This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (October 2011)

Trait leadership is defined as integrated patterns of personal characteristics that reflect a range of individual differences and foster consistent leader effectiveness across a variety of group and organizational situations (Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004). The theory of trait leadership developed from early leadership research which focused primarily on finding a group of heritable attributes that differentiated leaders from nonleaders. Leader effectiveness refers to the amount of influence a leader has on individual or group performance, followers’ satisfaction, and overall effectiveness (Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Many scholars have argued that leadership is unique to only a select number of individuals and that these individuals possess certain immutable traits that cannot be developed (Galton, 1869). Although this perspective has been criticized immensely over the past century, scholars still continue to study the effects of personality traits on leader effectiveness. Research has demonstrated that successful leaders differ from other people and possess certain core personality traits that significantly contribute to their success. Understanding the importance of these core personality traits that predict leader effectiveness can help organizations with their leader selection, training, and development practices (Derue et al., 2011).

History of research on trait leadership[link]

The emergence of trait leadership dates back to Thomas Carlyle’s “great man” theory, which stated that “the history of the world was the biography of great men” (Carlyle, 1849). In other words - history is shaped by the forces of extraordinary leadership (Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009). Influenced by Carlyle, Galton advanced this idea and found that leadership was a unique property of extraordinary individuals, and the traits leaders possessed were immutable and could not be developed. Throughout the early 1900s, the study of leadership focused on traits. Cowley (1931) commented that the approach to the research of leadership has usually been and should always be through the study of traits (Cowley, 1931). Many theorists were influenced by Carlyle and Galton and believed that trait leadership depended on the personal qualities of the leader; however, they did not assume that leadership only resides within a select number of people (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). This trait perspective of leadership was virtually accepted until the late 1940s and early 1950s, when personality traits were deemed to be insufficient in predicting leader effectiveness (Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959).

In 1948, Stogdill stated that leadership exists between persons in a social situation, and that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. This statement has been cited ubiquitously as sounding the death knell for trait leadership theory. Furthermore, scholars commented that any trait’s effect on leadership behavior will always depend on the situation (Huges, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1996; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Subsequently, leadership stopped being characterized by individual differences, and behavioral and situational analyses of leadership took over and began to dominate the field of leadership research (Bass, 1990). During this period of widespread rejection, several dominant theories took the place of trait leadership theory, including Fiedler’s (1967) contingency model, Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid, Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) situational leadership model, and transformational and transactional leadership models (Avolio, Sosik, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bass, 1985; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).

Despite the growing criticisms of trait leadership, the purported basis for the rejection of trait leadership models began to be strongly challenged (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986) in the 1980s. Interestingly, Zaccaro (2007) pointed out that even Stogdill’s (1948) review, although cited as evidence against leader traits, contained conclusions supporting that individual differences could still be predictors of leader effectiveness. With an increasing number of empirical studies directly supporting trait leadership (Judge et al., 2002; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004), traits have reemerged in the lexicon of scientific leadership research. In recent years, the research about leader traits has made some progress in identifying a list of personality traits that are highly predictive of leader effectiveness. Additionally, to account for the arguments for situational leadership, researchers have used the round-robin design methodology to test whether certain individuals emerge as leaders across multiple situations (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983). Scholars have also proposed new ways of studying the relationship of certain traits to leader effectiveness. For instance, many are suggesting the integration of trait and behavioral theories to understand how traits are related to leader effectiveness (Derue et al, 2011). Furthermore, scholars have expanded their focus and have proposed looking at more malleable traits (ones that can be developed) in addition to the traditional dispositional traits as predictors of leader effectiveness (Hoffman, Woehr, Maldagen-Youngjohn, & Lyons, 2011). Context is only now beginning to be examined as a contributor to leaders success and failure. Productive narcissistic CEOs like Steven Jobs of Apple and Jack Welsh of GE have demonstrated a gift for creating innovation. Whereas, leaders with idealized traits are more successful in more stable environments requiring less innovation and creativity. (Maccoby, 2007)

Understanding traits[link]

Natural selection suggests that variations in individual personality traits are due to genetic mutations, and nature will select individuals with the “right” traits that are important for survival (Judge et al., 2009). In other words, genes are deciding what personality traits an individual will possess, and evolution is deciding which personality traits will be important for future survival. Traits can be defined as an individual's general characteristics including capacities, motives, or patterns of behavior (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). In leadership terms, this means that “leaders are not like other people” (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991, p. 49). Instead, the genetic traits of an individual make them eligible to be a future leader, and they are subsequently selected into leadership positions because of their genetic traits. Judge and others (2009) proposed three theoretical perspectives that are helpful in understanding the basis and origin of traits and therefore trait leadership: evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics, and socioanalytic theory. These three perspectives are by no means exhaustive about the realm of perspectives that could be relevant in understanding trait leadership.

Evolutionary psychology[link]

Evolutionary psychology provides reasons for the existence of certain traits in individuals as well as predicts which traits are in existence because they provide advantages for human survival, or in this case, leadership. According to evolutionary psychology, traits arise from a process of mutation and selection. For instance, Conscientiousness exists in human beings because prudence, planning, and diligence aid survival, and Agreeableness most likely exists because it fosters communal attachments and cooperation within and between groups (Judge et al., 2009). In the domain of leadership, evolutionary psychology supports many findings. Most important is the general idea that certain traits facilitate the emergence of leaders (e.g. Conscientiousness). Similarly, the absence of certain traits may keep an individual from emerging or being effective as a leader. Although evolutionary psychology supports the idea that certain traits help a leader emerge, it states that these are not necessarily the same traits that help a leader become effective.

Behavioral genetics[link]

All personality traits are heritable as indicated by Turkheimer (2000) who found that each broad personality trait contains a significant genetic source. In terms of leadership, scholars have found that the personalities associated with leadership are hereditary. Numerous studies have examined various measures of leadership -from indicators of leader emergence to leadership effectiveness – which show significant heritabilities, often in the 30%-60% range (Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, & McGue, 2006; Johnson, Vernon, Harris, & Jiang, 2004). However, Judge and others (2009) argued that personality traits are not just hereditary; instead, they also stem from the environment in which the individual grew up. He also noted that an individual’s personality traits lead him/her to certain environments, and individuals with similar traits will oftentimes end up in similar environments. Complimenting this theory, many scholars have found that an individual’s behavioral genetics and environmental factors are considered inseparable (Ilies, Arvey, & Bouchard, 2006). In summary, the potential for being a leader can be found in an individual’s genes. These genetic predispositions oftentimes lead to these individuals seeking out leadership positions, being selected into leadership positions, and being effective in these leadership positions (Judge et al., 2009).

Socioanalytic perspective[link]

Socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1983, 1996) refers to the extent to which success and attainment of success is predicted by individual differences. It assumes that individuals are mostly interested in getting along and getting ahead. Research has suggested that these motives are closely linked to personality. For example, Agreeable individuals are motivated to get along with others, and Conscientious and Extraverted individuals are motivated to get ahead (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002). Scholars have noted that the motive of getting ahead is easier to link to leadership outcomes. In addition to linking personality traits to common motives of individuals, socioanalytic theory is also important in that it makes a distinction between identity and reputation. Judge and others (2009) argued that identity and reputation were equally as important to leaders since leader effectiveness oftentimes depends on how the leader is perceived by his/her followers.

Leader traits[link]

The investigations of leader traits are always by no means exhaustive (Zaccaro, 2007). In recent years, several studies have made comprehensive reviews about leader traits which have been historically studied (Derue et al., 2011; Hoffman et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2009; Zaccaro, 2007). There are many ways that traits related to leadership can be categorized; however, the two most recent categorizations have organized traits into (1) demographic vs. task competence vs. interpersonal and (2) distal (trait-like) vs. proximal (state-like). Both these categorizations are described below.

Demographic vs. task competence vs. interpersonal[link]

Based on a recent review of the trait leadership literature, Derue and others (2011) stated that most leader traits can be organized into three categories: demographic, task competence, and interpersonal attributes. For the demographics category, gender has by far received the most attention in terms of leadership; however, most scholars have found that male and female leaders are both equally effective. Task competence relates to how individuals approach the execution and performance of tasks (Bass & Bass, 2008). Hoffman grouped intelligence, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional Stability into this category. Lastly, interpersonal attributes are related to how a leader approaches social interactions. According to Hoffman and others (2011), Extraversion and Agreeableness should be grouped into this category.

Distal (trait-like) vs. proximal (state-like)[link]

Recent research has shifted from focusing solely on distal (dispositional/trait-like) characteristics of leaders to more proximal (malleable/state-like) individual differences often in the form of knowledge and skills (Hoffman et al., 2011). The emergence of proximal traits in trait leadership theory will help researchers answer the ancient question: Are leaders born or made? Proximal individual differences suggest that the characteristics that distinguish effective leaders from non-effective leaders are not necessarily stable through the life-span, implying that these traits may be able to be developed. Hoffman and others (2011) examined the effects of distal vs. proximal traits on leader effectiveness. He found that distal individual differences of achievement motivation, energy, dominance, honesty/integrity, self-confidence, creativity, and charisma were strongly correlated with leader effectiveness. Additionally, he found that the proximal individual differences of interpersonal skills, oral communication, written communication, management skills, problem solving skills, and decision making were also strongly correlated with leader effectiveness. His results suggested that on average, distal and proximal individual differences have a similar relationship with effective leadership (Hoffman et al., 2011).

Model of trait leadership[link]

Zaccaro and colleagues (2004) created a model to understand leader traits and their influence on leader effectiveness/performance. This model, shown in the figure below, is based on other models of leader traits and leader effectiveness/performance (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Fleishman, & Reiter-Palmon, 1993; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, et al., 2000) and rests on two basic premises about leader traits. The first premise is that leadership emerges from the combined influence of multiple traits as opposed to emerging from the independent assessment of traits. Zaccaro (2001) argued that effective leadership is derived from an integrated set of cognitive abilities, social capabilities, and dispositional tendencies, with each set of traits adding to the influence of the other. The second premise is that leader traits differ in their proximal influence on leadership. This model is a multistage one in which certain distal attributes (i.e., dispositional attributes, cognitive abilities, and motives/values) serve as precursors for the development of proximal personal characteristics (i.e., social skills, problem solving skills and expertise knowledge) (Ackerman & Humphreys, 1990; Barrick, Mitchell, & Stewart, 2003; Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996; Kanfer, 1990, 1992; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, et al., 2000). Adopting this categorization approach and based on several comprehensive reviews/meta-analysis of trait leadership in recent years (Derue et al., 2011; Hoffman et al., 2010; Judge et al., 2009; Zaccaro, 2007), we tried to make an inclusive list of leader traits (Table 1). However, the investigations of leader traits are always by no means exhaustive (Zaccaro, 2007), which means absolutely more leader traits should be added to this list by future researchers and readers of this article.

Table 1. Leader Traits based on Zaccaro’s (2004) Model

Other models of trait leadership[link]

Multiple models have been proposed to explain the relationship of traits to leader effectiveness. Recently, integrated trait leadership models were put forward by summarizing the historical findings and reconciling the conflict between traits and other factors such as situations in determining effective leadership (Derue et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2009; Zaccaro, 2007). In addition to Zaccaro’s Model of Leader Attributes and Leader Performance described in the previous section, two other models have emerged in recent trait leadership literature. The Leader Trait Emergence Effectiveness (LTEE) Model, created by Judge and colleagues (2009), combines the behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology theories of how personality traits are developed into a model that explains leader emergence and effectiveness. Additionally, this model separates objective and subjective leader effectiveness into different criterion. The authors created this model to be broad and flexible as to diverge from how the relationship between traits and leadership had been studied in past research. Another model that has emerged in the trait leadership literature is the Integrated Model of Leader Traits, Behaviors, and Effectiveness (Derue et al., 2011). This model combines traits and behaviors in predicting leader effectiveness and tested the mediation effect of leader behaviors on the relationship between leader traits and effectiveness. The authors found that some types of leader behaviors mediated the effect between traits and leader effectiveness. The results of Derue and colleages' (2011) study supported an integrated trait-behavioral model that can be used in future research.

Criticisms of trait leadership[link]

Although there has been an increased focus by researchers on trait leadership, this theory remains one of the most criticized theories of leadership. Over the years, many reviewers of trait leadership theory have commented that this approach to leadership is “too simplistic” (Conger & Kanugo, 1998), and “futile” (House & Aditya, 1997). Additionally, scholars have noted that trait leadership theory usually only focuses on how leader effectiveness is perceived by followers (Lord et al., 1986) rather than a leader’s actual effectiveness (Judge et al., 2009). Because the process through which personality predicts the actual effectiveness of leaders has been relatively unexplored (Ng, Ang, & Chan, 2008), these scholars have concluded that personality currently has low explanatory and predictive power over job performance and cannot help organizations select leaders who will be effective (Morgeson & Ilies, 2007). Furthermore, Derue and colleagues (2011) found that leader behaviors are more predictive of leader effectiveness than are traits.

Another criticism of trait leadership is its silence on the influence of the situational context surrounding leaders (Ng et al., 2008). Stogdill (1948) found that persons who are leaders in one situation may not be leaders in another situation. Complimenting this situational theory of leadership, Murphy (1941) wrote that leadership does not reside in the person, and it usually requires examining the whole situation. In addition to situational leadership theory, there has been growing support for other leadership theories such as transformational, transactional, charismatic, and authentic leadership theories. These theories have gained popularity because they are more normative than the trait and behavioral leadership theories (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007).

Further criticisms include the failure of studies to uncover a trait or group of traits that are consistently associated with leadership emergence or help differentiate leaders from followers (Kenny & Zacarro, 1983). Additionally, trait leadership’s focus on a small set of personality traits and neglect of more malleable traits such as social skills and problem solving skills has received considerable criticism. Lastly, trait leadership often fails to consider the integration of multiple traits when studying the effects of traits on leader effectiveness (Zaccaro, 2007).

Implications for practice[link]

Given the recent increase in evidence and support of trait leadership theory (Ng et al., 2008), scholars have suggested a variety of strategies for human resource departments within organizations. Companies should use personality traits as selection tools for identifying emerging leaders (Ng et al., 2008). These companies, however, should be aware of the individual traits that predict success in leader effectiveness as well as the traits that could be detrimental to leader effectiveness. For example, while Derue and colleagues (2011) found that individuals who are high in Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness are predicted to be more likely to be perceived as successful in leadership positions, Judge, Woolf, Hurst, & Livingston (2006) wrote that individuals who are high in narcissism are more likely to be a liability in certain jobs. Narcissism is just one example of a personality trait that should be explored further by HR practitioners to ensure they are not placing individuals with certain traits in the wrong positions.

Complimenting the suggestion that personality traits should be used as selection tools, Judge and colleagues (2002) found that the Big Five Personality traits were more strongly related to leadership than intelligence. This finding suggests that selecting leaders based on their personality is more important than selecting them based on intelligence. If organizations select leaders based on intelligence, it is recommended by Judge and colleagues (2002) that these individuals be placed in leadership positions when the stress level is low and the individual has the ability to be directive.

Another way in which HR practitioners can use the research on trait leadership is for leadership development programs. Although inherent personality traits (distal/trait-like) are relatively immune to leadership development, Zaccaro (2007) suggested that proximal traits (state-like) will be more malleable and susceptible to leadership development programs. Companies should use different types of development interventions to stretch the existing capabilities of their leaders (Zaccaro, 2007).

See also[link]

References[link]

Ackerman, P. L., & Humphreys, L. G. (1990). Individual differences in industrial

and organizational psychology. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology,

Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). (pp. 223-282). Palo Alto, CA, US: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants

of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality :factors. The Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 1-20.

Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods,

and applications. Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology,

Vol. 12. (pp. 277-307). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance:

Test of the mediating effects of motivation among :sales representatives. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87(1), 43-51.

Barrick, M. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Stewart, G. L. (2003). Situational and motivational

influences on trait– behavior relationships. In M. R.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free

Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and

managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY, US: Free :Press.

Bass, B. M. & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and

managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Blake, R.; Mouton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence.

@Houston: :Gulf Publishing Co..

Carlyle, T. (1849). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. Boston:

Houghton-Mifflin.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J.-A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examination of re-

lationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences,

and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 835-847.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand

Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cowley, W. H. (1931). The traits of face-to-face leaders. The Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 26(3), 304-313.

Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and

behavioral theories - of leadership: An integration and :meta‐analytic test of their

relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 4(1), 7-52.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). Style of leadership and performance of coaching groups. Zeitschrift

für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 14(2), 200-217.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. New York: Appleton.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R., & Lyons, B. D. (2011). Great man

or greatvmyth? A quantitative review of the :relationship between individual differences

and leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

84(2), 347-381.

Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982

Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 55−89). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins

(Ed.), The five-factor model of personality (pp. 163−179). New York: Guilford Press.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo-

vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (1996). Leadership. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Ilies, R., Arvey, R. D., & Bouchard, T. J. (2006). Darwinism, behavioral genetics, and

organizational behavior, A review and agenda for future research. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27(2), 121-141.

Johnson, A. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2004). A behavioral

investigation of the relationship between leadership and personality. Twin Research,

7, 27−32.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership:

A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.

Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and Leadership: A Quantitative

Review and Test of Theoretical Propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 542-552.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader

traits, A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership

Quarterly, 20(6), 855-875.

Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B. (2006). Charismatic and Transforma-

tional Leadership, A Review and an Agenda for Future Research. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-

und Organisationspsychologie, 50(4), 203-214.

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.

Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.,

Vol. 1, pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. In C. L. Cooper

& I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology

(Vol. 7, pp. 1–53). New York: Wiley.

Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 678-685.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core chari-

smatic leadership components on performance and :attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,

81(1), 36-51.

Locke, E. A. (1991). The essence of leadership: The four keys to leading successfully. New

York: Lexington Books.

Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between

personality traits and leadership perceptions: :An application of validity generalization

procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small

groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.

McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success

in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 737-743.

Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2007). Correlations between leadership traits and leadership

styles. Unpublished raw data. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Fleishman, E. A., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1993).

Cognitive and temperament predictors of executive ability: Principles for developing

leadership capacity. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

SocialSciences.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000).

Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership

Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.

Murphy, A. J. (1941). A study of the leadership process. American Sociological Review, 6,

674-687.

Ng, K.-Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K.-Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated

mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733-743.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational

leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership:

Team values and the impact of leader behavior on :team performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(4), 1020-1030.

Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How

to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(6),

639-655.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the lite-

rature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.

Turkheimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Current Direc-

tions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 160-164.

Yukl G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations.

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3 (2nd ed.). (pp. 147-197).

Palo Alto, CA, US: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical

analysis of success. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1),

6-16.

Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. The nature of

leadership. (pp. 101-124). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: :Sage Publications, Inc.

Look up trait or traits in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Trait may refer to:

• Phenotypic trait in biology, which involve genes and characteristics of organisms
• Trait theory, an approach to the psychological study of personality
• Trait (computer programming), a model for structuring object-oriented programs
• Traits class, a template class in the C++ programming language

Entertainment[link]

• Trait (album), the first and only EP by the industrial rock/metal band Pailhead
• Trait (role-playing games), a type of role-playing statistic

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since September 2009. It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2010.

Psychology
History Subfields
Basic science
Abnormal Biological Cognitive Comparative Cultural Differential Developmental Evolutionary Experimental Mathematical Personality Positive Social
Applied science
Applied behavior analysis Clinical Community Consumer Educational Health Industrial and organizational Legal Military Occupational health Political Religion School Sport
Lists
Disciplines Organizations Outline Psychologists Psychotherapies Publications Research methods Theories Timeline Topics
Portal
v t e

Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".^[1] Other in-depth definitions of leadership have also emerged.

Theories[link]

Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may or may not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits,^[2] situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values,^[3] charisma, and intelligence, among others. Somebody whom people follow: somebody who guides or directs others.

Early western history[link]

The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries. History's greatest philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives have explored the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlying this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the "trait theory of leadership".

The trait theory was explored at length in a number of works in the 19th century. Most notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have prompted decades of research.^[4] In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton's Hereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving from first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader.

Rise of alternative theories[link]

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940;^[5] Stogdill, 1948;^[6] Mann, 1959^[7]) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades.

Reemergence of trait theory[link]

New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in researchers' use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.^[8] Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:

• Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.^[8]
• Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as:

While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks.^[16]

Specifically, Zaccaro (2007)^[16] noted that trait theories still:

1. focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills;
2. fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes;
3. do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences;
4. do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership.

Attribute pattern approach[link]

Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differences—the leader attribute pattern approach.^{[15][17][18][19][20]} In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attribute pattern approach is based on theorists' arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather than a summation of individual variables.^[19][21] In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that integrated constellations or combinations of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes, or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.

Behavioral and style theories[link]

In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles.^[22] David McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.^[23]

Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire.^[24]

The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.^[25]

Positive reinforcement[link]

B.F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the future.^[26] The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. This employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often because the employee likes to be praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time.

The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase productivity.^[27] Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher performance for lower costs.

Situational and contingency theories[link]

Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around.^[28] This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions."^[29]

Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations each style works better in. The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leaders do not "take charge", they can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems.^[30] Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership theories appear more prominently in recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision model, the path-goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.

The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorability (later called situational control). The theory defined two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with the group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented).^[31] According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favorability.

Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973)^[32] and later with Arthur Jago (1988),^[33] developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which was used in a normative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation.^[34] This approach was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.^[35]

The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom.^[36] According to House, the essence of the theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance".^[37] The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands. The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.

The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey and Blanchard suggests four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of follower-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well.^[38]

Functional theory[link]

Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leader's main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broader organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature on functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman and Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs when promoting organization's effectiveness. These functions include environmental monitoring, organizing subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates, motivating others, and intervening actively in the group's work.

A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates perceived their supervisors' behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior involved in fostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment. This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to those standards.

Transactional and transformational theories[link]

Eric Berne^[39] first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms of transactional analysis.

The transactional leader (Burns, 1978)^[40] is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team's performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct, and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached. Idiosyncrasy Credits, first posited by Edward Hollander (1971) is one example of a concept closely related to transactional leadership.

Emotions[link]

Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social influence process.^[41] In an organization, the leader's mood has some effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels:^[42]

1. The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the mechanism of emotional contagion.^[42] Mood contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers.^[43]
2. The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood.^[42]
3. Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For example, expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals cognitively and behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.^[42]

In research about client service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by the leader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were other findings.^[44]

Beyond the leader's mood, her/his behavior is a source for employee positive and negative emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events that lead to emotional response. Certain leader behaviors displayed during interactions with their employees are the sources of these affective events. Leaders shape workplace affective events. Examples – feedback giving, allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since employee behavior and productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it is imperative to consider employee emotional responses to organizational leaders.^[45] Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the self and others, contributes to effective leadership within organizations.^[44]

Neo-emergent theory[link]

The Neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford school of leadership) espouses that leadership is created through the emergence of information by the leader or other stakeholders, not through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, the reproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by the majority. It is well known that the great naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote his own versions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived home in England he would receive a true hero's welcome.^{[citation needed]} In modern society, the press, blogs and other sources report their own views of a leader, which may be based on reality, but may also be based on a political command, a payment, or an inherent interest of the author, media, or leader. Therefore, it can be contended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect their true leadership qualities at all.

Styles[link]

Leadership style refers to a leader's behavior. It is the result of the philosophy, personality, and experience of the leader. Rhetoric specialists have also developed models for understanding leadership (Robert Hariman, Political Style,^[46] Philippe-Joseph Salazar, L'Hyperpolitique. Technologies politiques De La Domination^[47]).

Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when there is little time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has significantly more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic leadership style may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team with a homogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may be more effective. The style adopted should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of the group while balancing the interests of its individual members.^[48]

Autocratic or authoritarian style[link]

Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader, as with dictators.

Leaders do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. It permits quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole group and keeps each decision to him/herself until he/she feels it needs to be shared with the rest of the group.^[48]

Participative or democratic style[link]

The democratic leadership style consists of the leader sharing the decision-making abilities with group members by promoting the interests of the group members and by practicing social equality.

Laissez-faire or free rein style[link]

A person may be in a leadership position without providing leadership, leaving the group to fend for itself. Subordinates are given a free hand in deciding their own policies and methods.

Narcissistic leadership[link]

Various academics such as Kets de Vries, Maccoby, and Thomas have identified narcissistic leadership as an important and common leadership style.

Toxic leadership[link]

A toxic leader is someone who has responsibility over a group of people or an organization, and who abuses the leader-follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a worse-off condition than when he/she first found them.

Performance[link]

In the past, some researchers have argued that the actual influence of leaders on organizational outcomes is overrated and romanticized as a result of biased attributions about leaders (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987). Despite these assertions, however, it is largely recognized and accepted by practitioners and researchers that leadership is important, and research supports the notion that leaders do contribute to key organizational outcomes (Day & Lord, 1988; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). To facilitate successful performance it is important to understand and accurately measure leadership performance.

Job performance generally refers to behavior that is expected to contribute to organizational success (Campbell, 1990). Campbell identified a number of specific types of performance dimensions; leadership was one of the dimensions that he identified. There is no consistent, overall definition of leadership performance (Yukl, 2006). Many distinct conceptualizations are often lumped together under the umbrella of leadership performance, including outcomes such as leader effectiveness, leader advancement, and leader emergence (Kaiser et al., 2008). For instance, leadership performance may be used to refer to the career success of the individual leader, performance of the group or organization, or even leader emergence. Each of these measures can be considered conceptually distinct. While these aspects may be related, they are different outcomes and their inclusion should depend on the applied or research focus.

The Ontological/Phenomenological Model for Leadership[link]

One of the more recent definitions of leadership comes from Werner Erhard, Michael C. Jensen, Steve Zaffron, and Kari Granger who describe leadership as “an exercise in language that results in the realization of a future that wasn’t going to happen anyway, which future fulfills (or contributes to fulfilling) the concerns of the relevant parties…”. This definition ensures that leadership is talking about the future and includes the fundamental concerns of the relevant parties. This differs from relating to the relevant parties as “followers” and calling up an image of a single leader with others following. Rather, a future that fulfills on the fundamental concerns of the relevant parties indicates the future that wasn’t going to happen is not the “idea of the leader”, but rather is what emerges from digging deep to find the underlying concerns of those who are impacted by the leadership.^[49]

Contexts[link]

Organizations[link]

An organization that is established as an instrument or means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its members. According to Weber's definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Employees receive a salary and enjoy a degree of tenure that safeguards them from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher one's position in the hierarchy, the greater one's presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to their position.^[50]

In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges within the context of the informal organization that underlies the formal structure. The informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the individual membership. Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension of the social structures that generally characterize human life — the spontaneous emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.

In prehistoric times, humanity was preoccupied with personal security, maintenance, protection, and survival. Now humanity spends a major portion of waking hours working for organizations. The need to identify with a community that provides security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging has continued unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its emergent, or unofficial, leaders.^[51][52]

Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization. Their personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these and other factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or several overlay structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an appointed head or chief, the emergent leader wields influence or power. Influence is the ability of a person to gain co-operation from others by means of persuasion or control over rewards. Power is a stronger form of influence because it reflects a person's ability to enforce action through the control of a means of punishment.^[51]

A leader is a person who influences a group of people towards a specific result. It is not dependent on title or formal authority. (Elevos, paraphrased from Leaders, Bennis, and Leadership Presence, Halpern & Lubar.) Ogbonnia (2007) defines an effective leader "as an individual with the capacity to consistently succeed in a given condition and be viewed as meeting the expectations of an organization or society." Leaders are recognized by their capacity for caring for others, clear communication, and a commitment to persist.^[53] An individual who is appointed to a managerial position has the right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of his position. However, she or he must possess adequate personal attributes to match this authority, because authority is only potentially available to him/her. In the absence of sufficient personal competence, a manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge her/his role in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead. However, only authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It follows that whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with commensurate authority.^[51] Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level.^[54]

Management[link]

Over the years the philosophical terminology of "management" and "leadership" have, in the organizational context, been used both as synonyms and with clearly differentiated meanings. Debate is fairly common about whether the use of these terms should be restricted, and generally reflects an awareness of the distinction made by Burns (1978) between "transactional" leadership (characterized by e.g. emphasis on procedures, contingent reward, management by exception) and "transformational" leadership (characterized by e.g. charisma, personal relationships, creativity).^[40]

Group leadership[link]

In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this situation, more than one person provides direction to the group as a whole. Some organizations have taken this approach in hopes of increasing creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. Others may see the traditional leadership of a boss as costing too much in team performance. In some situations, the team members best able to handle any given phase of the project become the temporary leaders. Additionally, as each team member has the opportunity to experience the elevated level of empowerment, it energizes staff and feeds the cycle of success.^[55]

Leaders who demonstrate persistence, tenacity, determination, and synergistic communication skills will bring out the same qualities in their groups. Good leaders use their own inner mentors to energize their team and organizations and lead a team to achieve success.^[56]

According to the National School Boards Association (USA):^[57]

These Group Leaderships or Leadership Teams have specific characteristics:

Characteristics of a Team

• There must be an awareness of unity on the part of all its members.
• There must be interpersonal relationship. Members must have a chance to contribute, and learn from and work with others.
• The members must have the ability to act together toward a common goal.

Ten characteristics of well-functioning teams:

• Purpose: Members proudly share a sense of why the team exists and are invested in accomplishing its mission and goals.
• Priorities: Members know what needs to be done next, by whom, and by when to achieve team goals.
• Roles: Members know their roles in getting tasks done and when to allow a more skillful member to do a certain task.
• Decisions: Authority and decision-making lines are clearly understood.
• Conflict: Conflict is dealt with openly and is considered important to decision-making and personal growth.
• Personal traits: members feel their unique personalities are appreciated and well utilized.
• Norms: Group norms for working together are set and seen as standards for every one in the groups.
• Effectiveness: Members find team meetings efficient and productive and look forward to this time together.
• Success: Members know clearly when the team has met with success and share in this equally and proudly.
• Training: Opportunities for feedback and updating skills are provided and taken advantage of by team members.

Self-Leadership[link]

Self-Leadership is a process that occurs within an individual, rather than an external act. It is an expression of who we are as people.^[58]

Primates[link]

Mark van Vugt and Anjana Ahuja in Naturally Selected: The Evolutionary Science of Leadership present evidence of leadership in nonhuman animals, from ants and bees to baboons and chimpanzees. They suggest that leadership has a long evolutionary history and that the same mechanisms underpinning leadership in humans can be found in other social species, too.^[59] Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, present evidence that only humans and chimpanzees, among all the animals living on Earth, share a similar tendency for a cluster of behaviors: violence, territoriality, and competition for uniting behind the one chief male of the land.^[60] This position is contentious. Many animals beyond apes are territorial, compete, exhibit violence, and have a social structure controlled by a dominant male (lions, wolves, etc.), suggesting Wrangham and Peterson's evidence is not empirical. However, we must examine other species as well, including elephants (which are matriarchal and follow an alpha female), meerkats (who are likewise matriarchal), and many others.

By comparison, bonobos, the second-closest species-relatives of humans, do not unite behind the chief male of the land. The bonobos show deference to an alpha or top-ranking female that, with the support of her coalition of other females, can prove as strong as the strongest male. Thus, if leadership amounts to getting the greatest number of followers, then among the bonobos, a female almost always exerts the strongest and most effective leadership. However, not all scientists agree on the allegedly peaceful nature of the bonobo or its reputation as a "hippie chimp".^[2]

Historical views[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2009)

Sanskrit literature identifies ten types of leaders. Defining characteristics of the ten types of leaders are explained with examples from history and mythology.^[61]

Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one's "blue blood" or genes. Monarchy takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions against the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction (see the divine right of kings). Contrariwise, more democratically-inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals profiting from careers open to talent.

In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman pater familias. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may object to such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance, which is sometimes associated with matriarchies.

Comparable to the Roman tradition, the views of Confucianism on "right living" relate very much to the ideal of the (male) scholar-leader and his benevolent rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial piety.

Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline . . . Reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness. Exercise of humaneness alone results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in folly. Dependence on the strength of courage results in violence. Excessive discipline and sternness in command result in cruelty. When one has all five virtues together, each appropriate to its function, then one can be a leader. — Sun Tzu^[62]

In the 19th century, the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into question. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back as the 19th century.) One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided resources—human and material—and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan. Compare servant leadership.

For a more general take on leadership in politics, compare the concept of the statesperson.

Leadership Myths[link]

Leadership, although largely talked about, has been described as one of the least understood concepts across all cultures and civilizations. Over the years, many researchers have stressed the prevalence of this misunderstanding, stating that the existence of several flawed assumptions, or myths, concerning leadership often interferes with individuals’ conception of what leadership is all about (Gardner, 1965; Bennis, 1975).^[63][64]

Leadership is innate[link]

According to some, leadership is determined by distinctive dispositional characteristics present at birth (e.g., extraversion; intelligence; ingenuity). However, it is important to note that leadership also develops through hard work and careful observation.^[65] Thus, effective leadership can result from nature (i.e., innate talents) as well as nurture (i.e., acquired skills).

Leadership is possessing power over others[link]

Although leadership is certainly a form of power, it is not demarcated by power over people – rather, it is a power with people that exists as a reciprocal relationship between a leader and his/her followers (Forsyth, 2009).^[65] Despite popular belief, the use of manipulation, coercion, and domination to influence others is not a requirement for leadership. In actuality, individuals who seek group consent and strive to act in the best interests of others can also become effective leaders (e.g., class president; court judge).

Leaders are positively influential[link]

The validity of the assertion that groups flourish when guided by effective leaders can be illustrated using several examples. For instance, according to Baumeister et al. (1988), the bystander effect (failure to respond or offer assistance) that tends to develop within groups faced with an emergency is significantly reduced in groups guided by a leader.^[66] Moreover, it has been documented that group performance,^[67] creativity,^[68] and efficiency ^[69] all tend to climb in businesses with designated managers or CEOs. However, the difference leaders make is not always positive in nature. Leaders sometimes focus on fulfilling their own agendas at the expense of others, including his/her own followers (e.g., Pol Pot; Josef Stalin). Leaders who focus on personal gain by employing stringent and manipulative leadership styles often make a difference, but usually do so through negative means.^[70]

Leaders entirely control group outcomes[link]

In Western cultures it is generally assumed that group leaders make all the difference when it comes to group influence and overall goal-attainment. Although common, this romanticized view of leadership (i.e., the tendency to overestimate the degree of control leaders have over their groups and their groups’ outcomes) ignores the existence of many other factors that influence group dynamics.^[71] For example, group cohesion, communication patterns among members, individual personality traits, group context, the nature or orientation of the work, as well as behavioral norms and established standards influence group functionality in varying capacities. For this reason, it is unwarranted to assume that all leaders are in complete control of their groups' achievements.

All groups have a designated leader[link]

Despite preconceived notions, not all groups need have a designated leader. Groups that are primarily composed of women,^[72][73] are limited in size, are free from stressful decision-making,^[74] or only exist for a short period of time (e.g., student work groups; pub quiz/trivia teams) often undergo a diffusion of responsibility, where leadership tasks and roles are shared amongst members (Schmid Mast, 2002; Berdahl & Anderson, 2007; Guastello, 2007).

Group members resist leaders[link]

Although research has indicated that group members’ dependence on group leaders can lead to reduced self-reliance and overall group strength,^[65] most people actually prefer to be led than to be without a leader (Berkowitz, 1953).^[75] This "need for a leader" becomes especially strong in troubled groups that are experiencing some sort of conflict. Group members tend to be more contented and productive when they have a leader to guide them. Although individuals filling leadership roles can be a direct source of resentment for followers, most people appreciate the contributions that leaders make to their groups and consequently welcome the guidance of a leader (Stewart & Manz, 1995).^[76]

Action-oriented environments[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

One approach to team leadership examines action-oriented environments, where effective functional leadership is required to achieve critical or reactive tasks by small teams deployed into the field. In other words, there is leadership of small groups often created to respond to a situation or critical incident.

In most cases these teams are tasked to operate in remote and changeable environments with limited support or backup (action environments). Leadership of people in these environments requires a different set of skills to that of front line management. These leaders must effectively operate remotely and negotiate the needs of the individual, team, and task within a changeable environment. This has been termed action oriented leadership. Some examples of demonstrations of action oriented leadership include extinguishing a rural fire, locating a missing person, leading a team on an outdoor expedition, or rescuing a person from a potentially hazardous environment.

Titles emphasizing authority[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (February 2010)

At certain stages in their development, the hierarchies of social ranks implied different degrees or ranks of leadership in society. Thus a knight led fewer men in general than did a duke; a baronet might in theory control less land than an earl. See peerage for a systematization of this hierarchy, and order of precedence for links to various systems.

In the course of the 18th to 20th centuries, several political operators took non-traditional paths to become dominant in their societies. They or their systems often expressed a belief in strong individual leadership, but existing titles and labels ("King", "Emperor", "President", and so on) often seemed inappropriate, insufficient, or downright inaccurate in some circumstances. The formal or informal titles or descriptions they or their subordinates employ express and foster a general veneration for leadership of the inspired and autocratic variety. The definite article when used as part of the title (in languages that use definite articles) emphasizes the existence of a sole "true" leader.

Critical thought[link]

Noam Chomsky^[77] and others^[78] have brought critical thinking to the very concept of leadership and have provided an analysis that asserts that people abrogate their responsibility to think and will actions for themselves. While the conventional view of leadership is rather satisfying to people who "want to be told what to do", these critics say that one should question why they are being subjected to a will or intellect other than their own if the leader is not a Subject Matter Expert (SME).

The fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the leadership principle is challenged by the introduction of concepts such as autogestion, employeeship, common civic virtue, etc., which stress individual responsibility and/or group authority in the work place and elsewhere by focusing on the skills and attitudes that a person needs in general rather than separating out leadership as the basis of a special class of individuals.

Similarly, various historical calamities are attributed to a misplaced reliance on the principle of leadership.

Varieties of individual power[link]

According to Patrick J. Montana and Bruce H. Charnov, the ability to attain these unique powers is what enables leadership to influence subordinates and peers by controlling organizational resources. The successful leader effectively uses these powers to influence employees, and it is important for leaders to understand the uses of power to strengthen their leadership.

The authors distinguish the following types of organizational power:

• Legitimate Power refers to the different types of professional positions within an organization structure that inherit such power (e.g. Manager, Vice President, Director, Supervisor, etc.). These levels of power correspond to the hierarchical executive levels within the organization itself. The higher positions, such as president of the company, have higher power than the rest of the professional positions in the hierarchical executive levels.

• Reward Power is the power given to managers that attain administrative power over a range of rewards (such as raises and promotions). Employees who work for managers desire the reward from the manager and will be influenced by receiving it as a result of work performance.

• Coercive Power is the manager's ability to punish an employee. Punishment can be mild, such as a suspension, or serious, such as termination.

• Expert Power is attained by the manager due to his or her own talents such as skills, knowledge, abilities, or previous experience. A manager who has this power within the organization may be a very valuable and important manager in the company.

• Charisma Power: a manager who has charisma will have a positive influence on workers, and create the opportunity for interpersonal influence.

• Referent Power is a power that is gained by association. A person who has power by association is often referred to as an assistant or deputy.

• Information Power is gained by a person who has possession of important information at an important time when such information is needed to organizational functioning.^[79]

See also[link]

Other types and theories[link]

Contexts[link]

Related articles[link]

References[link]

Notes

Books

• Blake, R.; Mouton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.. 
• Carlyle, Thomas (1841). On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic History. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 1-4069-4419-X. 
• Fiedler, Fred E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill: Harper and Row Publishers Inc.. 
• Heifetz, Ronald (1994). Leadership without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-51858-6. 
• Hemphill, John K. (1949). Situational Factors in Leadership. Columbus: Ohio State University Bureau of Educational Research. 
• Hersey, Paul; Blanchard, Ken; Johnson, D. (2008). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. ISBN 0-13-017598-6. 
• Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational Behavior: Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. 
• Spencer, Herbert (1841). The Study of Sociology. New York: D. A. Appleton. ISBN 0-314-71117-1. 
• Tittemore, James A. (2003). Leadership at all Levels. Canada: Boskwa Publishing. ISBN 0-9732914-0-0. 
• Vroom, Victor H.; Yetton, Phillip W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 0-8229-3266-0. 
• Vroom, Victor H.; Jago, Arthur G. (1988). The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0-13-615030-6. 
• Van Wormer, Katherine S.; Besthorn, Fred H.; Keefe, Thomas (2007). Human Behavior and the Social Environment: Macro Level: Groups, Communities, and Organizations. US: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-518754-7. 
• Montana, Patrick J.; Bruce H. (2008). Management. Hauppauge, New York: Barron's Educational Series, Inc. ISBN 0-944740-04-9. 

Journal articles

• House, Robert J. (1971). "A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness". Administrative Science Quarterly (Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University) 16 (3): 321–339. DOI:10.2307/2391905. JSTOR 2391905. 
• House, Robert J. (1996). "Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory". Leadership Quarterly 7 (3): 323–352. DOI:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7. 
• Lewin, Kurt; Lippitt, Ronald; White, Ralph (1939). "Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates". Journal of Social Psychology: 271–301. 
• http://sbuweb.tcu.edu/jmathis/Org_Mgmt_Materials/Leadership%20-%20Do%20Traits%20Matgter.pdf "Leadership: Do traits matter?". Academy of Management Executive 5 (2). 1991. 
• Lorsch, Jay W. (Spring 1974). "Review of Leadership and Decision Making". Sloan Management Review. 
• Spillane, James P.; et al., Richard; Diamond, John (2004). "Towards a theory of leadership practice". Journal of Curriculum Studies 36 (1): 3–34. DOI:10.1080/0022027032000106726. 
• Vroom, Victor; Sternberg, Robert J. (2002). "Theoretical Letters: The person versus the situation in leadership". The Leadership Quarterly 13 (3): 301–323. DOI:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00101-7. 

Further reading[link]

• Antonakis, John, Cianciolo, Anna T., & Sternberg, Robert J. (2004). The Nature of Leadership, Sage Publications, Inc.
• Argyris, C. (1976) Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, Wiley, New York, 1976 (even though published in 1976, this still remains a "standard" reference text)
• Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and applications. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. *Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12. (pp. 277–307): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F., & Weber, T. J. (in press). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology.
• Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research: Permission Set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.
• Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY, US: Free Press.
• Bennis, W. (1989) On Becoming a Leader, Addison Wesley, New York, 1989
• Borman, W. C., & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements. Human Performance, 6(1), 1-21.
• Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business: a long-term AT&T study of managerial lives: Wiley, New York.
• Campbell, J. (1990). An overview of the Army selection and classification project. Personnel Psychology, 43, 231-240.
• Campbell, J., McCloy, R., Oppler, S., & Sager, C. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in organizations (pp. 35–71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Crawford, C. J. (2005). Corporate rise the X principles of extreme personal leadership. Santa Clara, CA: XCEO. ISBN 0-9769019-0-0 ISBN 9780976901907
• Day, D. V., & Lord, R. G. (1988). Executive leadership and organizational performance: suggestions for a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, 14(3), 453-464.
• Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2002). Leadership in organizations. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, Volume 2: Organizational psychology. (pp. 166–187): Sage Publications, Inc.
• Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 1-6.
• Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245-287.
• Frey, M., Kern, R., Snow, J., & Curlette, W. (2009). Lifestyle and Transformational Leadership Style. Journal of Individual Psychology, 65(3), 212-240.
• Greiner, K. (2002). The inaugural speech. ERIC Accession Number ED468083 ^[3].
• Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A Theory of Team Coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269-287.
• Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 72–119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (2nd ed.) New Jersey/Prentice Hall
• Hogan, R., Curphy, C. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504.
• House, R. J. (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2004
• Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: advancing age and changing times: New York: Guilford Press.
• Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in Complex Systems In Praeger (Ed.), Human Productivity Enhancement (Vol. 2, pp. 7–65). New York.
• Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1990). Military executive leadership. Measures of leadership, 281-295.
• Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
• Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the Fate of Organizations. American Psychologist, 63(2), 96.
• Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590-621.
• Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Beyerlein, M. M., Johnson, D. A., et al. (1996). Team leadership and development: *Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership, Vol. 3. (pp. 253–291): Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
• Laubach, R. (2005) Leadership is Influence
• Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generlization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410.
• Machiavelli, Niccolo (1530) The Prince
• Maxwell, J. C. & Dornan, J. (2003) Becoming a Person of Influence
• McGovern, George S., Donald C. Simmons, Jr. and Daniel Gaken (2008) Leadership and Service: An Introduction, Kendall/Hunt Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7575-5109-3.
• McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Civil Service Commission.
• Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 91-109.
• Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The External Leadership of Self-Managing Teams: Intervening in the Context of Novel and Disruptive Events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 497-508.
• Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. Borman, Walter C (Ed); Ilgen, Daniel R (Ed); et al., (2003). Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Mumford, M. D. (1986). Leadership in the organizational context: Conceptual approach and its application. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(6), 508-531.
• Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.
• Nanus, Burt (1995) The visionary leadership
• Ogbonnia, SKC. (2007). Political Parties and Effective Leadership: A contingency Approach
• Pitcher, P. (1994 French) Artists, Craftsmen, and Technocrats: The dreams realities and illusions of leadership, Stoddart Publishing, Toronto, 2nd English edition, 1997. ISBN 0-7737-5854-2
• Renesch, John (1994) Leadership in a New Era: Visionary Approaches to the Biggest Crisis of Our Time, San Francisco, New Leaders Press (paperback) 2002, New York, Paraview Publishing
• Roberts, W. (1987) Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun
• Stacey, R. (1992) Managing Chaos, Kogan-Page, London, 1992
• Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press
• Stogdill, R.M. (1950) 'Leadership, membership and organization', Psychological Bulletin, 47: 1-14
• Terry, G. (1960) The Principles of Management, Richard Irwin Inc, Homewood Ill, pg 5.
• Torbert, W. (2004) Action Inquiry: the Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: An introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders (pp. 3–41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483.
• Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspective. American Psychology, 62 (1), 7-16.
• Zaleznik, A. (1977) "Managers and Leaders: Is there a difference?", Harvard Business Review, May–June, 1977
• Montana Patrick J. and Charnov Bruce H. (2008) Managerment: Leadership and Theory, Barron's Educational Series, Inc., Hauppauge, New York, 4th English edition, 2008. ISBN 0-7641-3931-2
• Zweifel, T.D. (2008). The Rabbi and the CEO: The Ten Commandments for 21st-Century Leaders. New York: SelectBooks, Inc.

External links[link]

Look up Leadership in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Leadership

• Leadership at the Open Directory Project