Leadership and Adversity - The Real Story and Truth About the Value of Leadership Trait Theory

I will make the case that Leadership traits exist,the meaning of each factor, using terms or
and admit that the situation faced may call fromadjectives for his sub-factors that others might
different traits or different application, orcall Leadership Traits.
combinations of traits. Some scholars discount theStogdill, discussed what other leadership scholar
value of traits in leaders, or their impact onhave before and since called Traits, but he
individuals becoming successful and effectivere-categorized them and called "factors" He
leaders. My published leadership and adversityinstead as argued that the five individual Factors"
Doctoral research documents the value ofwith "sub-factors, existed, but that there was a
leadership traits for the sixteen prominent leaderssixth factor which was the specific situation itself.
that I personally interviewed who all overcameMy Doctoral dissertation leadership research
adversity and became successful leaders, in spiteclearly showed that there are a number of key
of their adversities, included: Dr. Tony Bonanzino,leadership traits or qualities. One of the key
Jack Canfield, William Draper III, U.S. Senator Orrinfactors usually not included in the list of traits is
Hatch, Mark Victor Hansen, Monzer Hourani, U.S.the ability to overcome adversity. The ability of
Senator Daniel Inouye, J. Terrence Lanni, Dr. Johnleader to effective deal with adversity or
Malone, Angelo Mozilo, Larry Pino, Dr. Nido Qubein,obstacles was an important trait, according to the
U.S. Army Major General Sid Shachnow, Dr. Johnsixteen prominent leaders I interviewed on the
Sperling, Dr. Blenda Wilson, and Zig Ziglar.subject of leadership and adversity. One of my
My leadership and adversity research has beenleading scholars that peer reviewed my leadership
peer debriefed, reviewed and agreed with by fiveresearch, Professor Jim Kouzes, said, as reported
internationally known, well respected leadershipin my published Doctoral dissertation, that he
scholars, and best-selling authors: Dr. Kengenerally they would agree with my research
Blanchard, Dr. John Kotter, Professor Jim Kouzes,finding statement that the adversity or obstacles
Dr. Paul Stoltz, and Dr. Meg Wheatley.in their adult lives was the most important event
My Doctoral dissertation research revealed thatin their development as leaders.
sixteen prominent leaders specifically indentified asStogdill did conducted a follow-up survey to his
number of leadership traits that they believed1948 work of 163 individual leadership trait studies
were important in becoming a leader. My researchand updated it through 1970. The resulting
revealed that, honesty and integrity were high oncomparison of the 1948 and 1974 research was
their lists of the essential qualities of a leader. Thereviewed in narrative form and then compiled into
sixteen prominent leaders and researchtable form, labeled with the six basic characteristic
participants shared an emphasis on the willingnesstypes factors (traits) and multiple sub-categories
to serve those they lead and to be a humblesub-factors (sub-traits).
servant-leader.In his later work on leadership factors (aka
Under the umbrella of leadership traits, the notionleadership traits), Stogdill (1974) simply modified
of the importance of servant leadership and beinghis six basic characteristic types and expanded
a Humble Servant Leader (from my leadershipthem to include eight factor descriptions. One of
research) is repeated here because it remained athe key elements of the later review of
strong theme in the sixteen prominent leaders'characteristics was the inclusion of a much larger
interviews. The sixteen prominent leaders Ipercentage of survey information gathered much
interviewed all talked about the importance ofmore information or data from adults in the
caring about people and listening to their needs.working world. The trait study done by Stogdill
The participants emphasized that having clear andreviewed a series of trait studies done mostly on
consistent communication and willingness to sharechildren or social groups, not usually on adults.
their vision, their objectives, and the tone of theStogdill's original article has been repeatedly
journey was essential to their success as leaders.misquoted as evidence that personal traits have
They believe that having a complete and deeplittle significance or bearing on leadership. This
understanding of the business was needed to leadconsistent and out-of-context misquoting, or
and succeed. They were quick to repeat the needsimple misunderstanding, of his position, bothered
to be able to cope with adversity 'head-on,'Stogdill enough that he clarified that he did not
overcome obstacles, and view challenges ashold this view on the lack of importance of these
opportunities.traits. In fact, Stogdill, later specifically noted in
The question is: Are leadership traits real or awriting that his 1948 work had been cited
myth? Dozens of leadership authors (even somefrequently as evidence in support of the view
well-known leadership scholars), and no I am notthat leadership is entirely situational in origin and
going the specifically identify them by name, as itthat no personal characteristics are predictive of
may cause some embarrassment, has specificallyleadership. This view seems to overemphasize the
claimed that "leadership trait theory is dead,"situational and underemphasize the personal nature
"leadership trait theory is out of step with theof leadership. He indicated that different leadership
mainstream of current academic scholarsskills and traits are required in different situations.
thoughts in the field of leadership," or "recentThe behaviors and traits enabling a mobster to
leadership research by noted scholars disagreegain and maintain control over a criminal gang are
with the concept there are traits of leaders."not the same as those enabling a religious leader
I found that the source of the misinformationto gain and maintain a large following. Yet certain
stems around an article by Stogdill which isgeneral qualities, such as courage, fortitude, and
frequently misquoted or misinterpreted. Manyconviction-appear to characterize both.
leadership writers, even some leadership scholars,How could Stogdill have not believed in the value
misquoted or misunderstood the article. But theyand relevance of Leadership Traits, when Bass
have commented on his now sixty year old articleand Stogdill (1990) concluded their chapter entitled
from his review and findings from various traitTraits of Leadership: A Follow-up with the
studies, relying on a prior interpretation, insteadstatement, "Evidence abounds about particular
going back the primary document. He is oftenpatterns of traits that are of consequence to
cited as finding them contradictory or inconclusive.leadership."
Several authors have also stated that theWhy did he and Bass devote three chapters on
well-respected late Professor Stogdill could notthe Traits of Leadership, if he did not believe in
find a reliable and coherent pattern in the 120 traitthem?
studies he initially reviewed.If any doubt remains, Bass summed up his
I re-read the entire 1948 article by Stogdill, and heposition on the importance and transferability of
never made the statements that were attributedcertain traits and attributes were transferable or
to him regarding his alleged opinion that Leadershipsituational. Even though Stogdill has been
Trait Theory is false or not true. I personally andmisquoted by other scholars, the record shows
professional do not believe that that leadershipthat he and Bass, 1990, in their best-selling
theory is false or dead.Handbook of leadership reviewed the last century
I will proceed to counter and document the falseof leadership research on traits or attributes which
information, or misinformation, that leadershipthey documented and footnoted in nine full
traits are untrue or invalid. Stogdill in his reportingchapters under the heading Personal Attributes of
of his leadership research, just instead used theLeaders
term Leadership Factors instead of LeadershipMy Doctoral dissertation leadership research
Traits. In the original article which was published inclearly shows that "leadership trait theory" is not
a 1948 issue of the Journal of Psychology, Stogdilldead or false. The leadership literature and my
discussed in detail the results of his leadershipDoctoral dissertation leadership research seems to
foundation literature review and study, in which heindicate that traits alone are not enough, but that
found and published that certain factors (or traits)traits may be helpful, or even foundational, or a
which have been associated with leadership couldprecondition in the development of leadership. It
all probably be classified under the generalmay even be possible that a particular
headings of capacity, achievement, responsibility,combination of Traits, Factors, and Attributes for
participation, status, and situation..a given situation may be a conditional precedent
Of particular note, what Stogdill's calls histo developing effective leadership. Leadership
Situational Factor (Situational Leadership Trait) isTraits (regardless of the term used) are clearly
very similar or comparable to the underpinnings ofNot dead, just relabeled.
leadership philosophies such as servant-leadership,What is the real difference between leadership:
principle-centered leadership, or evenTraits, Factors, and Attributes, it is really it just
transformation leadership. He explicated in detailscholarly semantics.