Great Man & Trait Theories

As we have discussed in class, the trait theory of leadership is among the earliest of theories on leadership.  Thus, it makes sense that as leadership has progressed, so too have the theories behind it, and as a result many more ideas have largely taken the place of trait theory.  However, I find it interesting that trait theory seems to be making a small comeback, based on discussions in class.  To me this seems slightly counter-intuitive because it makes sense for ideas to develop along with the development of society.  Ideas are usually disproved or replaced by better ones, and generally society as a whole doesn't revert to previous ideas that have more modern replacements.  This does not mean that previous ideas can't be good though, and in this case I think that trait leadership has some merit and makes sense, although there are obvious problems too.

Scientifically, trait theory isn't very logical because there isn't any proof or testable data behind it.  While it says that people with predisposed genetic traits are more or less able to be leaders, there is no way of proving or testing that statement.  The other problem with the theory is the obvious counterexamples that essentially disprove it.  For example, according to trait theory, leaders including teachers (who have tremendous responsibility over children of various ages) should be tall, male, and physically adept, but that doesn't prevent people like my psychology professor-who is short, female, of minimal physical ability by her own account, and incidentally also one of the better teachers I currently have-from teaching successfully.  As an additional side note, it depends on the specific position, but none of the supposed leader traits are extremely important for someone to be a great teacher.

The upside of trait theory is that while it can't be applied to every situation, there are many situations in which it seems to be blatantly true.  People in leadership positions within politics or the military do actually tend to be  tall, male, and physically adept.  Even people such as the local physical trainers at the recreation center mostly fit the bill, which is understandable because in this case the traits that supposedly allow them to be good leaders are also necessary for them to act as leaders, or at least beneficial.

From these examples that are either in my world or directly related to me, it's obvious that trait theory can't be taken word for word.  I understand its resurgence in society because in certain cases it makes sense, and it's obviously seen.  However, there are many counterexamples that basically disproves trait theory as a definitive statement.  Perhaps a better statement would be to say that in certain situations or in certain environments, traits such as gender, physical size, etc can define a leader.