Examining the Leader

  Ralph Stogdill reflects and critiques the leadership findings of Smith and Krueger in 1933 and Jenkins in 1947 by proposing that leadership is not embodied by a person with a list of characteristics or traits.  Rather, leadership is embodied by a person who possesses certain traits that are supremely applicable for a given situation.  Stogdill looks at a variety of studies and draws upon characteristics listed within a majority of the studies as being worth looking further into.  These characteristics are: intelligence, scholarship, dependability in responsibility, social participation, and socio-economic status (Wren, 1995, pg. 128).  These characteristics are compared to the average person in the group that the supposed leader is a part of.  Yet, as important as these five characteristics are, they are on equal footing with the ability for the leader to apply these traits correctly in the given situation.  Of all the characteristics that were found in multiple studies as being important to leadership, Stogdill categorizes them into five general headings: capacity, achievement, responsibility, participation, and status (Wren, 1995, pg 129).  But Stogdill proposes a sixth, vital heading as situation.  "A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and goals of the followers.  Thus, leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables which are in constant flux and change" (Wren, 1995, pg 130).  While the individual characteristics of the leader and follower are relatively stable and unchanging, the situation is consistently fluctuating and so the person who uses their characteristics and traits appropriately in any given situation will be seen as the leader.  

  Kirkpatrick and Locke contend against Stogdill's assertion that it is not the traits of the leader that matter so much, but instead the ability to apply characteristics to the appropriate situation.  Kirkpatrick and Locke have brought back trait theory and supposed that while traits are not the necessary and sufficient conditions for asserting leadership, they are the precondition (Wren, 1995, pg 134).  The traits that Kirkpatrick and Locke suggest are: drive, the desire to lead, honesty/integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business (Wren, 1995, pg 134-135).  They continue to delve in and explain each trait as well as how it is broken down further into different aspects of the trait.  

  When I reflect on my future, there are plenty of hierarchal structures set in place within the medical field.  And often, the people in positions of authority have arrived there because of dedication to their field and immense aptitude.  Often when I meet doctors, nurses, or administrators in health care, they exhibit many of Kirkpatrick and Locke's traits.  Yet I cannot imagine a leader not possessing the ability to apply given characteristics at the appropriate juncture and in the appropriate manner.  This reaction to the given situation is the essence of leadership in my mind.  I cannot help but think of the end of East of Eden where Adam Trask is on his deathbed with his son Cal heartbroken, heavy laden under the weight of his guilt for prior actions.  In that moment, Adam understands the situation and reacts in such a perfect manner, that eternal healing is provided to his son.  This healing enables Cal to live a fuller life from that point forward.  Adam's ability to live and lead in the moment, in the given situation, was more valuable than all of the leadership characteristics he displayed (or failed to display) throughout the book.  So when I look for leadership in myself and in others, if I look for certain traits, I first look for the ability to live and succeed in different situations.  

Steinbeck, J (1952) East of Eden.  New York: The Penguin Group

Wren, J (1995) A Leader's Companion. New York: The Free Press