The so-called “Great Man Theory” of leadership (see Northouse, pp. 15-16) entails the notion that leaders are born, not made. If we have little evidence for this theory, why do you suppose that it persists?
In its new form, the trait perspective focuses on acquired, as opposed to inherited, characteristics. (The possible exception is intelligence, and many people even view this as acquired rather than inherited.) Northouse (pp. 19-22) identifies five general categories of such traits: (1) intelligence; (2) self-confidence; (3) determination; (4) integrity; and (5) sociability. Rank these five in respect to how you see their relative importance in contributing to how a person emerges as a leader. Then do the same for how you see their relative importance in exercising leadership. In short, you are being asked to judge whether or not what contributes to someone becoming a leader is the same as what determines how effective the person will be once in a position of leadership.
In addition to the five traits above, Northouse suggests that personality factors (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness), as well as emotional intelligence (the ability to understand emotions and apply the understanding to tasks), also relate to one’s prospects for moving into positions of leadership and his or her effectiveness once there. Do you see these factors as more or less critical than the other five? Which and why?
Northouse (pp. 25-27) discusses both strengths and criticisms of the trait perspective. After reading his digest, do the strengths, in your judgment, outweigh the criticisms in viewing leadership from this perspective? Why or why not?
Read the three case studies Northouse (pp. 28-32) presents, and think about how you would answer the questions posed at the end of each case study. Why do you feel as you do?
Think of someone you know in a position of leadership in a group or organization, whom you consider to be an effective leader. Then rate that individual on the fourteen items Northouse presents on pp. 33-35. Which of the fourteen seemed to have the greatest and, conversely, least weight in shaping your overall impression? In retrospect, were you surprised by how much or little any of the items had to do with your perception of the leader’s effectiveness? From having completed this exercise, do you feel that perceptions of leadership may be unduly (that is, overly or insufficiently) affected by some traits? How did you arrive at your view?
