Great Man and Trait Theories

Have you ever noticed that there are certain characteristics that set leaders apart from non-leaders? Well, leadership philosophers and researchers (especially during the 1930s through the 1950s) have. Tons of research was published that tried to pin point exactly what made a person a leader, which included physical appearance, personality traits, etc. These lists and ideas of what makes a leader a leader ended up being called the Trait Theory, which states that there are certain defining characteristics and traits that set leaders apart from the rest of humanity. Five traits that researchers have found that are strongly associated with effective leadership are intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability. I am inclined to believe that these traits do help to make a good leader, simply for the fact that it would be hard to imagine a leader lacking any of these traits! Leadership is not a passive role that is just conferred to you, leadership is something that needs to be actively chosen, hence determination and a certain degree of self-confidence is required. Also, effective leaders do need to collaborate with followers, and trust is usually only gained by people who have integrity and sociability, making those traits a no-brainer. Leaders also have to have some intelligence to make good decisions, and to persuade others to follow suit. I feel there is some valid information integrated into the Trait Theory, even if it’s too simplistic. After all, I’ve worked in groups at school on some project or other, and it isn’t the dumb, unmotivated, and antagonistic people who naturally rise up to be leaders. No, it’s the people possessing the above mentioned traits who take on leadership roles, and who we as followers listen to and chose in good faith to lead us.
One of the issues with the Trait Theory is that if you aren’t born with the necessary characteristics, you are doomed to be a follower forever. That is why a separate approach to Trait Theory came onto the scene, called the Strengths-Based approach. This approach was derived from positive psychology, and says to focus on the traits that you have going for you, instead of trying to address what you might be lacking. What ends up happening is that leaders are then needed to be matched up with specific situations that fit their strengths. I would normally like this approach because it acknowledges the potential in everyone to be a leader. But I have issues with it in that the areas where a person is lacking should be addressed, not ignored. By addressing the issue, there is a possibility of rectifying it, and so make a better leader of that person. For instance, I’m not a horribly shy person (anymore), but I have a problem with public speaking. I know the only way to get better at public speaking is by practicing it! And so I’ve taken on an internship in which I teach English to refugees. It’s only a small group of about fifteen people, but I’m still taking on that issue of public speaking, and little by little I have been getting more confident in my abilities as a public speaker and as a teacher.