This Is WonderfulThis Is WonderfulTheoriesLeadership is “organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal.” The leader may or may not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits,[1] situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values,[2] charisma, and intelligence among others.
[edit] Early historyThe search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries. Historys greatest philosophical writings from Platos Republic to Plutarchs Lives have explored the question of “What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?” Underlying this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the “trait theory of leadership.”
This view of leadership, the trait theory, was explored at length in a number of works in the previous century. Most notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have prompted decades of research. In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galtons (1869) Hereditary Genius, he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving from first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader.
For decades, this trait-based perspective dominated empirical and theoretical work in leadership.[3] Using early research techniques, researchers conducted over a hundred studies proposing a number of characteristics that distinguished leaders from nonleaders: intelligence, dominance, adaptability, persistence, integrity, socioeconomic status, and self-confidence just to name a few.[4]
[edit] Rise of alternative theoriesIn the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940;[5] Stogdill, 1948;[6] Mann, 1959[7]) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades.
[edit] Reemergence of trait theoryNew methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in researchers use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.[8] Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive and parsimonious picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:
[8] During the early 1980s, many of the new traits that were created by increasing the quantity of standardized training were proposed. One of these, the high rate of training in leadership development, would become apparent in a decade to come. A second development was the shift in the design from numerical tests to numerical models. Since there was no systematic way to measure the effects of training on performance in the training processes themselves, there were no way to assess whether the effects were caused by short or long term (rather than short term) training. This shift led to an emphasis on training rather than quantitative data in theory.[9] The first two improvements were observed during the early 1990s, due in large part to the popularity of high-intensity training programs. A further development, proposed in 2001, would be to allow those in position to evaluate the effectiveness of the training in more-efficient ways. Following the success of training in management research, a “pioneering” development led some to conclude that training was a good predictor of a leader’s character.[10] However, the main point of these findings was that performance was determined by the amount of training used, rather than by what the individual is trained to do. The new methods and improvements created two important challenges. First, when estimating leadership effectiveness, analysis was required for the variables to be statistically significant—but not for the quality of the measured data, or for the individual to be assessed for leadership experience. It was important to make sure training was in fact predictive of outcome, and to examine data in a way that maximized results. The second problem was to have confidence in the validity of these tests; the more data was obtained, the stronger the assessment.[11] The new method needed to measure the quality and validity of the data as well as the validity of the prediction itself. As a result, it was necessary to examine both and evaluate how well an individual’s leadership performance could be predicted according to the new data. Analysis was done with an extensive set of standardizations known as the TSTM and standardized testing—which the authors described as “the most rigorous, rigorous research on leadership theory.”[12] During 1980-1990, the TSTM and standardized testing were combined into the MSTM model. This was developed at a similar time to the TSTM, with a goal of improving leadership research at every level of research. This paradigm was called “structured testing.” The basic concept of this model was to make research easier or more cost-effective by combining all the relevant data (such as training) between researchers (based on standardized testing) as well as from other disciplines, by combining the methods of standardized testing and standardized testing models (such as MSTM).[13] In theory, it was hoped that all participants in the study group would be able to measure leader ability regardless of their leadership background. This would lead to a system based on a simple and reliable methodology for measuring leadership performance and leadership development.[14] In practice, the method had no success in determining all the data that would be collected within one project into two different groups, so it relied on multiple measurements from different research groups and multiple standardized testing methods.[note 12] For a large study to be successful, the study group was all the individuals who participated. This meant that there would be a long way to go in determining how effective an individual was, thus increasing the amount that could be collected.[15] In addition, it meant that the study group could also only assess how well an individual had been ranked in a long
[8] During the early 1980s, many of the new traits that were created by increasing the quantity of standardized training were proposed. One of these, the high rate of training in leadership development, would become apparent in a decade to come. A second development was the shift in the design from numerical tests to numerical models. Since there was no systematic way to measure the effects of training on performance in the training processes themselves, there were no way to assess whether the effects were caused by short or long term (rather than short term) training. This shift led to an emphasis on training rather than quantitative data in theory.[9] The first two improvements were observed during the early 1990s, due in large part to the popularity of high-intensity training programs. A further development, proposed in 2001, would be to allow those in position to evaluate the effectiveness of the training in more-efficient ways. Following the success of training in management research, a “pioneering” development led some to conclude that training was a good predictor of a leader’s character.[10] However, the main point of these findings was that performance was determined by the amount of training used, rather than by what the individual is trained to do. The new methods and improvements created two important challenges. First, when estimating leadership effectiveness, analysis was required for the variables to be statistically significant—but not for the quality of the measured data, or for the individual to be assessed for leadership experience. It was important to make sure training was in fact predictive of outcome, and to examine data in a way that maximized results. The second problem was to have confidence in the validity of these tests; the more data was obtained, the stronger the assessment.[11] The new method needed to measure the quality and validity of the data as well as the validity of the prediction itself. As a result, it was necessary to examine both and evaluate how well an individual’s leadership performance could be predicted according to the new data. Analysis was done with an extensive set of standardizations known as the TSTM and standardized testing—which the authors described as “the most rigorous, rigorous research on leadership theory.”[12] During 1980-1990, the TSTM and standardized testing were combined into the MSTM model. This was developed at a similar time to the TSTM, with a goal of improving leadership research at every level of research. This paradigm was called “structured testing.” The basic concept of this model was to make research easier or more cost-effective by combining all the relevant data (such as training) between researchers (based on standardized testing) as well as from other disciplines, by combining the methods of standardized testing and standardized testing models (such as MSTM).[13] In theory, it was hoped that all participants in the study group would be able to measure leader ability regardless of their leadership background. This would lead to a system based on a simple and reliable methodology for measuring leadership performance and leadership development.[14] In practice, the method had no success in determining all the data that would be collected within one project into two different groups, so it relied on multiple measurements from different research groups and multiple standardized testing methods.[note 12] For a large study to be successful, the study group was all the individuals who participated. This meant that there would be a long way to go in determining how effective an individual was, thus increasing the amount that could be collected.[15] In addition, it meant that the study group could also only assess how well an individual had been ranked in a long
[8] During the early 1980s, many of the new traits that were created by increasing the quantity of standardized training were proposed. One of these, the high rate of training in leadership development, would become apparent in a decade to come. A second development was the shift in the design from numerical tests to numerical models. Since there was no systematic way to measure the effects of training on performance in the training processes themselves, there were no way to assess whether the effects were caused by short or long term (rather than short term) training. This shift led to an emphasis on training rather than quantitative data in theory.[9] The first two improvements were observed during the early 1990s, due in large part to the popularity of high-intensity training programs. A further development, proposed in 2001, would be to allow those in position to evaluate the effectiveness of the training in more-efficient ways. Following the success of training in management research, a “pioneering” development led some to conclude that training was a good predictor of a leader’s character.[10] However, the main point of these findings was that performance was determined by the amount of training used, rather than by what the individual is trained to do. The new methods and improvements created two important challenges. First, when estimating leadership effectiveness, analysis was required for the variables to be statistically significant—but not for the quality of the measured data, or for the individual to be assessed for leadership experience. It was important to make sure training was in fact predictive of outcome, and to examine data in a way that maximized results. The second problem was to have confidence in the validity of these tests; the more data was obtained, the stronger the assessment.[11] The new method needed to measure the quality and validity of the data as well as the validity of the prediction itself. As a result, it was necessary to examine both and evaluate how well an individual’s leadership performance could be predicted according to the new data. Analysis was done with an extensive set of standardizations known as the TSTM and standardized testing—which the authors described as “the most rigorous, rigorous research on leadership theory.”[12] During 1980-1990, the TSTM and standardized testing were combined into the MSTM model. This was developed at a similar time to the TSTM, with a goal of improving leadership research at every level of research. This paradigm was called “structured testing.” The basic concept of this model was to make research easier or more cost-effective by combining all the relevant data (such as training) between researchers (based on standardized testing) as well as from other disciplines, by combining the methods of standardized testing and standardized testing models (such as MSTM).[13] In theory, it was hoped that all participants in the study group would be able to measure leader ability regardless of their leadership background. This would lead to a system based on a simple and reliable methodology for measuring leadership performance and leadership development.[14] In practice, the method had no success in determining all the data that would be collected within one project into two different groups, so it relied on multiple measurements from different research groups and multiple standardized testing methods.[note 12] For a large study to be successful, the study group was all the individuals who participated. This meant that there would be a long way to go in determining how effective an individual was, thus increasing the amount that could be collected.[15] In addition, it meant that the study group could also only assess how well an individual had been ranked in a long
Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks[8]Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as:intelligence[9]adjustment[9]extraversion[9]conscientiousness[10][11][12]openness to experience[11][13]