that were based on the trait approach. He uncovered several traits that were indicative of effective leadership, including willingness to be in a position of control and dominance over others, and being attuned to the needs of others. While his review revealed several traits that appeared in effective leaders, the importance of a particular trait was often relevant to a specific situation. Initiative, for example, may contribute to the success of a leader in one situation, but it may be irrelevant for a leader in any other situation. Many researchers concluded their investigations of the trait approach in the light of Stogdill’s finding that leadership traits were not quite universal. Other scientists, in contrast, continued to expand the list of traits through their investigations. Stogdill’s subsequent review replicated many traits but also uncovered several new ones that appeared consistent with successful leadership. The additional characteristics, for example, included administrative skill, aggressiveness and independence. Stogdill’s research findings, once more, confirmed that the appropriateness of particular traits varied according to organisational situations. One study, for example, suggested that individual traits were more clearly expressed in situations that were poorly defined while highly structured situations inhibited expression of traits in individual leaders. The trait creativity was less practicable in a highly bureaucratic organisation than in circumstances where an entrepreneur was developing a new business. Researchers recently contended that some traits are essential for effective leadership, but then only in combination with other factors.