Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality

Trait theory has been extensively associated with and linked to an individual’s leadership abilities. Different personalities have risen to the position of leadership, but some have failed while others have flourished. The question is always how much personal attributes affect and influence his or her leadership skills. Trait theory’s forefathers strongly believe that humans are born with intrinsic features that determine their leadership position. In short, they do not support that leaders are born and not made by nature nor can circumstances, either, shape one to be a leader.

Over the years, psychological impetus, researchers, and practitioners have been on their toes to ascertain whether yes indeed leaders are born or can be made, or in other words if leadership traits can be learned or be taught. Trait theory continues to connote that these unique features, qualities, and skills recur on a lineage ground. It is this threshold that effectiveness of trait theory in determining the leadership ability of a person to organize and lead a group should be evaluated. There is need to ascertain the manner in which these unique qualities relate to the person’s ability to lead a group.

Critique: Purpose and Research Focus

Thus, this topic is a gray area for analysis that can help people improve their leadership skills and be able to appreciate how they traverse from one individual to another. The success and failure of potential leaders are the quests why trait theory need to be evaluated, analyzed, and if possible, be empirically validated to affirm and remove the disparities that do exists concerning personality and leadership.

The problem statement was in agreement with the topic of this study. Nevertheless, the purposes, goal, objective or the research problem as some may call it was not clear to an ordinary reader to appreciate the reason as to why the researcher opted or saw a need to carry out the research on the given topic. In this regard, it required the reader to extensively read the research work so that he or she can finally appreciate why the study was conducted.

By and large, the study had a significant contribution to the existing literature bank as well as for educational purposes. The researcher stated the objective of the state concisely; only that it may have been limited by the researcher’s competencies and proficiency in conducting the study.

The primary aim of this study was to test the hypotheses on how trait theory was useful in defining and affirming the leadership qualities of a person, in other words, to evaluate and clarify why characters differ from one individual to another and how to empirically determine them. The hypotheses were well structured; once again, it may have been limited by researcher’s ability to analyze them effectively and adequately.

The objectives we well reached and defined as for the first time, it was the researcher’s use of both personal ratings and self-observation in assessing the influence of trait theory towards one’s leadership role

The researcher cited the most appropriate research about the topic. From the introduction part to the conclusion, the author did an excellent job by providing and linking important thought to relevant existing literature from similar studies conducted on this topic. In doing this, the researcher enhanced the understanding and of the study while at the same time linking the study to what has been done and the resulting gaps that facilitated the study.

Critique: Methods

The researcher used a descriptive research design. The researcher was keen on choosing one of the best methods to measure the personal traits. Personal traits cannot be quantitatively be ascertained. Also, the researcher did explain very well in presenting all the instruments that were used in collecting data for the study. Based on this factor, the researcher used the five Likert scale that is commonly used in qualitative research studies. Likert scale is used to measure individuals judgment, perception, and opinion towards an issue of a circumstance. The respondent usually responds to the questions on the scale ranging from strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree, on a scale ranging from 1-5 respectively.

This scale has had wider application. To endorse the choice of these methods of collecting data, the researcher persistently and vividly links it to other areas where it has successfully been applied and produced conclusive results. The researcher used a confirmatory factor analysis to test the influence and impact of the variables. The two confirmatory factor were key in this study as it helped the researcher to validate the study.

Basically, concerning the researcher design and methods, the researcher explained all the necessary methods that were used to collect data for this study. The research instrument was also defined well, and they were also subjected to a confirmatory test. The confirmatory test was also provided by the researcher. The Population sample and size were all adequate for this study. Nevertheless, substandard explanation concerning the research techniques was not adequately discussed. The four dependable variables in this study were:

(a) Neuroticism, (b) Extraversion, (c) Openness to experience, and (d) Agreeableness

Critique: Results and Conclusions

The findings of the study were bases on the following four hypotheses that the researcher developed:

H5a. “The relationship between neuroticism and leadership perceptions is mediated by contributions to group success.” H5b. ”The relationship between extraversion and leadership perceptions is mediated by contributions to group success.” H5c. ”The relationship between openness to experience and leadership perceptions is mediated by contributions to group success.” H5d. ”The relationship between conscientiousness and leadership perceptions is mediated by contributions to group success.”

The study findings revealed that the five variables did prelate and predict leadership differently. The study also established that extraversion stood out to be strongly related to leadership. The study also found out that by using calculated weight, a self-observer rating of openness was second after extraversion self-rating.

Also, the study also discovered that openness could only affect leadership when measured by self or observer rating. Observer rating was found to be the most appropriate variable in predicting leadership. The findings were well prepared, and it was presented factually. Nevertheless, tables and charts were not used to present data. This thus failed to enhance the understanding of the findings.

On the other hand, this study had got many shortcomings, and much was left out of the study. Fist participant had prior knowledge of what they were doing and its effects, and thus maybe different results can be obtained when a different group is used. Secondly, all the three mediating factors in the study were based on the same scale out of results were generalized, and this should not have been the case as it only limits research confidentiality and applicability. The study was also limited in the sense that it only focused on the perception of one individual to generalize the rest to other groups. There is need to include many people in different groups before coming up with the general rule.

Conclusion: Overall Value

This study contributed significantly to the role of trait theory in predicting leadership. The major achievement of this study was that it incorporated both self and observer rating to predict leadership which had not been done before. It also vastly contributed on explaining how trait theory and its facets were in interplay in determining the leadership of an individual.

For researchers and scholars, this study provides an opportunity for further research that was captured from its weakness and limitations. Thus those wishing to conduct a survey in this area can use this research as the benchmark for their study.

Nonetheless, this research work was very intensive and extensive, principally in a journal commentary. Nearly all of the parts were well arranged, organized and presented. The article may have missed out some key factors in the study which contributed to its weakness as well as data presentation due to sophisticated statistical methods applied. Generally, this was one of the remarkable and substantial contributions to the existing research literature bank.

Reference

Colbert, A. E., Judge, T. A., Choi, D., & Wang, G. (2012). Assessing the trait theory of

leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: The mediating role of contributions to group success.