To what extent is leadership dependant on the personality of the individual manager? What are the implications of your answer for managerial practices?

Authors Avatar
To what extent is leadership dependant on the personality of the individual manager? What are the implications of your answer for managerial practices?

A great deal has been written about leadership throughout the course of the twentieth century. Some would have us believe, that the study of leadership is a modern obsession (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001), however, the subject is not a new one. Machiavelli's The Prince (1513) and The Art of War by Sun Tzu, written in the 6th century BC, demonstrate that mankind's interest in leadership, has existed for as long as there have been organisations and individuals required to lead them.

The debate surrounding the issue of whether leaders are born or made has been at the heart of writing on the subject throughout its history. Essentially, the question is: Is leadership a skill that can be acquired through education and experience, or an innate ability that can simply be identified and encouraged to develop? The implications for managerial practices, should leadership be proven to be innate, could be monumental, as leadership is fundamental to organisational management.

The writing and theories concerning the subject cover all points of the spectrum, between those that purport leadership to be entirely dependant upon personality, to those that believe leadership is about implementation of learned techniques and totally independent of personality. The initial theories were positioned at the opposing extremes, although they have evolved to acknowledge that leadership is a combination, of both personality and technique.

Leadership as an innate ability

The first school of thought to emerge in the early 1900's was that of Trait Spotting, which argues leadership is wholly innate. The basis for Trait Spotting is Great Man Theory, the concept that throughout history great leaders have arisen to guide organisations to success, or, away from disaster. It suggests that when selecting future leaders, organisations should look for certain character traits associated with leadership ability. There are a number of alternative lists of essential traits, compiled through observation of successful leaders. They detail any common psychological, and on occasion physical, factor considered relevant.

Stogdill (1948; 1974, cited by Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001) lists twelve factors common to the numerous studies he examined, included were; a strong drive for responsibility, self-confidence, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, and an ability to influence the behaviour of others.

Many other lists of traits exist, and in essence this represents one of the critical flaws of the concept. Each study identifies a similar but differing set of essential characteristics, leading to the question: If there are a set of traits that are fundamental and common to all great leaders, then why can no-one agree upon what they are?

Despite this, trait theory continues to be used, and has recently been reinvented as Emotional Intelligence (Goleman, 1996). Goleman (1998) offers five components of Emotional Intelligence for use in the workplace, which he considers essential to good leadership. The components are; self-awareness; self-regulation; motivation; empathy; and social skill.

The main difference in terms of focus, between this set of traits and earlier lists such as Stogdill's, is that Goleman believes modern leaders require superior interpersonal skills than suggested by his predecessors. Changes in society, particularly over the final quarter of the twentieth century, have resulted in higher levels of education and awareness amongst the workforce. Increasingly, businesses are dependent upon knowledge workers, who are aware of their value within organisations, and subsequently refuse to be motivated by force. Goleman argues that alternative methods of motivation must be adopted taking into account what William H Peace (2001) terms "soft management", in order to compensate for the reduction in traditional sources of managerial power.

The main development in terms of concept, represented by Emotional Intelligence compared to earlier trait theories, is that Goleman accepts that it can be learned. He says:

For ages, people have debated if leaders are born or made. So too goes the debate about emotional intelligence. Are people born with certain levels of empathy, for example, or do they acquire empathy as a result of life's experiences? The answer is both.

(Goleman, 1998 p.97)

Despite this development, another of the main criticisms of trait theory remains applicable. As with all theories of its kind, Goleman justifies Emotional Intelligence primarily through anecdotal evidence. Although his interpretation of events and the factors surrounding them may be accurate in the examples he quotes, most readers may be able to point to occasions when events transpired in a contradictory manner. It is these exceptions to the rule, which represent the second critical flaw in the concept of trait spotting.

So why does the quest to find the recipe for the perfect leader, continue to be popular? Possibly because, during the era of their observation, a set of traits may represent an accurate depiction of the prevailing leadership style. However, as leadership styles adapt to reflect the changing nature of society the list of traits fails to keep pace. Each member of an organisation is also a member of society, therefore, any changes affecting society, will in turn, impact upon organisations. As society changes, so to will the characteristics that people require of their leaders; thereby meaning, that any list of traits will remain accurate for a limited period of time. This lifespan may vary in length, certain traits may remain popular for longer and others may return to popularity after a period of irrelevance. As such, trait theories provide merely snapshots of the observable traits, of successful leadership, in a particular situation, for a particular period of time.
Join now!


Essentially the constantly changing nature of society requires that effective leadership should be dynamic, thereby precluding the existence of an enduring description of successful leadership traits.

Handy sums up the concept of trait theory quite aptly with his Leader's Prayer in which he says:

Give me the mysterious something which will enable me at all times satisfactorily to explain policies, rules, regulations and procedures to my workers...

(Handy, 1993 p.98)

Leadership through technique

At the opposite end of the spectrum from trait theory are the practitioners of style counselling. This is the practice, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay