Welcome back to another week at the Educated Leadership blog!

This week we looked at the ways leadership was originally examined. Specifically, we explored what were known as traits and some concepts known as contingency theories.

Originally, it was thought that a person could be tested for traits and skills that would pre-dispose them to be a good leader. Studies were conducted to identify those traits in the hope of finding keys to identifying future leaders earlier. On the personality side, traits like self-confidence, emotional maturity, extroversion, and energy level were identified and sorted. Values, like fairness, justice, and honesty were also cataloged. Skill at a particular job and competency level were also studied and weighed. Last, but not least, self-identity or the feeling of identity one gleans form a job was taken into account.

Studies were conducted that followed managers along their career and attempted to tie the traits to success or failure. Some looked only at the jobs managers held at a given time. Some involved whether or not the career of the manager progressed or stalled out at some point.

The general finding was that, “Some traits and skills increase the likelihood that a leader will be effective, but they do not guarantee effectiveness.” (Yukl, 2012)

Contingency theories came about when trait theory couldn't narrow down the skills needed to a specific set. The various theories attempt to illustrate how aspects of a leadership situation can alter the performance of a leader. (Yukl) The theories are mainly composed of three variables. There can be more. There’s one predictor (e.g. task behavior), one dependent (e.g. subordinate satisfaction) , and one or more situational variables (e.g. task structure, workers’ values, expertise, and leader authority). (Yukl, pg. 163)

There were issues regarding the weighting of variables, which variables to apply, and deciding which impacts were measured and in what manner. In general, the evidence supporting contingency theories of effective leadership is inconsistent and difficult to interpret. (Yukl, pg. 175)

The inability to find a universal theory of leadership via traits or contingency theories has led to continuing studies exploration of the finer points of leadership. The degree I and my classmates are pursuing furthers those attempts to understand leadership and management.

Reflecting upon my own traits and skills, I see areas of competency and areas where I am less adept.

I believe I demonstrate a high energy level and tolerate stress relatively well. However, my team can pick up upon my stress level and will mention when they pick do. I know that stress manifests in sleeplessness and snacking for me. There are tell-tale signs to see in just a few days’ time.

I am self-confident. My team and colleagues have commented on my “command ability” that seems to grab a room when I walk in. The jobs I have held and sports in which I have participated demanded self-confidence and that helped to develop that trait over time. Conversely, I regularly ask myself if I am being overly self-confident. Having worked with people who exhibited the tendency to be over-confident, I do not wish to present that image to the people who work with and for me.

I am a believer in having a considerable amount of control over destiny, when it comes to an internal locus of control. My last supervisor actually gave a colleague and me the direction to “create our own destiny.” That worked just fine for me.

Building on the ideas of self-confidence and an internal locus of control, I can tell you that I am a strong believer in another particular trait. That is the trait of competence. Being competent at a job inherently builds confidence, both in the person taking the action and in those observing the actor. Achieving and maintaining competence in a skill requires dedication and practice. When discussing something as broad as leadership, the challenge is colossal.

Demonstrating a lack of competence, aka incompetence, will quickly damage one’s ability to lead any person or group. Incompetence can be perceived or actual. Either one is deadly to a leader’s career.

I know there is no perfect leader. I know I have opportunities to improve on the way I do things on a daily basis. I do the best I can and strive to improve. I have been able to leverage my skills and traits in the jobs I have held.

I know that the ideas of contingency theories apply in my daily life as I adapt my leadership depending on the situation I face. The world is a dynamic place. Human interaction and business operations are very dynamic. Leadership and leaders must adjust rapidly and adroitly to be successful.

Traits and contingency theories are good ways to examine leadership and management. Take time to understand them as you build your skill as a leader. You will be rewarded with more tools to use in your leadership skillset.

Yukl, Gary A. (2012-02-09). Leadership in Organizations (8th Edition) Pearson HE, Inc.. Kindle Edition.