trait theory the central premise in the essay

Nelson Mandela, Theorists, Assertiveness, Election

Excerpt from Essay:

Feature Theory

The central assumption in the discussion that frontrunners tend to become taller than followers will be based upon a logical argument concerning the character of trait theory and leadership generally speaking. Leadership theory focuses on the particular leaders effective, not the functions that place people in a leadership location in the first place. This kind of essay can break down the argument pertaining to trait theory, why attribute theory fell out of favor and why the point about leaders’ height is usually irrelevant to the entire disagreement.

Trait theory is based on the assumptions that people are given birth to with natural traits, which many of those qualities are fitted to leadership – those who generate good frontrunners are people that have the right combination of traits inside the right amount (ChangingMinds. org, 2011). In general, trait theory was based on personality traits as opposed to physical – versatility, assertiveness, decisiveness, self-confident, understanding of pressure, intelligence and creativity to name a few (Ibid). These traits were derived generally in observational studies of successful leaders. Unsuccessful frontrunners were generally not studied during the peak of characteristic theory.

Characteristic theory became eclipsed as a major leadership theory together with the emergence of behavioral hypotheses. These hypotheses were related, but focused on the actions exhibited simply by leaders (outputs) rather than the underlying traits from the leaders (inputs). Over time, it has become apparent that leadership can be something that may be exhibited in a wide range of conditions, and good leaders will take different forms (Doyle Jones, 2009). Backup theory emerged as the role of context started to be better comprehended, and as society began to agree to a wider range of leadership styles further than the traditional industrial/military archetypes that dominated in the early 20th century. By the 1970s, it became apparent that effective commanders were effective largely mainly because they adapted their design to fit the case – and leaders who had been effective beneath some circumstances could not always be counted to be effective in other circumstances. A good example of this would be the visionary leadership needed to transform an entity vs . The leadership had to drive intricate micro-actions that sustain the entity. Consider the comparable effectiveness of Lech Walesa or Nelson Mandela inside the transformation procedure (very high) with their effectiveness as a transactional leader inside the post-transformation period (moderate). Just like trait theory, behavior theory and backup theory both equally focused on those that have made leaders successful.

What was by no means a part of management theory is definitely the concept of just how people become leaders, especially in politics. Fans may well be drawn to height, although being identified into a management position is not the same thing being successful leader. There is no shortage of unsuccessful elected officials. Even more, height was never regarded as by the early trait theorists, so there is little if any documentation to back up any theory regarding height becoming correlated with leadership success. You will find tenuous connections that can be drawn between, say, height and confidence (Case Paxson, 2008) or other such traits that have been