CHAPTER 3

Leadership Traits and Attributes

Introduction

There is no doubt that extensive resources have been devoted to the search for “traits” and “attributes” of effective leaders, as well as characteristics of dysfunctional leaders. In fact, one of the earliest and most popular conceptions of leadership that flourished in the 19th and early 20th centuries, often referred to as the “great man” theory, assumed that certain individual characteristics, or “traits,” could be found in leaders but not in nonleaders and that those characteristics could not be developed but must be inherited.¹ Much of the work based on this theory was conducted under the umbrella of settling debates about whether leaders were “born or made” and, to the extent that genes were not totally responsible for leadership success, what strategies could be used to teach people how to execute the behaviors thought to be associated with effective leadership.

Eventually the “great man” theory was discredited in the face of a continuous stream of new theories that had as one of their core principles the democratization of leadership opportunities. However, the “great man” theory did leave behind a keen interest in attempting to identify those individual traits that could be most tightly linked to leadership and laid the foundation for the “trait school of leadership,” which held that the traits of leaders—assumed to include their capacities, motives, and patterns of behavior—were different from those of nonleaders. In contrast to the “great man” theory, trait theories did not particularly care whether the leadership traits were inherited or acquired and, in fact, early suggestions about optimal traits included items that were inherited (e.g., height, weight, and physique) as well as items that were dependent on experience and training (e.g., industry knowledge).²

Two of the most significant reviews of the trait school of leadership are attributed to Stodgill³ and Mann⁴ and there is evidence to support the proposition that certain traits, such as intelligence and dominance, are associated with leadership. However, many leadership scholars lacked confidence in the research findings relating to leadership traits. Muczyk and Adler noted that many of the traits associated with leaders appeared to have a genetic component and that this buoyed the arguments of those who maintained that leaders are “born”; however, they also argued that leadership success depended on the behaviors of those who sought to lead in particular situations and that, as such, the fact that most of these behaviors could be taught supported the view that leaders can also be “made.” They conceded that leaders with certain genetic traits or natural gifts might be predisposed to various types of behaviors, and that this might make their job easier, but that the bottom line was the “traits are not the determining factor when it comes to leadership success.”⁵ ­Kirkpatrick and Locke acknowledged that trait theories were largely abandoned for a significant period of time; however, they noted that new research using a variety of methods had provided support for the general proposition that effective and successful leaders were “different” and that there were a handful of core traits that were extremely important contributors to, albeit not guarantors of, the success of leaders in the business world.⁶ They cautioned, however, that “[t]raits alone … are not sufficient for successful business leadership—they are only a precondition” and that aspiring leaders with those traits must take certain actions in order to be successful such as formulating a vision, role modeling, and setting goals.⁷ There has clearly been a decline in the proportional interest in trait theories among published articles relating to leadership studies topics; however, even though “traits” alone do not tell the whole story behind effective leadership, it is nonetheless useful to survey some of the characteristics and attributes that have been frequently mentioned by researchers and other commentators.⁸

Leadership Traits and Attributes

• Self-Awareness: Emotional self-awareness (i.e., ability to read and understand your emotions and recognize their impact on work performance and relationships); accurate self-­assessment (i.e., a realistic evaluation of your strengths and limitations); and self-confidence (i.e., a strong and positive sense of ­self-worth and ability to demonstrate authentic “grace under pressure”)
• Self-Management: Self-control (i.e., ability to keep disruptive emotions and impulses under control); credibility; trustworthiness (i.e., consistent display of honesty and integrity and excellent reputation); conscientiousness (i.e., ability to manage yourself and your responsibilities); and adaptability (i.e., skill at adjusting to changing situations and overcoming obstacles)
• Drive: Achievement orientation (i.e., drive to meet an ­internal standard of excellence); initiative (i.e., a readiness to seize opportunities); ambition regarding work and career ­leading to establishment of hard, challenging goals for themselves and their organizations; high levels of energy and stamina; and tenacity and persistence
• Leadership Motivation and Effective Use of Power: Strong desire to influence and lead others and willingness to assume responsibility; willingness to exercise his or her power over subordinates, issue directions to subordinates, and make appropriate use of positive and negative sanctions; ability to use power intelligently to achieve desired goals, or a vision (i.e., development of networks and coalitions, resolution of conflicts in a constructive manner, and effective use of role modeling in influencing others)
• Social Awareness: Empathy (i.e., skill at sensing other ­people’s emotions, understanding their perspective, and taking an active interest in their work and concerns); ­organizational awareness (i.e., ability to read the currents of organizational life, build decision networks, and navigate politics); ­selective demonstration of weaknesses and vulnerability to reveal approachability and humanity; and service orientation (i.e., ability to recognize and meet customers’ needs)
• Social Skill: Visionary leadership (i.e., ability to take charge and inspire with a compelling vision); influence (i.e., ability to wield a range of persuasive tactics); developing others (i.e., propensity to bolster abilities of others through feedback and guidance); communication (i.e., skill at listening and at sending clear and convincing messages); change catalyst (i.e., proficiency in initiating new ideas and leading people in a new direction); conflict management (i.e., ability to de-escalate disagreements and orchestrate resolutions); building bonds (i.e., proficiency at cultivating and maintaining relationships); and teamwork and collaboration (i.e., competence at promoting cooperation and building teams).
• Cognitive Ability: Requisite level of relevant “cognitive ­ability” (i.e., strong analytical ability, good judgment, and capacity to think strategically and multidimensionally) to create a perception of competence in the minds of ­followers regarding the leader’s ability to manage ­information intelligently and use it to effectively identify problems, formulate strategies and solutions, and make informed decisions
• Knowledge of Business: High degree of task-related ­knowledge about the company, industry, and technical ­matters; networking and cognitive ability to collect and understand information central to the organization and its business and necessary for understanding concerns of ­subordinates and making intelligent decisions; and sufficient demonstrable expertise regarding business to engage in ­behaviors that provide “leadership by example”

Goleman

In his well-known article on “What Makes a Leader?,” Goleman argued that “effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they all have a high degree of ‘emotional intelligence.’”⁹ Goleman described “emotional intelligence” as “the ability to manage ourselves and our relationships effectively.”¹⁰ In Goleman’s first model, the “emotional intelligence” of a leader operating in the workplace context consisted of five fundamental capabilities, each of which had its own specific set of competencies and traits¹¹:

1. Self-awareness, defined as the leader’s ability to recognize and understand his or her moods, emotions, and drives, as well as their effect on others. Hallmarks of this trait include self-confidence, realistic self-assessment, and self-deprecating sense of humor.
2. Self-regulation, defined as the leader’s ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods and the propensity of the leader to be able to suspend judgment and “think before acting.” Hallmarks of this trait include trustworthiness and integrity, comfort with ambiguity, and openness to change.
3. Motivation, defined as a passion to work for reasons that go beyond money or status and a propensity to pursue goals with energy and persistence. Hallmarks of this trait include a strong drive to achieve; optimism, even in the face of failure; and organizational ­commitment.
4. Empathy, defined as the leader’s ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people and the ability of the leader to treat ­people according to their emotional reactions. Hallmarks of this trait include expertise in building and retaining talent, cross-cultural ­sensitivity, and service to clients and customers.
5. Social skill, defined as proficiency in managing relationships and building networks and the ability to find common ground and build rapport. Hallmarks of this trait include effectiveness in leading change, persuasiveness, and expertise in building and leading teams.

Several years later, Goleman modified his model slightly by ­reducing the number of “capabilities” from five to four—“motivation” was removed and subsumed into “social skill”—and changing the names of two other capabilities to arrive at the following¹²:

1. Self-Awareness: Emotional self-awareness (i.e., the ability to read and understand your emotions, as well as recognize their impact on work performance, relationships, and the like); accurate self-assessment (i.e., a realistic evaluation of your strengths and limitations); and self-confidence (i.e., a strong and positive sense of self-worth).
2. Self-Management: Self-control (i.e., the ability to keep disruptive emotions and impulses under control); trustworthiness (i.e., a consistent display of honesty and integrity); conscientiousness (i.e., the ability to manage yourself and your responsibilities); adaptability (i.e., skill at adjusting to changing situations and overcoming obstacles); achievement orientation (i.e., the drive to meet an ­internal standard of excellence); and initiative (i.e., a readiness to seize ­opportunities).
3. Social Awareness: Empathy (i.e., skill at sensing other people’s emotions, understanding their perspective, and taking an active ­interest in their concerns); organizational awareness (i.e., the ability to read the currents of organizational life, build decision networks, and ­navigate politics); and service orientation (i.e., the ability to recognize and meet customers’ needs).
4. Social Skill: Visionary leadership (i.e., the ability to take charge and inspire with a compelling vision); influence (i.e., the ability to wield a range of persuasive tactics); developing others (i.e., the ­propensity to bolster the abilities of others through feedback and guidance); communication (i.e., skill at listening and at sending clear, convincing, and well-tuned messages); change catalyst (i.e., proficiency in initiating new ideas and leading people in a new direction); conflict management (i.e., the ability to de-escalate disagreements and orchestrate resolutions); building bonds (i.e., proficiency at cultivating and maintaining a web of relationships); and ­teamwork and ­collaboration (i.e., competence at promoting cooperation and building teams).

Goleman noted that leaders do need other traits, such as general intelligence (“IQ”) and technical skills; however, he believed that these were “threshold capabilities” or “entry-level requirements for executive positions” and that his research, along with the work of others, confirmed that emotional intelligence was the “sine qua non of leadership” and that without it a person could not become a “great leader” even though the person may have the best training, an incisive and analytical mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas.¹³ On the surface, it would appear that Goleman cast his vote with those researchers in the “leaders are born not made” group who insist that there are certain traits that one either has or does not have, in this case emotional intelligence. However, whereas ­Goleman conceded there is a genetic component to many of the traits that he associated with emotional intelligence, he pointed out that research and practice indicated that emotional intelligence can be learned, although admittedly it will take a lot of hard work to train and discipline executives to become more empathetic and regulate their predisposition to act before thinking.

Goffee and Jones

In their theory about the “four essential qualities of leadership,” Goffee and Jones identified the following traits and behaviors associated with inspirational leaders¹⁴:

1. They selectively show their weaknesses and, by exposing some vulnerability, they also reveal their approachability and humanity.
2. They rely heavily on intuition to gauge the appropriate timing and course of their actions, and their ability to collect and interpret “soft data” helps them in knowing just when and how to take action.
3. They manage employees with “tough empathy,” which means that they are able to empathize passionately—and realistically—with people and they care deeply about the work being carried out by their employees.
4. They reveal their differences and capitalize on their unique traits and skills.

Goffee and Jones conceded that there are leaders without these qualities that have been able to deliver superior financial returns; however, they believed that these qualities were essential to inspiring and motivating people, a state of affairs which certainly makes it easier for the leader to drive an organization toward success provided that he or she is also able to select and articulate the right direction. It is also worth noting the Goffee and Jones identified what they considered to be several “myths about leadership” and reported that based on their research it was not true that everyone can be a leader, leaders did not always deliver business results, people who get to the top of the organizational hierarchy are not necessarily leaders, and leaders are rarely great coaches.¹⁵

Kirkpatrick and Locke

After acknowledging that “trait” theories had fallen out of favor during the middle of the 20th century, Kirkpatrick and Locke argued that recent research had provided evidence to support the general proposition that certain traits do matter and significantly contributed to the success of business leaders and distinguished them from others.¹⁶ According to Kirkpatrick and Locke, there are six traits on which leaders differ from nonleaders: drive, the desire to lead, honesty/integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business. Other traits, specifically charisma, creativity/originality, and flexibility, may also be important for leadership in certain instances; however, Kirkpatrick and Locke observed that the evidence regarding these traits was less clear-cut.¹⁷ They acknowledged that other traits might be needed for effective leadership but elected to focus on the six “core” traits described in more detail in the following sections.

Drive

Kirkpatrick and Locke used the term drive “to refer to a constellation of traits and motives reflecting a high effort level.”¹⁸ In particular, they focused on five particular elements which they referred to as achievement motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative:

1. Achievement: Kirkpatrick and Locke observed that leaders “have a relatively high desire for achievement” and that high achievers “obtain satisfaction from successfully completing challenging tasks, attaining standards of excellence, and developing better ways of doing things.”¹⁹ Persons aspiring for leadership status have a desire to complete challenging tasks and assignment as they progress in order to increase their technical expertise and initiate and execute organizational changes.

2. Ambition: According to Kirkpatrick and Locke, “[l]eaders are very ambitious about their work and careers and have a desire to get ahead.”²⁰ Studies have indicated that effective leaders are more ­ambitious than nonleaders and, in order for them to advance, persons seeking leadership positions look for opportunities to demonstrate their drive and determination. Kirkpatrick and Locke also noted that high ambition causes leaders to “set hard, challenging goals for themselves and their organizations.”²¹

3. Energy: Leaders have the physical, mental, and emotional vitality to maintain a steadily productive work pace and put in the long and intense periods of time, extending for decades, required in order to fulfill their drive for achievement. Kirkpatrick and Locke noted that “leaders are more likely than nonleaders to have a high level of energy and stamina and to be generally active, lively, and often restless.”²²

4. Tenacity: Kirkpatrick and Locke observed that “[l]eaders are better at overcoming obstacles than nonleaders” and have a “degree of strength of will or perseverance.”²³ This is important because the types of projects that leaders take on, such as organizational change programs, typically take a long time to execute and provide benefits and must frequently overcome strong institutional resistance. As such, leaders must be tirelessly persistent in championing these projects and relentless in their efforts to make sure that the desired changes take hold within the organization.²⁴

5. Initiative: Kirkpatrick and Locke argued that effective leaders are “proactive” and that they make choices and initiate actions to create change rather than simply reacting to events or waiting for events to happen. Leaders are not willing to sit idly by and hope that good things will happen to them and prefer instead to take their own initiative to challenge the process.²⁵

Leadership Motivation and Effective
Use of Power

Kirkpatrick and Locke noted that whereas the various characteristics associated with “drive” are admirable they may sometimes cause a prospective leader to believe that he or she must do everything on his or her own, a situation that can lead to problems with development commitment and responsibility among subordinates. It is therefore important, in the opinion of Kirkpatrick and Locke, that leaders supplement their own drive and ambition with a true desire to lead others, a characteristic referred to as “leadership motivation.”²⁶ Kirkpatrick and Locke cited research findings that indicate that effective leaders have a strong desire to influence and lead others, prefer to be in a leadership rather than a subordinate role, and have a willingness to assume responsibility.²⁷

Leadership motivation is often associated with the “need for power” and it is commonly recognized that “power is a leader’s currency, or the primary means through which the leader gets things done in the organization.”²⁸ Assuming this to be true, it is understandable that prospective leaders strive to gain the power necessary to exercise influence over others in the organization, and Kirkpatrick and Locke emphasize that in order to be successful a leader must be willing to exercise his or her power over subordinates, issue directions to subordinates, and make appropriate use of positive and negative sanctions. However, according to McClelland, the effective use of that power depends on whether the leader has a “personalized” or “socialized” power motive. A leader with personalized power motive, sometimes described as “power lust,” pursues power as an end in itself and exercises that power in ways that seek to dominate subordinates and make them submissive and dependent. In contrast, a leader with a socialized power motive uses power intelligently to achieve desired goals, or a vision, and “its use is expressed as the ability to develop networks and coalitions, gain cooperation from others, resolve conflicts in a constructive manner, and use role modeling in influencing others.”²⁹

Honesty/Integrity

Kirkpatrick and Locke conceded that honesty and integrity are important virtues for every person; however, they noted that in the area of leadership these factors are essential for effectiveness. They explained that “[i]ntegrity is the correspondence between word and deed and honesty refers to being truthful or non-deceitful” and that honesty and integrity are “the foundation of a trusting relationship between leader and followers.”³⁰ Practices of successful leaders that demonstrate the requisite level of honesty and integrity include being open with their followers, yet discrete in not violating confidences or carefully disclosing harmful information. Kirkpatrick and Locke concluded that “[e]ffective leaders are credible, with excellent reputations, and high levels of integrity.”³¹

Kouzes and Posner agreed:

Honesty is absolutely essential to leadership. After all, if we are willing to follow someone, whether it be into battle or into the boardroom, we first want to assure ourselves that the person is worthy of our trust. We want to know that he or she is being truthful, ethical and principled. We want to be fully confident in the integrity of our leaders.³²

In the same vein, a study undertaken by the Hay Group concluded that the most reliable predictor of employee satisfaction was trust and confidence in the top leadership of the organization and that achieving the desired organizational trust and confidence required that leaders effectively communicate with employees to help them understand the organization’s overall business strategy and how they contributed to the achievement of the organization’s key business objectives and share information with employees about the performance of the organization as a whole and each employee’s business unit (i.e., division or department) in particular.³³

Self-Confidence

Kirkpatrick and Locke argued that a leader’s self-confidence, including others’ perception of it, is important to his or her effectiveness as a leader for a number of reasons.³⁴ For example, self-confidence is crucial in making the decisions required of leaders and in gaining and holding the trust of those who will be called upon to carry out those decisions. Self-confidence is also needed to navigate the challenges of the often chaotic environment confronting the leader, including the need to gather and analyze large amounts of information, solve problems and make decisions under tight time constraints, balance and reconcile competing interests, overcome setbacks, manage risks and uncertainties, and cope with unforeseen events. In addition, Kirkpatrick and Locke noted that self-confidence is generally related to emotional stability and that confident leaders are better able to remain even-tempered while confronting the challenges of their position and resolving conflicts and representing the organization in interactions with outsiders. Kirkpatrick and Locke referenced an article that highlighted the notion that effective leaders demonstrate “grace under pressure” that calms their followers.³⁵ Finally, self-confidence allows leaders to see challenges and chaotic events as opportunities for development and situations where they can indeed make a difference.³⁶

Cognitive Ability

A number of researchers have emphasized the significant demands on leaders with respect to collecting, organizing, and analyzing large amounts of information from disparate sources. These challenges have been exacerbated by advances in information technology that have enabled a virtual avalanche of data and communications that often seem overwhelming. It is not surprising therefore that Kirkpatrick and Locke suggested that leaders must have the requisite level of “cognitive ability” to manage information intelligently and use it to effectively identify problems, formulate strategies and solutions, and, in general, make informed decisions about issues relating to their organizations.³⁷ Having the requisite “cognitive ability” does not necessarily mean that a leader must be “brilliant”; however, Kirkpatrick and Locke cited Kotter for the view that effective leadership requires a “‘keen mind’ (i.e., strong analytical ability, good judgment, and the capacity to think strategically and multidimensionally).”³⁸ In addition, it is important that followers actually believe that their leader is “more capable in some respects than they are.”³⁹

Knowledge of the Business

Somewhat related to “cognitive knowledge” is the observation by Kirkpatrick and Locke that effective leaders demonstrate a “high degree of knowledge about the company, industry and technical matters.”⁴⁰ Effective leaders are privy to extensive information about their firms and the industry and overall economy in which they are operating and this ­specific information in invaluable to their ability to make intelligent decisions regarding strategy and operational matters. Another important benefit of relevant technical expertise is that it enables leaders to have a clear understanding of the concerns of their subordinates and gives them credibility when they are offering advice on potential solutions to technical issues that may arise within the firm. Kirkpatrick and Locke cited the findings of various researchers that effective leaders tended to have long careers in the industry in which their firms were operating and that formal education was not necessarily a requirement for effective leadership as long as the leader had the cognitive ability to collect and understand the information that was central to the business of his or her organization.

Knowledge of the business is a particular form of “expertise” that plays a big role in the so-called “power and influence” theories of leadership. These theories, the most well known of which was put forward by French and Raven, focus on how leaders use power and influence in creating their leadership styles. French and Raven’s “Five Forms of Power” included three forms of positional power—legitimate, reward, and coercive—and two forms of personal power referred to as expert and referent.⁴¹ Proponents of this model have argued that personal power, particular expert, is the preferred alternative for leaders to be effective and influential on the basis of the perceptions of their followers that their leadership role is legitimate. The power of expertise can be enhanced by appropriate behaviors, such as “leading by example.”

Management Implications

Kirkpatrick and Locke suggested several “management implications” from their findings regarding what they viewed as universally important “traits” of effective leaders.⁴² First, they argued that cognitive ability is probably the least changeable or trainable of the six traits that they identified and that “drive” is fairly constant over time although they conceded that it could change. Second, both “drive” and the “desire to lead” really must be observed in order to be properly assessed and proper observation requires that employees in lower levels within the organization be given opportunities early in their careers to assume more responsibility and act with greater autonomy. Third, “knowledge of the business” and the accompanying technical knowledge can be acquired over a period of time through the proper balance of formal training and job experience complimented by a “thirst for knowledge” and desire to explore opportunities for learning. Prospective leaders and their companies can facilitate this process through job rotation programs. Fourth, task-specific self-confidence can be enhanced as business and technical knowledge is acquired and prospective leaders begin to learn and apply the skills that they will need in the future. Finally, with respect to “honesty,” Kirkpatrick and Locke observe simply that “[h]onesty does not require skill building; it is a virtue one achieves or rejects by choice” and that companies can promote the right choices through celebration of role models for ­honest behavior and refraining from rewarding, with compensation and/or ­promotions, dishonesty.

Muczyk and Adler

Muczyk and Adler themselves provided a lengthy list of leadership traits based on their review of the literature, including “passion to lead,” “will to manage,” a large reservoir of energy, organizing abilities, a mature ­personality, a requisite amount of intelligence, task-relevant knowledge, confidence, integrity, and adaptability.⁴³ They pointed out that high energy levels and adaptability are necessary for leaders to carry out many of the managerial roles described by Mintzberg and cope with change and the need to interact with a broad spectrum of stakeholders on behalf of their organizations. As for intelligence and task-relevant knowledge, they referred to the findings of Kirpatrick and Locke and noted that these traits were particularly useful in directing subordinates and answering their concerns and questions about specific job-related activities. Finally, they strongly endorsed the importance of integrity as part of the optimal leader profile as a prerequisite in securing the respect, trust, and goodwill of subordinates that is necessary in order to motivate to comply with the directions given by the leader.⁴⁴

Principles and Attributes of Military Leadership

Not surprisingly, leadership has always been an important subject in military training and development programs and military leaders are quoted on lists compiled to illustrate various definitions and conceptions of leadership. For example, Montgomery defined leadership as “the capacity and the will to rally men and women to a common purpose and the character which inspires confidence.” MacArthur observed:

A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He does not set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the equality of his actions and the integrity of his intent.

Leadership quotes from Eisenhower have included “leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it,” “the supreme quality of leadership is integrity,” and “you don’t lead by hitting people over the head—that’s assault, not leadership.”

The U.S. Army has a long history of leadership training activities and Clark, drawing on training materials developed and used by the army, offered the following list of key “principles of leadership:”

• Know yourself and seek self-improvement.
• Be technically proficient.
• Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions.
• Make sound and timely decisions.
• Set the example.
• Know your people and look out for their well-being.
• Keep your workers informed.
• Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers.
• Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and ­accomplished.
• Train as a team.
• Use the full capabilities of your organization.

Clark went on to argue that in order to effectively implement the principles of leadership, leaders needed to concentrate on specific attributes that were divided into groups referred to as “Be” (i.e., who leader was as evidenced by beliefs and character), “Know” (i.e., what the leader knew regarding relevant jobs and tasks and human nature), and “Do” (i.e., what the leader did while carrying out his or her duties such as providing direction to followers and motivating followers). Specific recommendations were as follows:

• BE a professional (e.g., be loyal to the organization and take personal responsibility).
• BE a professional with good character traits (e.g., honesty, competence, candor, commitment, integrity, and courage).
• KNOW the four factors of leadership: leader, followers, ­communication, and situation.
• KNOW yourself (i.e., know the strengths and weaknesses of your character, knowledge, and skills).
• KNOW human nature (i.e., understand human needs, ­emotions, and how people respond to stress).
• KNOW your job (i.e., be proficient, be able to lead by example, and be willing to provide training and coaching to followers).
• KNOW your organization (i.e., understand the organizational culture and structure, how to ask for help and access resources, and who the informal leaders are among the ­followers).
• DO provide direction (i.e., set get goals and plan, make ­decisions, and identify and resolve problems and conflicts).
• DO implement (i.e., communicate, coordinate, supervise, and evaluate).
• DO motivate (e.g., develop morale and a positive organizational climate, train, coach, and counsel).

Source: D. Clark, “Concepts of Leadership,” Big Dog and Little Dog’s Performance Juxtaposition (blog) http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcon.html (accessed June 15, 2015) (citing U.S. Army, Military Leadership: Field Manual 22-100 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 1983). Clark’s website also includes both short and long versions of a useful leadership self-assessment survey. Quotations from military leaders selected from a list compiled and presented in K. Kruse, 365 Inspirational Quotes: Daily Motivation For Your Best Year Ever (Wholehearted Leadership Press 2014)).

Networking and Leadership Development

Hoppe and Reinelt suggested a framework for classifying networks with a particular focus on networks that organizational leaders might join as part of their leadership development efforts in order to gain access to resources and other support.⁴⁵ They noted that whereas leadership networks may be intentionally created, they also often emerge from a strong need or desire of the members of the networks to become and remain connected. The four types of networks in their framework were as follows:

• Peer Leadership Network: A peer network is based on social ties among leaders who are connected with one another on the basis of the shared interests and commitments, shared work, or shared experiences. A peer network provides ­leaders with access to resources that they believe are trustworthy and can be used by leaders to share information, provide advice and support, learn from one another, and collaborate together. Gaining access to a peer network is often one of the ­fundamental goals of a leadership development program.
• Organizational Leadership Network: The social ties established in an organizational leadership network are focused on increasing performance. Ties in this type of network are often informal and exist outside of the formal organizational structure and provide leaders with the means to consult with ­colleagues outside of their departments or business units in order to solve problems more quickly. In some cases, ­organizational networks are intentionally created, in the form of cross-functional teams or communities of practice, to bridge gaps in the formal organizational structure that may be impeding performance and progress toward organizational goals (e.g., completing a new product and/or delivering ­services to customers more efficiently).
• Field-Policy Leadership Network: Leaders who share common interests and a commitment to influencing a field of practice or policy may come together to form a network that can be used to shape the environment surrounding the topic of mutual interest (e.g., frame the issue, clarify underlying assumptions, and/or establish standards for what is expected of key stakeholders). This type of network can be a powerful tool for collective advocacy on issues and policies that are of common importance to multiple organizations and can ­facilitate mobilization of support and allocation of resources.
• Collective Leadership Network: A collective leadership network, which is based on a common cause or share goals, emerges and enlarges over time. The process begins with local groupings that eventually interact with groups in other areas to form larger networks and a much broader community that allows members to pursue specific goals while feeling a part of something that is larger than oneself.

Hoppe and Reinelt emphasized that the framework was largely for illustrative purposes and that many networks are actually hybrids of multiple categories or simply fail to fit neatly into one of their network types. What is important from a leadership development perspective is the potential value of networks to current and prospective leaders in terms of access to information, advice, support, and other learning benefits. ­Networking also provides leaders with a foundation for identifying potential collaborators for new initiatives and impacting the external environment of the organizations they lead.

The relative position of leaders within their networks is an important consideration. In some cases, leaders enjoy strong ties to other members of their network (“bonding connections”) and thus have a feeling of affiliation and connectivity to a trusted community where interactions are familiar and efficient. However, leaders also need to have “bridging” or “brokerage” connections which, although weaker than bonding connections, nonetheless provide them with essential paths to accessing new resources and developing new opportunities for innovation and profit.⁴⁶ A “bridger” is a person in a network who has connections to different clusters and is typically someone who is deeply embedded in relaying information among other network members. In this capacity, a leader can gain recognition and trust as a key broker of access and knowledge and as someone who is positioned to move projects that require collaboration from people in different parts of the organizational network. As a leader’s reputation grows, he or she is more likely to become a “hub” in a network, which means someone who is a highly sought resource for advice by other members of the network. The influence of a hub increases to the extent that the persons who seek his or her advice are themselves relatively more influential in the network.

---

¹ Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” ­Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 48. For an interesting exploration of the “great man” theory, including exhaustive citations, see Eckmann, H. 2018. “Great Man Theory: A Personal Account of Attraction.” Paper for the IBA ­Conference, http://jameslconsulting.com/documents/GreatManTheory.pdf (accessed December 14, 2018).

² Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 48. Kirkpatrick and Locke suggested that further information on trait theories and particular traits could be obtained by a review of Stogdill, R. 1974. Handbook of Leadership. New York, NY: Free Press; Boyatzis, R. 1982. The Competent Manager. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons; Cox, C., and C. Cooper. 1988. High Flyers: An Anatomy of Managerial Success. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; and Yukl, G. 1989. Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chapter 9.

³ Stogdill, R.M. 1948. “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature.” Journal of Psychology 25, pp. 35–71.

⁴ Mann, R. 1959. “A Review of the Relationship Between Personality and Performance in Small Groups.” Psychological Bulletin 56, pp. 241–70.

⁵ Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.

⁶ Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 49.

⁷ Id.

⁸ For detailed discussion of the research relating to personal attributes of leaders and “traits of leadership,” see Bass, B.M., and R. Bass. 2009. The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Bass is well known for his model of “transformational leadership” and Tichy and Devanna identified a list of characteristics or traits of transformational leaders that included the following: identification of self as a change agent, courage, belief in people, value-driven, lifelong learner, able to deal with complexity, and “visionary”. Tichy, N., and M. Devanna. 1986. The Transformational Leader. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. See also Craig, N., and S. Snook. May 2014. “From Purpose to Impact.” Harvard Business Review; Patel, D. March 22, 2017. “11 Powerful Traits of Successful Leaders.” Forbes. https://forbes.com/sites/deeppatel/2017/03/22/11-powerful-traits-of-successful-leaders/#3848103e469f; Gordon, J. 2017. Power of Positive Leadership. New York, NY: Wiley. (traits of positive leaders including positive culture, vision, optimism, confrontation and transformation of negativity, united and effective teams, purpose, grit, and ­pursuit of excellence); and Craig, N. 2018. Leading from Purpose: Clarity and Confidence to Act When It Matters. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

⁹ Goleman, D. November–December 1998. “What Makes a Leader?” Harvard Business Review 76, no. 6, pp. 93–102. See also http://danielgoleman.info/emotional-intelligence-and-leadership/

¹⁰ Goleman, D. March–April 2000. “Leadership That Gets Results.” Harvard Business Review, pp. 78–90.

¹¹ Id.

¹² Goleman, D. November–December 1998. “What Makes a Leader?” Harvard Business Review 76, no. 6, pp. 93–102.

¹³ Id. See also Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam; Goleman, D. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam; and Goleman, D. March–April 2000. “Leadership That Gets Results.” Harvard Business Review 78, no. 2, pp. 78–90, 80. (citing findings by McClelland “that leaders with strengths in a critical mass of six or more emotional intelligence competencies were far more effective than peers who lacked such strengths” based on various measures such as financial performance of their organizations, annual bonuses, and performance review assessments).

¹⁴ Goffee, R., and G. Jones. September–October 2000. “Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?” Harvard Business Review, pp. 63–70.

¹⁵ Id. See also Goffee, R., and G. Jones. 2019. Why Should Anyone Be Led by You? With a New Preface by the Authors: What It Takes to Be an Authentic Leader. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

¹⁶ Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60.

¹⁷ Id. at p. 56. Kirkpatrick and Locke did note, however, that “[f]lexibility or adaptiveness may be important traits for a leader in today’s turbulent environment.”

¹⁸ Id. at p. 49. For evidence and further information regarding “drive,” see Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press; Smith, K., and J. Harrison. 1986. “In Search of Excellent Leaders.” In Handbook of Strategy, eds. W. Guth. New York, NY: Warren, Gorham, & Lamont.

¹⁹ Id. at p. 49.

²⁰ Id. at p. 50. One study of managers at AT&T found ambition—the desire for advancement—was the strongest indicator of success 20 years later. See ­Howard, A., and D. Bray. 1988. Managerial Lives in Transition: Advancing Age and Changing Times. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

²¹ Id. at p. 50.

²² Id.

²³ Id. at p. 51.

²⁴ Kirkpatrick and Locke noted, however, that persistence is only a positive trait if used intelligently and that “[d]ogged pursuit of an inappropriate strategy can ruin an organization.” Id.

²⁵ Id. at pp. 51–52.

²⁶ For evidence and further information regarding “leadership motivation,” see Bentz, V. 1967. “The Sears Experience in the Investigation, Description, and Prediction of Executive Behavior.” In Measuring Executive Effectiveness, eds. F. Wickert and D. McFarland. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; and Miner, J. 1978. “Twenty Years of Research on Role-Motivation Theory of Managerial Effectiveness.” Personnel Psychology 31, pp. 739–60.

²⁷ Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 52.

²⁸ Id. (citing Bennis, W., and B. Nanus. 1985. Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York, NY: Harper & Row.)

²⁹ Id. at p. 53. For further discussion of McClelland’s distinction between personalized and socialized power motives, see McClelland, D. 1965. “N-achievement and Entrepreneurship: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1, pp. 389–92.

³⁰ Id. at p. 53.

³¹ Id. at p. 54.

³² Kouzes, J., and B. Posner. 1989. The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. For evidence and further information regarding “honesty” and “integrity,” see Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press; Bennis, W., and B. Nanus. 1985. Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York, NY: Harper & Row; Peters, T. 1987. Thriving on Chaos. New York, NY: Harper & Row; and Rand, A. 1961. For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York, NY: Signet.

³³ Lamb, L., and K. McKee. 2004. Applied Public Relations: Cases in Stakeholder Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Routledge.

³⁴ Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 54.

³⁵ Id. at p. 55 (citing Labich, K. October 24, 1988. “The Seven Keys to Business Leadership.” Fortune, pp. 58–66).

³⁶ For evidence and further information regarding “self-confidence,” see Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press; Bennis, W., and B. Nanus. 1985. Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York, NY: Harper & Row; Maddi, S., and S. Kobasa. 1984. The Hardy Executive: Health Under Stress. Chicago: Dorsey Professional Books; and McCall, M, Jr., and M. Lombardo. 1983. Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives get Derailed. Technical Report No. 21, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

³⁷ Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 55. For evidence and further information regarding “cognitive ability,” see Lord, R., C. DeVader, and G. Aliger. 1986. “A Meta-analysis of the Relation Between Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An Application of Validity Generalization Procedures.” Journal of Applied Psychology 61, pp. 402–10; Howard, A., and D. Bray. 1988. Managerial Lives in Transition: Advancing Age and Changing Times. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

³⁸ Id. at p. 55. See Kotter, J. 1988. The Leadership Factor. New York, NY: Free Press.

³⁹ Id. at p. 55.

⁴⁰ Id. at p. 55. For evidence and further information regarding “knowledge of the business,” see Bennis, W., and B. Nanus. 1985. Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York, NY: Harper & Row; Kotter, J. 1986. The General Managers. New York, NY: Free Press; and Smith, K., and J. Harrison. 1986. “In Search of Excellent Leaders” In Handbook of Strategy, eds. W. Guth. New York, NY: ­Warren, Gorham, & Lamont.

⁴¹ For detailed discussion, see French, J., and B. Raven. 1959. “The Bases of Social Power.” In Group Dynamics, eds. D. Cartwright and A. Zander. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

⁴² Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 58.

⁴³ Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.

⁴⁴ Id. They referred to integrity, as well as the leader’s willingness and ability to treat subordinates with “courtesy, dignity and respect,” as integral parts of the “moral dimension of leadership”. See also Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2014. “A Strategy for Climbing The Organizational Ladder.” Academy of Strategic Management Journal 13, no. 2, p. 37.

⁴⁵ Hoppe, B., and C. Reinelt. 2010. “Social Network Analysis and the Evolution of Leadership Networks.” The Leadership Quarterly 21, p. 600, 601.

⁴⁶ Id.