14-2: Traditional Theories of Leadership

Dr. Jay Brown

14-2: Traditional Theories of Leadership

Leadership research has a fascinating history that reflects changing ideas about what makes leaders effective. Early approaches were influenced by historical perspectives that were split between “Great Man” theories and zeitgeist approaches.

Historical Perspectives: Great Man vs. Zeitgeist

Great Man theories suggested that outstanding individuals create historical change through their unique, almost superhuman capabilities. This view believes that history is the product of a few really spectacular people. Think about how we often talk about figures like Steve Jobs, Winston Churchill, or Martin Luther King Jr. – as if their individual genius was the primary driver of major changes.

Zeitgeist approaches took the opposite view, arguing that historical forces create conditions where leadership emerges inevitably. This approach says history is inevitable – any historical event is a culmination of all the events that come before it. From this perspective, if Steve Jobs hadn’t revolutionized personal computing, someone else would have because the technological and market conditions were ripe for that kind of innovation. George Washington was nothing special; the situation in the American Colonies was just ripe for revolution, and someone had to be in charge.

The Apple example perfectly illustrates this tension. Great Man theorists might attribute Apple’s success entirely to Steve Jobs’ genius and vision. Zeitgeist theorists might argue that technological and market conditions created opportunities that various individuals could have exploited successfully.

Most contemporary researchers recognize that leadership effectiveness results from interactions between individual attributes and situational circumstances – it’s both the person and the situation.

Sources of Leader Greatness

Two common sources of what we might call leader greatness are:

Galvanizing experiences: Transformative personal experiences – like overcoming serious illness, surviving adversity, or witnessing injustice – may develop resilience and perspective that enhance leadership capabilities.
Admirable traits: Exceptional traits like intelligence, persistence, or optimism may enable individuals to achieve results beyond normal expectations.

Here’s where it gets interesting – the same traits can be interpreted very differently depending on the situation. Consider Rudolph Giuliani’s leadership during 9/11. Before September 11, 2001, his directive style was often criticized as heavy-handed or dictatorial. But following the terrorist attacks, those same behavioral tendencies were interpreted as resilience, courage, and effective crisis leadership. The context completely changed how people viewed his leadership approach.

Trait Theories of Leadership (1930s-1940s)

Trait theories of leadership dominated research during the 1930s and 1940s, when researchers tried to identify individual characteristics that distinguished effective leaders from everyone else. They focused on traits like:

Gender, dominance, intelligence
Appearance, physical energy
Need for power and achievement
Adjustment, height, responsibility
Age, ambition, self-confidence
And dozens of other characteristics

But then came Stogdill’s 1948 review – a watershed moment that changed everything. After analyzing decades of trait research, Stogdill (1948) concluded that no universal traits consistently predicted leadership across different situations. This influential finding demonstrated that leadership effectiveness depended on interactions between leader characteristics and situational factors rather than simple trait possession.

Problems with trait theories included:

Major disagreements about how to define and measure traits
Different researchers studying similar concepts using completely incompatible methods
Viewing leaders as existing in a bubble rather than in a larger context
Obsession with productivity as the primary effectiveness criterion
Overlooking important factors like follower satisfaction and commitment

However, trait research experienced a reemergence as measurement and statistical techniques improved. The “good person” theory suggested that intelligence, dominance, and masculine orientation predict who emerges as a leader and how they’re perceived, though not necessarily how effective they actually are.

Big Five personality factors have shown particularly interesting relationships with leadership. Extraversion and conscientiousness demonstrate strong relationships with leadership outcomes, with research suggesting that personality factors account for about 50% of variance in who emerges as a leader.

Here’s the catch: traits seem to predict who will be perceived as a leader and emerge in leadership roles better than they predict actual leadership effectiveness once someone is in a leadership position. This suggests that different factors may influence leader selection versus leader performance.

Power Approaches to Leadership

Power approaches to leadership recognize that leadership fundamentally involves influence relationships where leaders possess resources that enable them to affect follower attitudes and behaviors. Understanding power dynamics provides insights into how leadership actually works while highlighting potential problems when power is misused.

Power is a resource that provides the potential to influence the attitudes and behaviors of others. Managers have power that subordinates do not have – an organization gives a manager the power to make decisions about people, expenses, methods of production, and so forth. The higher the manager is in the organization, the more power, or authority, they tend to have.

French and Raven’s power model (French & Raven, 1959) identifies five distinct power sources that leaders can use to influence followers:

Legitimate Power

Stems from organizational authority formally given to leaders through their position or role
Authority-based power that works through follower recognition that leaders have the right to make certain decisions