Pros & Cons of Trait Theory

Is there only one recipe for success?

The concept behind the Trait Based Theory suggests that Leaders are made when the combination of specicfic traits are added together.

A recipe for success; a pinch of ambition, a sprinkle of humility, the zest of intelligence, baked until goldened in charisma or longer depending on desired outcome.

Contrarily, The Great Man Theory suggests quite the opposite. Rather than a recipe for success, this theory suggests that great leaders are born as great leaders, not additional ingredients or time required. Too good to be true?

(1) Traits come in all shapes and sizes. They created this thing called a thesaurus to help us define what exactly we're looking at. And for a leader, trait based theory can do just that; we can categorize and self-assess more easily as well as compare how a group of people stack up against one another.

Similarly, the Great Man Theory is "you either have it, or you don't".

(2) Independent variables create the situation. How the traits or born leader take on the challenge are dependent variables. Only when the independent variable is introduced can we see if these theories truly stand up.

The key take away from the readings and class discussion is that while both theories do provide substantial arguments, I feel that one cannot go without the other. Experiences change dominant traits, growing up, failing at something, learning a new task, they can all alter traits or the born leader.

One comment that stood out to me in our class convo was from an individual who posed the idea that while some may be born leaders or with traits of a leader, they are probably not fully developed and can only do so by experience, guidance and nurture. Recipes for successes (catch the plural), or idealists... some food for thought!