I will make the case that Leadership traits exist, and admit that the situation faced may call from different traits or different application, or combinations of traits. Some scholars discount the value of traits in leaders, or their impact on individuals becoming successful and effective leaders. My published leadership and adversity Doctoral research documents the value of leadership traits for the sixteen prominent leaders that I personally interviewed who all overcame adversity and became successful leaders, in spite of their adversities, included: Dr. Tony Bonanzino, Jack Canfield, William Draper III, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, Mark Victor Hansen, Monzer Hourani, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, J. Terrence Lanni, Dr. John Malone, Angelo Mozilo, Larry Pino, Dr. Nido Qubein, U.S. Army Major General Sid Shachnow, Dr. John Sperling, Dr. Blenda Wilson, and Zig Ziglar.
My leadership and adversity research has been peer debriefed, reviewed and agreed with by five internationally known, well respected leadership scholars, and best-selling authors: Dr. Ken Blanchard, Dr. John Kotter, Professor Jim Kouzes, Dr. Paul Stoltz, and Dr. Meg Wheatley.
My Doctoral dissertation research revealed that sixteen prominent leaders specifically indentified as number of leadership traits that they believed were important in becoming a leader. My research revealed that, honesty and integrity were high on their lists of the essential qualities of a leader. The sixteen prominent leaders and research participants shared an emphasis on the willingness to serve those they lead and to be a humble servant-leader.
Under the umbrella of leadership traits, the notion of the importance of servant leadership and being a Humble Servant Leader (from my leadership research) is repeated here because it remained a strong theme in the sixteen prominent leaders’ interviews. The sixteen prominent leaders I interviewed all talked about the importance of caring about people and listening to their needs. The participants emphasized that having clear and consistent communication and willingness to share their vision, their objectives, and the tone of the journey was essential to their success as leaders. They believe that having a complete and deep understanding of the business was needed to lead and succeed. They were quick to repeat the need to be able to cope with adversity ‘head-on,’ overcome obstacles, and view challenges as opportunities.
The question is: Are leadership traits real or a myth? Dozens of leadership authors (even some well-known leadership scholars), and no I am not going the specifically identify them by name, as it may cause some embarrassment, has specifically claimed that “leadership trait theory is dead,” “leadership trait theory is out of step with the mainstream of current academic scholars thoughts in the field of leadership,” or “recent leadership research by noted scholars disagree with the concept there are traits of leaders.”
I found that the source of the misinformation stems around an article by Stogdill which is frequently misquoted or misinterpreted. Many leadership writers, even some leadership scholars, misquoted or misunderstood the article. But they have commented on his now sixty year old article from his review and findings from various trait studies, relying on a prior interpretation, instead going back the primary document. He is often cited as finding them contradictory or inconclusive. Several authors have also stated that the well-respected late Professor Stogdill could not find a reliable and coherent pattern in the 120 trait studies he initially reviewed.
I re-read the entire 1948 article by Stogdill, and he never made the statements that were attributed to him regarding his alleged opinion that Leadership Trait Theory is false or not true. I personally and professional do not believe that that leadership theory is false or dead.
I will proceed to counter and document the false information, or misinformation, that leadership traits are untrue or invalid. Stogdill in his reporting of his leadership research, just instead used the term Leadership Factors instead of Leadership Traits. In the original article which was published in a 1948 issue of the Journal of Psychology, Stogdill discussed in detail the results of his leadership foundation literature review and study, in which he found and published that certain factors (or traits) which have been associated with leadership could all probably be classified under the general headings of capacity, achievement, responsibility, participation, status, and situation..
Of particular note, what Stogdill’s calls his Situational Factor (Situational Leadership Trait) is very similar or comparable to the underpinnings of leadership philosophies such as servant-leadership, principle-centered leadership, or even transformation leadership. He explicated in detail the meaning of each factor, using terms or adjectives for his sub-factors that others might call Leadership Traits.
Stogdill, discussed what other leadership scholar have before and since called Traits, but he re-categorized them and called “factors” He instead as argued that the five individual Factors” with “sub-factors, existed, but that there was a sixth factor which was the specific situation itself.