Describe. examine. comparison. contrast. explain. analyze. evaluate. and exemplify the trait definition of leading versus the procedure of leading. Leadership is a absorbing subject. As Stogdill states. “there are about as many different definitions of leading as there are people who have tried to specify it” ( Stogdill 1974. p. 7 ) . In the 1930’s the trait definition of leading became the chief attack. The great adult male theory was introduced due to the surveies of the great people in history and their particular features that made them great leaders. This survey looked at people such as Abraham Lincoln. Catherine the Great. Mohandas Gandhi. and Joan of Arc. We have all been exposed to the stating that a certain person is a “natural born leader” ; this statement is representative of what the definition of trait based leading is. The trait position is defined as certain persons have particular innate or congenital features or qualities that make them leaders. and that it is these qualities that differentiate them from non-leaders ( Northouse. 2013. p. 7 ) . The major 5 traits for leading are intelligence. assurance. finding. unity. and sociableness.
In his research of the traits theory of leading John P. Howell. in his book. Snapshots of Great Leadership. finding and drive include traits such as enterprise. energy. assertiveness. doggedness. maleness. and sometimes laterality. Peoples with these traits frequently tend to wholeheartedly prosecute their ends. work long hours. are ambitious. and frequently are really competitory with others. Cognitive capacity includes intelligence. analytical and verbal ability. behavioural flexibleness. and good judgement.
Persons with these traits are able to explicate solutions to hard jobs. work good under emphasis or deadlines. adapt to altering state of affairss. and make well-thought-out programs for the hereafter. Howell provides illustrations of Steve Jobs and Abraham Lincoln as embracing the traits of finding and thrust every bit good as possessing cognitive capacity. demonstrated by their ability to accommodate to their continuously altering environments ( Howell. 2012. P. 4-6 ) . R. M. Stodgill engaged in two surveies on trait based leading. In those he found that a group of of import leading traits were related to how people in assorted groups ascended to leading. The undermentioned eight traits were: intelligence. watchfulness. penetration. duty. continuity. assurance. and sociableness ( Stodgill. 1974 ) . In his 2nd survey Stodgill besides identified 10 features that were associated with leading. Those being
1. Drive for duty and undertaking completion ; 2. Vigor and continuity in chase of ends ; 3. Hazard taking and originality in job resolution ; 4. Drive to exert enterprise in societal state of affairss ; 5. Assurance and sense of personal individuality ; 6. Willingness to accept effects of determination and action ; 7. Readiness to absorb interpersonal emphasis ; 8. Willingness to digest defeat and hold ; 9. Ability to act upon other people’s behaviour ; and 10. Capacity to construction societal interaction systems to the intent at manus.
There have been many who have studied the trait facet of leading. including Stodgill ( 1948. 1974 ) . Mann ( 1959 ) . DeVader and Aliger. Kikpatrick. and Locke ( 1991 ) . to Zaccaro. Kemp. and Black ( 2004 & A ; 2007 ) . They have all deduced that leaders have specific traits that have enabled them to go up to the top. The strengths of the trait theory are its consistence with the perceptual experience that leaders are different. due to the different traits that they possess. Another strength is that there is over a hundred old ages of research to back up the theory. The failings within trait theory are that there is non a unequivocal “list” of traits. Besides there has been a overplus of surveies done on the theory that many surveies have led to equivocal or non-conclusive findings. Last many critics of the trait theory have maintained the theory has failed to take state of affairss into history ( Northouse. 2013. p. 31 ) . The mere fact that life state of affairss that form leaders with certain traits in one instance. may non organize so to take in another set of fortunes.
Zaccaro states it best. He asserts that the traits theory fails to see forms or integratings of multiple properties ; does non separate between those leader attributes that are by and large non ductile over clip and those that are shaped by. and edge to. situational influences ; and does non see how stable leader attributes account for the behavioural diverseness necessary for effectual leading ( Zaccaro. 2007 ) . The theory of process leading merely states that it is non a trait or characteristic that resides in the leader. but instead a transactional event that occurs between the leader and the follower ( Northouse. 2013. p. 5 ) . The procedure theory asserts that there is a definite dynamic relationship between the leader and the followings. This besides asserts that leading is non reciprocally sole ; it is available to anyone who feels the demand to “step up” and lead. Leadership. harmonizing to procedure theory. consists of one person act uponing a group of persons to accomplish a common end.
In carry throughing this end the leader has to be ethically bound to listen and go to to the demands and concerns of the group. Therefore the “process” . There needs to be strong interaction between the leader and the group. if ends are to be efficaciously attained. In comparing and contrasting the two theories. trait theory asserts that there are certain traits and features that form leaders. This means that merely certain persons can achieve leading functions. Process theory asserts that it is non traits. but the dynamic relationship between the leader and the follower that defines the leader. and therefore makes leading a non-exclusive function. Examine & A ; explore. describe. contrast. explain. analyze. evaluate. and exemplify the construct of leading versus direction. Leadership and direction have been described as being one in the same. but the truth of the affair is that they are really different. The survey of leading can be traced back to Aristotle ; direction emerged around the bend of the twentieth century. to turn to the issues caused by the industrial revolution ( Northouse. 2010. p. 12 ) . Many bookmans such as such as Bennis and Nanus ( 1985 ) maintain that there is a really distinguishable difference between the two.
To take agencies to act upon other and create visions for alteration. where to pull off is to carry through activities and maestro modus operandis. Zaleznik ( 1977 ) contends that directors and leaders are distinguishable. and even argues that directors are reactive and prefer to work with people to work out jobs with low emotional engagement. Leaderships are emotionally involved and active ; they seek to model thoughts and expression to spread out available options. Leadership produces alteration and motion. whereas direction produces order and consistence. Leadership focuses on set uping way. alining people. and act uponing. motivation and inspiring persons. Management consists of budgeting and planning. forming. staffing. commanding. and job resolution ( Fayol. 1916 ) . Leadership and direction do portion some common attacks. such as working with people. puting and achieving ends. being empathic to you group’s demands. and observing triumphs. Northouse ( 2010 ) addressed the subject of assigned leading versus emergent leading.
Examine. describe. comparison. contrast. explain. analyze. evaluate. and exemplify these constructs and their renters. Emergent leading is viewed as a procedure and leading as an emergent event originating from dynamic interaction among agents over clip. ( Lichtenstein. 2006 ) . One leader may emerge at a peculiar minute to progress common involvements and ends and so withdraw to allow another person or group lead at another point “…leadership in complex systems takes topographic point during interactions among agents when those interactions lead to alterations in the manner agents expect to associate to one another in the future” ( Hazy. Goldstein. & A ; Lichtenstein. 2007. p 7 ) whether the alterations are due to altering perceptual experiences about aims or scheme or norms associating to behaviours. Emergent leading is non assigned by place ; alternatively the leading emerges through communicating behaviours. These behaviours consist of being verbally involved. informed. seeking other’s sentiments. originating new thoughts. and being house but non stiff ( Fisher. 1974 ) .
Assigned leading is leading that is fundamentally earned by busying a place in an organisation. Examples of these places are works directors. section caputs. managers. and squad leaders. Persons are placed in these places largely without input from the subsidiaries. This can do a strong gulf between the leader and the followings. which can do an infinite sum of negative issues. Employees may comprehend that assigned leaders are educated. intelligent and wise. even if they are non. This is because workers assume that you as the proprietor performed some sort of testing procedure and found the best individual for the occupation ( Johnston. 2013 ) . This sort of automatic authorization has its booby traps. If your assigned leader has countries in which they are unqualified. employees can get down to resent holding to follow such a individual. Similarly. an emergent leader may do bitterness if they have to do determinations that help the company alternatively of employees. For illustration. an emergent leader may come out against employee rises based on a reappraisal of company fundss. Employees can experience betrayed by an emergent leader ; even though the world is the leader may be doing wise determinations.
Enlist the aid of 5 people who know you really good. and do the LTQ. Score. buttocks. and construe the consequences. I distributed the LTQ appraisal to my married woman. my supervisor. and three co-workers at work. The scoring consequences ranged from depressions of 4. 4 in sensitive and empathic ; mids of 4. 6 in self-confident. reliable. and surpassing ; to highs of 5 in articulate. trustworthy. and self-assured. Compared with my self-rating scored they matched up really equally. I was surprised when my co-workers told me that I am a natural born leader. I was surprised at that statement. Reviewing these consequences. I can measure that I may hold many of the positive traits for leading. but I work hard to be a strong leader and director and believe that leading is a procedures of give and take. one of outgrowth leading.
Fayol. H. ( 1916 ) . General and industrial direction. London: Pitman. Hazy. JK. Goldstein. JA & A ; Lichtenstein. BB 2007. ‘Complex systems leading theory: An introduction’ . in JK Hazy. JA Goldstein. and BB Lichtenstein ( explosive detection systems. ) . Complex systems leading theory: New positions from complexness scientific discipline on societal and organisational effectivity. ISCE Publishing. Mansfield. MA. p. 1-13. Howell. Jon P. ( 2012 ) . Snapshots of Great Leadership. London. GBR: Taylor and Francis. pp. 4–6 Johnston. K. ( 2013 ) What Is the Difference Between Assigned Leadership & A ; Emergent leading? . Houston Chronicle. WWW. Chron. com web site. Lichtenstein. B. Uhl-Bien. M. Marion. R. Seers. A. Orton. J & A ; Schreiber. C. 2006. ‘Complexity Leadership theory: An synergistic position on taking in
complex adaptative systems’ . Tocopherol: CO vol. 8. no. 4. pp. 2-12.
Lord. R. G. . DeVader. C. L. . & A ; Alliger. G. M. ( 1 986 ) . A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leading perceptual experiences: An application of cogency generalisation processs. Journal of Applied Psychology. 71. 402–41 0. Northouse. P. G. . ( 2013 ) . Leadership: Theory and Practice. 6th erectile dysfunction. Stogdill. R. M. ( 1948 ) . Personal factors associated with leading: A study of the literature. Journal of Psychology. 25. 35–71.
Stogdill. R. M. ( 1974 ) . Handbook of leading: A study of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
Zaccaro. S. J. . Kemp. C. . & A ; Bader. P. ( 2004 ) . Leader traits and properties. In J. Antonakis. A. T. Cianciolo. & A ; R. J. Sternberg ( Eds. ) . The nature of leading ( pp. 101 –124 ) . Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Zaccaro. S. J. ( 2007 ) . Trait-based positions of leading. American Psychologist. 62. 6-16