Trait Theory SOU Example[1]

8/3/2019 Trait Theory SOU Example[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/trait-theory-sou-example1 1/21

- 1 -

Trait Theory

Overview

Trait theory is the earliest and oldest approach to the study of leadership, spanning almost

a century of organized study. Trait theory holds that ‘leaders possess a similar set of traits or

characteristics’ (Williams, 2008) that help mark them out as leaders or prospective leaders.

Early versions of this theory posited that ‘leaders are born and not made’, thus if one does not

have the ‘right stuff’, as identified by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991), there is no way to become

an effective leader. This concept of a ‘superior individual’ able to exert influence on others is

similarly related to the “Great Man Theory”, popularized by Thomas Carlyle (1907, as cited

from Judge et al, 2002), which holds heroes or ‘great men’ responsible for influencing the fate of

the nation through their innate personal attributes and divine inspiration (Cawthon, 1996). Trait

theory is principally involved in the measurement of traits, which can be described as ‘relatively

stable individual characteristics, such as abilities, psychological motives (Williams, 2008), that

influence behavior.

Several problems with early trait research might account for the apparent deficiency of

significant findings as quantitative methodologies and technology, needed to validate tenets of

the concept, at the time, were not highly sophisticated. Little was known about the psychometric

attributes of the measures used to categorize traits which resulted to inconsistencies in the

measures used to consider the same construct thus making it challenging to duplicate or validate

findings. In addition, many of the trait studies relied on samples of students or lower-level

managers rather than individuals in noteworthy positions of leadership (House and Aditya,

2007).



- 2 -

Early trait research was largely a-theoretical, as it fails to establish a direct linkage

between individual characteristics and leadership. Early studies on the concept also did not take

into account the influence of mitigating situational variables on leader traits and measures of

leader effectiveness, which resulted in the dearth of consistent findings linking individual traits

to leadership effectiveness, which led management theorists to abandon the concept abandoned

in the 1950s, particularly after the review by Stogdill in 1948.

For a considerable length of time, trait theory has been thought of as wrong by

management theorists and criticized for failing to establish consistent trait differences between

leaders and non-leaders. On the other hand, surge of proponents advocating transformational

and charismatic leadership concepts and more recent studies, supported by empirical evidence,

establish the linkage between traits and effective leadership further confirms distinct attributes of

successful leaders such as drive, desire to lead, honesty / integrity, self-confidence, emotional

intelligence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business (House and Aditya, 1997;

Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991).

Historical Development and Conceptual Discussion

According to Bennis (1998), an American consultant, one of the notable pioneers in the

study of contemporary leadership concepts and organizational consultant, leaders are people who

are able to express themselves fully, knows what they want, why they want it, knows how to

achieve their goals and how to communicate what they want to others, in order to gain their co-

operation and support.’ But what is it that gives rise to someone to excel and gain influence in

this respect? Historical study of the lives of people who have been noted as great or effective

leaders (like Abraham Lincoln, Jack Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, etc.) establishes the fact that



- 3 -

they indeed have very different qualities or traits that separate them from ordinary individuals or

non-leaders.

Early works on leadership were based on inherited characteristics or traits of individuals

that make them effective leaders. Leader traits as defined by Zaccaro (2007) pertain to ‘the

relatively coherent and integrated patterns of personal characteristics, reflecting a range of

individual differences that foster consistent leadership effectiveness across a variety of group and

organizational situations. Interest was therefore placed on discerning these traits, through the

study of notable leaders, built upon the fundamental assumption that if other people could also be

identified possessing these traits, then they, too, could also become great leaders.

History is rich in providing examples of how different societies that ascribe leadership

ability to genetic characteristics that can be passed on for generations through bloodlines.

Example of which are the pharaohs from ancient Egypt and even early and medieval royal

dynasties who are bestowed qualities of divinity, authority, discrimination and justice (Gehring,

2007).

Gordon Allport, an American psychologist who gained prominence during the early

1900’s and considered as one of the founding figures in the study of personality, saw traits as

broad, general guides that lend consistency to behavior.

He identified thousands of traits and organized them into three levels: cardinal, central

and secondary traits. Cardinal traits pertain to attributes which an individual may be strongly

identified with (imperialistic drives of Alexander The Great, Hitler; Martin Luther King and

Mahatma Gandhi’s desire to pursue equality and justice for all people regardless of social class

and race), central traits are fundamental to an individual's character (level of sociability, intro or



- 4 -

extroversion, etc.), while secondary traits are more peripheral in nature (preference for certain

food types, fashion style, etc.).

Raymond Cattell, a British and American psychologist and contemporary of Allport,

identified 16 personality factors that formed the basis for differences in individual behavior.

Catell’s contribution also served as basis for the subsequent formation of the “Big Five” traits

which will be discussed in subsequent sections (Nelson and Quick, 2006).

A great amount of work was conducted in the 1940’s and the 1950’s to determine the

common traits of effective leaders. Hans Eysenck, a German psychologist, noted for his work on

genetics of personality and intelligence, suggested that personality is reducible to three major

traits - extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism (Beech et al, 2001). Bird’s (1940) summary

of leader traits refers to accuracy at work, knowledge of human nature and moral habits as key

leader traits.

n the late 1940’s up to the latter part of the 1950’s Stogdill and Mann, in separate studies,

created the most inclusive summary of various research made on the subject and identified

intelligence, decisiveness in judgment, speech fluency, interpersonal skills and administrative

abilities as key types of traits of effective leaders.

Robert Stogdill’s first survey of early trait studies carried out between 1904-1947,

identified a set of important leadership traits that differentiates leaders from other individuals and

they are as follows: intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-

confidence, and sociability. His findings revealed that trait alone does not guarantee an

individual to become a leader, rather key leadership traits must be applicable to situations

wherein the leader is operating in and that leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders



- 5 -

in another situation. This study marked the onset of new approaches to leadership that focus on

behavior and situations (Northouse, 2007).

Other management theorists including Gibb (1947, as cited by House and Aditya, 2007)

and Jenkins (1947, ibid) were able to establish the linkage between traits and measures of leader

effectiveness. Regrettably such findings could not be replicated in subsequent studies which led

many leadership scholars to believe that identifying ‘universal traits are futile’ and the

subsequent abandonment of the study of the traits theory (House and Aditya, 2007).

The preliminary conclusion from early studies of leader attributes was that there were no

consistent universal traits that distinguish effective leaders from other individuals a view that

stemmed from the review by Ralph Stogdill in 1948 concluded that the existing studies have not

demonstrated the efficacy of the trait approach failed to isolate key behavioral patterns that made

a difference.

Cartwright and Zander (1968, as cited from Beech et al, 2001) identified that leaders are

‘more intelligent, more dependable, more responsible, more active and socially participative, and

more likely to have higher socio-economic status.’

The clarification of several theoretical issues and new empirical findings made during the

early 1970’s brought about a resurgence of interest in the study of leadership traits. Bem and

Allen (1974, as cited by House and Aditya, 2007) contended that ‘trait-relevant predictability is a

trait in itself which can be portrayed by self-monitoring tendencies of individuals; high self-

monitoring individuals react more to situation signs / cues whereas low-monitoring individuals

are more likely to react behaviorally regardless of the strength of situational cues.



- 6 -

Walter Mischel (1973), an American academic and trait and social psychologist and one

of the notable founders of the cognitive social theories, identified the role of the motivational

type cognitive processes, strong and weak situations, in altering behavior.

Schneider (1983, as cited by House and Aditya, 2007) addressed one of the key criticisms

of the trait theory, which argue that traits must be stable and envisage behavior over significant

periods of time and across varying situations, by positing that traits signify indicative individual

characteristics towards particular situations as compared to general or all-encompassing

situations and that behavior will likely depend particular situations, environment and individual

disposition at a given time.

Another noteworthy finding was made by House and Baetz (1979, ibid) who pointed out

that when studies of adolescents and children are omitted from Robert Stogdill’s 1948 review,

the resultant data show a consistent set of traits such as intelligence, pro-social assertiveness,

self-confidence, energy, and task-relevant knowledge.

In his ensuing work in 1974, Stogdill stretched out the list of traits positively associated

to leadership to incorporate adaptability to situations, alertness to social environment, ambition

and achievement focus, assertiveness, cooperation, decisiveness, dependability, dominance,

energy, persistence, self confidence, tolerance of stress and willingness to assume responsibility

as key leadership traits. He further concluded that his earlier work understated the universality of

certain traits demonstrated by leaders. He also referred to intelligence, conceptual skills,

creativity, diplomacy and tactfulness, fluency in speaking, knowledge about group task,

organization skills, persuasiveness and social skills as key skills noted in successful leaders

(Northouse 2007; House and Aditya, 2007).



- 7 -

More recently Jago (1982) identified leadership as a property or set of properties

possessed in varying degrees by different people ascribed leader traits under the following

categories: physical and constitutional factors, personality characteristics, social characteristics,

skill and ability.

McCall and Lombardo (1983) studied both successful and ‘failed’ leaders based on

interviews held with executives from three US-based industrial organizations and identified four

primary traits, including specific attributes, by which leaders could succeed or 'derail':

• Problems with Interpersonal Relationships – insensitivity to others, being too cold or

aloof, and overly ambitious.

• Failure to Meet Business Objectives – Betrayal of trust and poor performance.

• Inability to Build and Lead a Team – Failing to staff delegate and manage effectively.

• Inability to Develop or Adapt – Inflexibility and inability to think strategically.

Lord, DeVader and Aliger (1986), working on the earlier works of Mann in 1959,

conducted a meta-analysis of early studies on leader traits and confirmed the role of followers'

embedded leadership theories in elucidating their findings regarding three key traits (intelligence,

dominance and masculinity).

In the same context, Gardner (1989) proposed a number of leadership attributes that go

beyond the situational influences namely: physical volatility and stamina, intelligence and

action-oriented judgment, eagerness to accept responsibility, task competence, understanding of

followers and their needs, social skills, need for achievement, capacity to motivate people,



- 8 -

courage and determination, trustworthiness, decisiveness, self-confidence, assertiveness,

adaptability/flexibility.

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) asserted the explicit distinction between leaders and other

people based on work conducted putting forward a six leadership traits – the ‘right stuff’ that

distinguish leaders from non-leaders and this include:

• Drive – traits or motives reflecting high effort level that includes achievement

motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity and initiative.

• Desire to Lead – the desire to influence and lead others that also relates to one’s need to

obtain power to enable one to get things done or attain pre-identified goals or objectives,

• Honesty and Integrity – pertains to the correspondence between word and deed and the

virtue of being truthful.

• Self-confidence and Emotional Stability that relates to an individual possessing an even

temper, maturity and a high level of control on one’s emotions.

• Cognitive Ability – pertains to an individual’s intelligence that will enable him to

formulate suitable strategies in varying situations.

• Knowledge of the Business – that relates to the industry, company and other technical

matters and does not necessarily relate to one’s level of educational attainment.

Kirkpatrick and Locke also identified other desirable traits of successful leaders such as

charisma, creativity and flexibility and further argued that individuals can be born possessing the

above traits, subsequently learning them or both.



- 9 -

The list of traits and skills is by no means indicative as the number of leader traits

identified by proponents of the trait theory equals the number of research conducted (Burke and

Cooper, 2006). However, a certain level of likeness of traits and characteristics can be identified

such as intelligence, pro-activeness, masculinity, etc.

Contemporary studies offered fresh perspectives on and brought about the revival of trait

theory namely McLelland’s Achievement Motivation and Leader Motive Profile, House’s

Theory of Charismatic Leadership and Kenny and Zaccaro’s works on leader sensitivity and

flexibility.

Key Leadership Traits

After a century’s worth of research conducted on trait theory of leadership Northouse

(2007) summarized the five major leadership traits that individuals might aim to posses or

cultivate in order to be perceived by others as leaders and these include:

• Intelligence that includes strong levels of verbal and perceptual abilities and reasoning

which should not deviate too far from that of his or her subordinates.

• Self-confidence is the ability to be self-assured about one’s competencies and skills and

includes self-esteem to enable one to influence others and the belief that one can make a

difference.

• Determination is the desire to get the job done and includes attributes such as persistence,

initiative, dominance and drive.

• Integrity pertains to the quality of honesty and trustworthiness that enables leaders to

inspire confidence and loyalty in others because they can be trusted.



- 10 -

• Sociability is the leader’s inclination to seek out pleasant social relationships. This also

pertains to leaders who display sociability, are friendly, outgoing, courteous, tactful and

diplomatic.

Consensus among leadership trait researchers has emerged and gave rise to the establishment of

the basic factors, commonly called the “Big Five” or the five-structure model, that comprise

personality (Judge, Bono, Ilies and Gerhardt, 2002; Northouse, 2007). These factors include:

• Neuroticism – The tendency to display poor emotional adjustment or negative affects

such as insecurity, anxiety and hostility and is trait that is negatively related to leader

emergence and leader effectiveness.

• Extraversion – The tendency to be sociable, assertive, active, and to experience positive

affects such as energy and zeal. Extraversion is perceived a leader-like quality and is

positively related to leader emergence and leader effectiveness, though more strongly to

the former.

• Openness – Refers to the temperament or tendency to be imaginative, non-confronting,

unconventional and autonomous. Openness is associate to divergent thinking and is

strongly related to personality-based and behavioral measures of creativity. Studies

indicate that open individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders and be effective

leaders.

• Agreeableness – The tendency to be trusting, acquiescent, caring and gentle;

agreeableness relates negatively to leadership as the relationship between both concepts

is ambiguous.



- 11 -

• Conscientiousness – Pertains to the predisposition to be thorough, organized, controlled,

dependable and decisive. This trait yields higher levels of success for the leader as

conscientious individuals have more tenacity and persistence, values that are often

attributed to effective leaders.

The study by Judge and colleagues found a strong linkage between the Big Five Traits and

leadership and that extraversion was the factor most strongly attributed to effective leaders,

conscientiousness was the second factor most related to leadership, followed by neuroticism and

openness with the former negatively related to leadership. Agreeableness on the other hand, was

found to be only weakly associated with leadership.

Hundreds of personality characteristics have been acknowledged that are applicable to

personality. Some characteristics with noteworthy implications in organizations are: locus of

control, self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-monitoring, and positive/negative affect (Nelson and

Quick, 2006).

• Locus of Control - The extent to which individuals distinguish control over a situation

being internal or external is called locus of control. Locus of control relates the range of

beliefs that individuals have in terms of being controlled by self (internal locus) or

controlled by others or the situation (external locus).

• Self-Esteem - An individual's self-worth is referred to as self-esteem. Individuals with

high self esteem have positive feelings about themselves. Low self-esteem individuals

are intensely affected by what others think of them, and view themselves negatively.

• Self-Monitoring - The degree to which people base their behavior on cues from other

people and situations is referred to as self-monitoring. Individuals high in self-



- 12 -

monitoring pay attention to what behavior is suitable in certain situations by watching

others and behaving accordingly. Low self-monitoring individuals favor that their

behavior reflects their attitudes, and are not as flexible in altering their behavior to

situational cues.

• Positive/Negative Affect - Individuals show attitudes about situations in either a positive

or negative fashion. An individual's tendency to draw attention to the positive aspects of

situations is referred to as positive affect, while those emphasizing less optimistic views

are referred to as having negative affect. Employees with positive affect are absent from

work less often. Negative affect individuals show higher percentage of absenteeism and

tardiness.

Another way to assess the impact of traits on leadership is through the concept of emotional

intelligence which encompasses an individual’s affective (emotions) and cognitive (thinking)

domains. The Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is the only one of

the major tests that measures Emotional Intelligence, including set of mental abilities that include

perceiving, facilitating, understanding and managing emotions, in a manner consistent with

traditional intelligence testing (Matthews, Roberts, and Zeidner, 2004; Northouse, 2007).

Sosik and Megerian (1999), in their study to measure the link between emotional

intelligence and effective leaders, looked at the self-awareness aspect of emotional intelligence

and leadership and resulted to the empirical support for emotional intelligence being the

foundation of other aspects of leadership. The aim of the study was to answer two questions: the

first question tried to find "what aspects of [emotional intelligence] distinguish those leaders who

are in concurrence with others concerning their transformational leadership traits from those who



- 13 -

are not in agreement". The second question asked "how do non-military leaders who are in

conformity with others regarding their transformational leadership qualities differ in terms of

performance from those who are not in agreement" (Ibid., p. 368).

The study confirmed that leaders who undervalued their leadership were positively linked

to social self-confidence while leaders who overvalued their abilities were negatively related to

sensitivity. The authors also offered that self-awareness may allow leaders understand the

emotional implications of their own feelings and thoughts. Managers who retain correct self-

awareness have more attributes of emotional intelligence and appear to be more successful in

dealing with their superiors and subordinates. The high public self-consciousness facet of

emotional intelligence may be beneficial for managers who are interested in success, although

"this does not guarantee high ratings of transformational leadership and effectiveness by one’s

subordinates" (Ibid., p. 386).

Matthews, Roberts, and Zeidner (2004) in their study on Emotional Intelligence (EI),

addressed that the “range and scope of definitions that currently exist within the literature make

inevitable comparisons between the science of EI and the allegory underlying the Tower of

Babel”. Definitions of EI vary from the capacity to adapt to difficult situations, to the personality

characteristics of integrity and character, to a cognitive ability for handing out and effectively

using emotional information.

Concept Application



- 14 -

One of the most obvious applications of understanding human traits relates to one’s

ability to measure these traits for personal awareness and development purposes. Some of the

assessment devices, designed and developed based on trait theory include The Thematic

Apperception Test, Cattell’s 16 Personality Factors, and similar tests designed to measure the

Big Five. Trait analysis will enable one to identify his strong and weak points as a sort of an

indirect barometer to indicate how others perceive them in the organization. This also enables

individuals to ascertain whether they have the desirable qualities required for specific job types

or roles that will enable them to achieve professional advancement. However, since assessment

devices developed comprise mainly of self-report type tests this then lead to potential problems

as test takers may not be completely honest in their response to questionnaires thus resulting to

inaccurate personality rating.

Trait assessment measures also provide direction to individuals as to which traits to

develop or enhance, required attributes they lack which they can subsequently develop by

making changes, or through experience and training, particularly those aspiring for leadership

positions.

Many career type assessment or career planning measures look at personality traits and

judge against one’s individual traits with those who are already doing well in a specific career.

Based on one’s attributes, assessment is subsequently drawn to determine possible careers or

college majors that fit one’s personality therefore offering that particular individual greater

chance of success, in the event he decides to pursue such course of action (Northouse, 2007;

Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991).

Strengths



- 15 -

The trait theory has several identifiable strengths, first of which is its intuitive appeal as it

clearly fits our traditional notions on leaders being special kind of individuals, who can do

extraordinary things and who are out front and leading the way in our society. Because the

romanticized premise of leadership based on the perception of the distinguishing make up of

effective leaders that reside in special traits they possess people have a need to see their leaders

as gifted people and the trait approach ticks this requirement.

A second strength of the trait theory that can be cited is its reliance on statistical or

objective data, unlike many other theories on leadership, the subjectivity or personal experience

of the theorists plays no role in trait theory. It is supported by almost a century of research thus

giving credence to its breadth and depth.

Another strength highlights leadership component in the leadership process. Although

this can also be cited as a potential weakness, because of its exclusive focus on the role of the

leader his attributes and its causal effect on his efficacy, the trait approach has been able to

provide us with a more profound understanding of how a leader’s personality relates to the

leadership process.

The trait approach also provides us with relevant benchmarks against which personal

assessment can be made as to whether an individual has what it takes to be an effective leader.

Because the trait approach identifies desirable leadership traits, one can endeavor to reinforce

individual strengths and minimize, if not eliminate, weaknesses.

Lastly, and as previously mentioned trait theory has been used to develop a number of

personality assessment devices that provide an easy way to understand the range of information

regarding individual's personality, social interaction, and beliefs about the self and the world



- 16 -

around him. Understanding traits allows one to compare different people, to establish which

traits allow a person to fare better or equip him with the required faculties to make informed

decisions in his studies, in his relationships, or in a specific career path (Northouse, 2007,

Mumford et al, 2000).

Limitations

The first problem with early studies on trait theory is its failure to produce a unified list

of key traits or a definite set of characteristics that made a leader - whatever the situation.

Proponents of the trait theory also played down the impact of situational variables (including the

possible direct association between personality traits to success in different situations, as Stogdill

has subsequently suggested in his previous studies) and tended to mix some very different

qualities. Stogdill emphasized on the significant role of situational factors on leader emergence

and effectiveness and even countered that leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders

in another situation.

Different management theorists offered different and endless sets of attributes, some

traits placing less importance to other traits brought about by subjective resolve and

interpretation of important leadership traits, in spite of enormous studies conducted on the

subject matter. This resulted to the variations in trait taxonomies across different authors.

Trait theory is cited as a poor predictor of impending behavior. While we may be able to

say, in general that a person falls on the high end or low end of a specific trait, trait theory fails

to address a person's state or the temporary way of interacting and dealing with one’s self and

others. For example, a typically shy person may be quiet, reserved, intellectual, and calm in

most situations but may seem outgoing and fun when around close friends. Likewise a normally



- 17 -

gregarious person may act shy, reserved, and drawn when subjected to unfamiliar or unnerving

situations.

Another limitation is that the concept does not address trait development and also

provides little or no guidance in changing negative aspects of one’s personality. Despite the

significant volume of information gathered on studying the relationship between individual traits,

leader emergence and efficacy, literature offers no details on personality development lacks a

means to bring about change and thus fails to provide a useful approach for leadership training

and development (Northouse, 2007; Gehring, 2007; House and Aditya, 1997; Zaccaro, 2007).

Conclusion

Trait theory asserts that effective leaders possess that differentiate them from ordinary

individuals and that in order to understand leadership makeup and related processes, a study

focusing on breaking down behavior patterns into series of observable traits needs to be carried

out.

These set of traits or characteristics include (to a lesser extent) physical and personality

attributes. Significant number of traits has been identified by different management theorists,

from Allport, Stogdill, Mann, Kirkpatrick and Locke, etc., over the course of a century’s worth

of research on the trait approach which have been lauded, contested, abandoned and

subsequently revisited. Those traits include drive, the desire to lead, honesty or integrity,

cognitive ability, self-confidence and emotional stability. Other personality models leader

attributes were also offered by proponents of the trait approach such as the five-factor model

(Big Five), and emotional intelligence. Assessment devices were also developed to enable

individuals to assess their leadership traits for personal awareness development. The trait



- 18 -

approach however failed to provide mechanism to provide specific means to change negative

aspects of one’s personality, given that personal attributes are largely stable and fixed thus not

likely amenable to change.

It was once thought that certain class of people would naturally possess these traits, due

to its ascribed inherent nature, however studies have shown that possession of such traits alone

does not warrant individuals to become effective leaders because of the impact of situational

factors on leader efficacy and emergence. Leaders who already posses the key traits (or some or

as many of them) as identified by the trait approach must also conduct themselves in such a way

that encourage people to achieve pre-defined group or organizational goals or outcomes.

In closing, personal leadership traits are still needed and play an important role in shaping

one’s potentials to enable one to assume leadership position, however, this must be combined

with a combination of innate abilities, passion, a sense of purpose and the capability to carry out

planned strategies. Leaders must also have enough understanding to socially interact or work in

teams, possess resilience and tenacity to allow him to steer across different situations and possess

the capabilities to mentor his followers in order to be able to steer them towards a desired

outcome and to allow his assumed authority (that came along with the position) to spread

through to other people.



- 19 -

References

Beech, N., Cairns, G., Livingstone, H., Lockyer, C., Tsukas, H., (2001), Managing People in

Organizations, Volume 1, University of Strathclyde Graduate School of Business.

Bennis, W. (1998) On Becoming a Leader, London: Arrow.

Cawthon, David L. (1996), Leadership: The Great Man Theory Revisited, Business Horizons,

May/Jun96, Vol. 39 Issue 3, p1, 4p; (AN 9606205861). Retrieved on January 19, 2009

from Business Source Complete database.

Cooper, C. L. and Burke, R. J. (2006) Inspiring leaders. Routledge, London. ISBN:

9780415363020.

Gardner, J. (1989) On Leadership, New York: Free Press.

House, R.J., and Aditya, R. M., (1997), The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?,

Journal of Management [0149-2063] House yr:1997 vol:23 pg:409. Retrieved on January

31, 2009 from Business Source Complete database.

Jago, A. G., (1982), Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research, Management Science,

Vol. 28, No. 3, March 1982, pp. 315-336. Retrieved on January 31, 2009 from Business

Source Complete database.

Judge, T. A.,Ilies, R., Bono, J. E., and Gerhardt, M. W., (2002), Personality and Leadership: A

Qualitative and Quantitative Review, Journal of Applied Psychology; Aug2002, Vol. 87

Issue 4, p765-780. Retrieved on January 31, 2009 from Business Source Complete

database.



- 20 -

Kirkpatrick, S. A., and Locke, E. A., (1991), The Executive; Vol. 5 Issue 2. Retrieved on

January 19, 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global database.

Lord, R. G.; De Vader, C..; Alliger, G. M., (1986), A Meta-Analysis of the Relation Between

Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An Application of Validity Generalization

Procedures, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 Issue 3, p402-410, 9p; (AN

5111639). Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from Business Source Complete database.

Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., (2004), Seven Myths About Emotional Intelligence,

Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p179-196, 18p, 2 charts; (AN 14595131).

Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from Business Source Complete database.

McCall, M., and Lombardo, M. (1983), Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed,

Center for Creative Leadership, Technical Report #21, Greensboro, NC.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a Cognitive Social Learning Reconceptualization of Personality.

Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.

Mumford, M. D.; Zaccaro, S. J.; Johnson, J. F.; Diana, M.; Gilbert, J. A.; Threlfall, K. V.,

(2000), Patterns of Leader Characteristics: Implications for Performance and

Development, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p115, 19p, 4 charts; (AN 2987731).


Nelson D.L., and Campbell-Quick, J. (2006), Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Realities

and Challenges, Thomson South-Western: 5th Edition.

Northouse, P.G., (2007), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4 th Edition, Sage Publications, Inc.



- 21 -

Sosik, J. J., Megerian, L. E., (1999), Understanding Leader Emotional Intelligence and

Performance: The Role of Self-Other Agreement on Transformational Leadership

Perceptions, Group and Organizational Management; Vol. 24 Issue 3. Retrieved on

January 19, 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global database.

Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A survey of the literature, New York: Free

Press Williams, C. (2008), Effective Management, Thomson South-Western.

Williams, C., (2008), Effective Management, 3rd Edition, Thomson Southwestern.

Zaccaro, S. J., Trait-Based Perspectives of Leadership, American Psychologist, Jan2007, Vol. 62

Issue 1, p6-16, 11p, 2 diagrams; DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6; (AN 23745893).


Trait Theory SOU Example[1]

Documents

Transcript of Trait Theory SOU Example[1]