The Story of Trait Theory: Why Leadership Should Never Forget
A thesis submitted to the Miami University
Honors Program in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for University Honors
by
Daniel Patrick McGuire Jr.
May 2004
Oxford, Ohio
Abstract:
The following paper is a journey of trait theory as it applies to the research topic of
leadership. The first half is comprised of early research from Ralph Stogdill who conducted a
comprehensive analysis of the leadership literature in the year 1947, and then again in 1970. The
1947 analysis covered the years 1904-1947 while the 1970 study tackled the years 1948-1970.
This was a very significant time period for trait theory where many interesting and revolutionary
discoveries took place. The second half of the paper focuses on contemporary articles and
publications where trait theory has been employed in the study of leadership. Diverse examples
from these contemporary sources include the civilian world, the college environment and the
military. While Stephen R. Covey isolates eight essential characteristics that create effective
leaders, the collective work, Common Fire, lists six main attributes required for today’s leader,
and Ken Parry outlines for readers what he feels are the nine characteristics of a “new leader.”
In terms of military analyses, Frances J. Yammarino and Bernard M. Bass perform an interesting
study titled Long-Term Forecasting of Transformational Leadership and Its Effects Among
Naval Officers, and Herbert Barber compares the personality characteristics of senior military
officers to a general population of male college students. Finally, a study of the top five
leadership traits as chosen by a sample of Air Force ROTC cadets is compiled by myself.
Through the discussion of these works on leadership, many interesting parallels to the 1947 and
1970 studies can be seen, as well as noticeable differences.
The Story of Trait Theory: Why Leadership Should Never Forget
by Daniel Patrick McGuire
Approved by:
Dr. Emily Langdon_____
(Typed name of advisor)
, Advisor
Dr. Dennis Roberts_________, Reader
(Typed name of reader)
Colonel Kimble Stohry______, Reader
(Typed name of reader)
Accepted by:
__________________________, Director,
University Honors Program
Acknowledgements:
Now that I have completed this illustrious paper, there are numerous people I would like to
thank:
Dr. Langdon, for her support and guidance as an advisor and overall leadership theologian.
Dr. Dennis Roberts for his wisdom and appreciation as a reader
Colonel Kimble Stohry for his 27 years of leadership experience in the Air Force and guidance
as a reader
Dr. Carolyn Haynes for keeping me on the right track, and offering guidance
Mrs. Debra Stanley for granting me the Joseph F. Hogan Research Scholar Room equipped with
all the tools I needed to successfully complete my thesis
Mr. Jason Lanter for being understanding during this process
The cadets of Detachment 640 for their unselfish contribution and inspiration
My family and my God for their undying support
Table of Contents
1. Traits of Leadership 1904-47
Page 7
2. Stogdill’s Conclusions to the 1947 findings
Page 16
3. Traits of Leadership: A Follow-up (1948-1970)
Page 17
4. A Personal Reflection on Stogdill’s Work
Page 26
5. The Transition from Trait to Behavior
Page 33
6. Contemporary Publications
Page 35
- Characteristics of Principle-centered Leadership
Page 35
- Common Fire
Page 38
- Long-Term Forecasting of Transformational Leadership and
its Effects Among Naval Officers
Page 44
- The New Leader
Page 49
- Parry’s Leadership Profile
Page 51
- Some Personality Characteristics of Senior Military Officers
Page 53
- ROTC Survey
Page 56
7. Leadership Traits: A Personal Reflection
Page 60
8. Conclusion
Page 68
9. About the Author
Page 69
10. Afterword
Page 71
11. Annotated Bibliography
Page 73
List of Figures
A. Figure One (Myers-Brigg Type Indicator)
Page 55A
List of Tables
A. Table One (Stogdill)
Page 24A
B. Table Two (Stogdill)
Page 25A
C. Table Three (Element B)
Page 55B
D. Table Four (List of Values)
Page 55C
E. Table Five
(Rokeach Survey)
Page 55D
E. Table Six
(ROTC Quiz)
Page 59
F. Table Seven (Trait Analysis)
Page 59A
G. Table Eight (Class Analysis)
Page 59B
H. Table Nine (GMC/POC Analysis)
Page 59C
Traits of Leadership: 1904-47
At the turn of the twentieth century, leaders were regarded as those individuals who, as a
result of “fortunate inheritance or social adventure,” (Stogdill 78) possessed distinctive qualities
that made them leaders. The research topic of trait theory was born to answer the question of
“What are these qualities, or traits?” During the time period of 1904-1947, researchers Smith and
Kruger (1933) and Jenkins (1947) contributed the most significant material on trait theory. Smith
and Kruger surveyed the literature on leadership while Jenkins reviewed leadership methodology
as applied to military situations. Ralph M. Stogdill compiled their findings, as well as numerous
other leadership surveys, and summarized the results in “Personal Factors Associated with
Leadership” within the Journal of Psychology in 1948. His research demonstrated many
important points. One of the most prominent was that the number of investigations into a
specific leadership factor is not the main indicator of its importance, but the frequency by which
the trait is shown to have a positive correlation1. Some traits were evaluated many more times
than others, but had consistently lower correlations with leadership than certain traits analyzed
less often. For example, Table 2 indicates that technical skills were found in 18 studies;
1. When an examiner statistically compares two or more objects or terms, correlations can be derived. A
correlation is numerical figure which indicates how often two items or terms occur together. Furthermore, these
correlations can be negative or positive. When analyzing leadership variables, an example of a positive correlation
(+.01 to +1.00) would be something like intelligence and leadership. When the correlation is +1.00 then the
relationship is considered a perfect correlation where the two items or terms always, and under every circumstance,
occur simultaneously. Such that, whenever one is present, the other will be present as well. Studies have shown
that as a person’s intelligence increases, their overall ability to be an effective leader increases as well. An example
of a negative correlation (-.01 to -1.00) would be bossiness. As a person’s bossiness increases, their overall ability
to be an effective leader decreases. Looked at from another view, if a person’s bossiness was to decrease, than their
overall ability to be an effective leader would increase. A correlation of -1.00 is considered a perfect correlation as
well. But in this case, because the value is negative, this means that whenever one of the terms or items is present,
the other one will never, under any circumstance, be present as well. These are but a few examples of leadership
correlations that can be found within this paper. One thing to note is that correlation does not indicate causality. A
correlation is a value which indicates how often two items occur together. A correlation does not state that if you
have A, then you will definitely have B, and should not be taken as such. A correlation will let you know how often
A will occur with B. Having intelligence does not mean you will be characterized as a leader. But the trait of
intelligence shares a relationship with leadership and the correlation is what describes that.
granted this is a high number, but that does not necessarily prove that technical skills are more
important to leadership than intellectual skills, which were found in only 12 studies. The
following paragraphs illustrate studies completed through 1947 in which researchers attempted
to determine the traits and characteristics of leadership.
Most of the studies were completed using group situations. In this type of study, two or
more individuals were observed in situations that provided for the emergence of leadership
characteristics. The situations could have been planned out in advance, or have been
spontaneous, and they may have been measured for minutes at a time, or for hours. These were
items left to the discretion of the researcher.
Another method by which subjects were studied was through “choice of associates”
(Stogdill 60). Strategies for determining the choice of associates included voting, naming,
ranking and sociometrics. The subjects in these studies were asked to name who in the group
they felt was a leader and what characteristics that individual demonstrated. Sociometrics was
employed via the creation of a “sociogram” or chart which showed the relationship of every
member in the group. Due to this, the selection of leaders was often synonymous with what
“office positions” they held. Students such as athletic captains, presidents of the student body,
and local community-volunteer leaders were the ones most often selected by their peers as
leaders.
The traits that were most commonly listed were intelligence, initiative, and sense of
responsibility. In order to determine further traits of leadership, questionnaires, surveys, rating
scales and interviews were utilized. Those surveyed included pre-schoolers, elementary school
children, high school students, college students, and adults. Due to this diverse sample, the
results of these surveys varied greatly.
In terms of chronological age, leaders were found to be older as opposed to younger by a
ratio of 10:6; however some studies found female leaders to be younger than male leaders. This
depended on the organization as well. If the organization had an age-rank progression (where
the older you are, the higher your rank would most likely be), then those who were older would
have been perceived as the leaders. With children this can be different. This is because active
leadership within a group usually began around ages nine to ten. During observations, it was
noted that leadership does not present itself in children younger than two or three years, and even
then it takes the form of “overt domination” (Stogdill 61).
When analyzing height and weight, leaders were found to be taller and heavier more
often than not. Other attributes positively correlated with the label of leadership were physique,
health, athletic prowess, energy, confident tone of voice, and fluent speaking ability.
Appearance also held a positive relationship in regards to leadership, more so in boys than girls.
Intelligence is a very interesting factor to study in terms of leadership. In the majority of
studies, the leader exhibited a higher intelligence level than the other members of the group, but
not too great a difference or he or she became ostracized. If the average IQ of the group is 100,
than someone with an IQ of 115-130 had a good chance of emerging as a leader based on this
trait. An individual with an IQ 0f 160 had very little chance of emerging as a leader unless the
average IQ of their group is 130 or above. However, context plays a vital role as well; in a gang
of boys, the trait of chronological age, not mental ability, is the determining factor of who
emerges as a leader and who is a follower. In other studies, the measuring tool for leadership
was scholastic records where leaders were noted as having better scholastic records in 22 studies
and poorer records in only one study. Overall, successfully accomplishing objectives for their
people is the primary way in which the trait of intelligence will be recognized within a leader.
In many factor-analysis studies, soundness and finality of judgment were shown to be
common factors of a leader. In terms of judgment, leaders were shown to demonstrate six key
genres of insight: keenly alive to environment, alert, ability to evaluate situations, social insight,
self-insight, and sympathetic understanding. The attribute of insight is considered by many to be
a form of intelligence and was analyzed in numerous studies under the above contexts.
Originality and leadership oftentimes held a positive correlation between .38 and .70, and
is considered to be a vital leadership characteristic. The ability to adapt to any situation can also
be considered a reflection of intelligence; but adaptability in this case was analyzed in a greater
social context. The results showed that often times, those of higher intelligence felt inhibited in a
new vocational environment, and inhibition holds a negative correlation with leadership. This
indicates that a leader must prevent inhibition in a new environment, be it vocational or social
and be able to adapt accordingly.
How does the concept of introversion-extroversion contribute to the study of leadership?
Essentially, leaders are more likely to be more extroverted than introverted. This is especially
true in concerns to studies involving children. However, as age increases, the difference in the
impact of whether one is introverted or extroverted tended to be less significant. In fact,
“soldier-fighters” scored very high in introversion in numerous military studies.
The subject of dominance is also very fascinating. Leaders are found to be dominant in
the majority of studies; however, one will be rejected as a leader if he or she is “too bossy.” First
consider that there is a difference between these two adjectives. People who are dominant have a
“desire to impose will” (Stogdill 67) over others while bossiness is considered to be the act of
ordering others around. Just because someone is bossy, does not mean their people will listen to
them, but often times someone who is dominant will get their people to do things by just telling
them. Many studies concluded that individuals prefer leaders who can keep order without
having to be bossy.
Other leadership traits included initiative and ambition. Initiative contained a positive
correlation to leadership in almost every single study. Studies have noted that many great “faceto-face” (Stogdill 68) leaders were characterized by “persistence in the face of obstacles,”
(Stogdill 68) and “degree of strength of will or perseverance” (Stogdill 68). Other studies have
concluded that numerous soldiers, religious leaders and statesmen had a “desire to excel at
performances” (Stogdill 68). When comparing college leaders to college non-leaders, it was
noted that the difference between ambition levels was significant with college leaders emerging
as more ambitious than college non-leaders. Many feel that this notion of leadership being
related to work rather than status was concurrent with the belief that the level of ambition
displayed in college will continue on to aid these individuals in becoming leaders of their
industry as well. This is a perfect example of a trait that has not been studied as much as other
traits, but has proven to be vastly significant in each of its studies.
Responsibility was also a prominent factor to study, as was integrity and conviction. All
17 studies related to the topic of responsibility found the trait to be positively related to
leadership. The attribute of trustworthiness and conscientiousness, especially in religious
leaders, was also positively correlated with leadership. “Integrity of character was associated
with leadership in maturity” (Stogdill 69). In terms of conviction, adult leaders who expressed
the ideas and opinions of the group, but did so in a more decisive, logical manner, were
perceived as leaders.
But what about self-confidence and modesty; how do they play a role? In studies on the
relationship between self-confidence and leadership, it was found that the “great leaders”
(Stogdill 69) held traits such as self-confidence, esteem of their special talents, and a tendency to
rate their talents correctly. Studies found that leaders were not hindered by displays of modesty,
but this may not always hold true depending on the context. For example, statesmen can actively
seek limelight and public admiration, while still displaying a sense of self-esteem that is lower
than average. However, numerous studies have found traits such as eagerness and attentionseeking (which is the opposite of being modest) to be positively correlated with leadership as
well. This says that though some light has been shed on the importance of these traits, there is
still more work to be done.
There are a lot of considerations concerning the topic of mood that should be examined
when analyzing leadership. Moods associated with leadership were usually positive, ranging
from: seldom gloomy, happy, cheerful, and sense of humor. For women, the ability to control
their mood and not displace unpleasant emotions onto others was considered a sign of leadership.
It was noted that unhappiness and leadership were negatively correlated; both humor and
laughter were positively correlated with leadership.
The notion of emotional control played a vital interest in the contemporary study of
leadership. Leaders were found to be more stable and emotionally in control than those who are
not considered leaders. Furthermore, leaders were found to be well balanced and self-composed
in comparison with their followers. Irritability on the other hand, was negatively correlated with
leadership.
Studies have shown leaders to be more excitable than non-leaders. Interestingly, anger
can be a positive trait in a leader, but a negative one in a follower. Fighting was positively
correlated in regards to males, but negatively correlated in connection with females.
Incorrigibility and defiance were also found to be positive traits for leaders, but negative
characteristics in followers. Clearly, this all depends on your role within the group.
Many social aspects have been considered as well when studying leadership, such as
social and economic status, and social activity and mobility. More often than not, leaders came
from higher socio-economic environments, especially if the socio-economic status was superior
to the leader’s average follower. In terms of participation, leaders tended to surpass their
followers in terms of the number, extent and variety of group activities in which they
participated. Thus, there was a positive correlation between leadership and participation in
extracurricular activities, or “occupying one or more positions of responsibility in group
activities” (Stogdill 71). Physical and social mobility were associated with adult leadership.
Furthermore, leaders often rate higher than average in the trait of popularity. The idea of
prestige reflected the same results as popularity, but did not always result in the perception of
leadership depending on the age group you were studying (adults or children). Studies
concerning boys and girls up to age 15 linked leadership with popularity and prestige on a
consistent basis. However, while adults tended to be attracted to the leadership of those holding
prestigious positions in society, they were more likely than younger age groups to dismiss the
individual as a leader if they behaved in a manner unbefitting.
Student leaders rated higher in sociability (the art of displaying positive social skills) than
did non-leaders. Attributions such as friendliness and social skills tended to distinguish leaders
from their followers. Courtesy, tact and diplomacy were further traits which have distinguished
leaders from non-leaders. Rudeness was negatively correlated with leadership for both men and
women, as was bashfulness and seclusiveness. In terms of social questions, college student
leaders tended to be high in liberalism and low in radicalism. Within social situations, studies
show that leaders tended to be more daring and adventurous than non-leaders. Liveliness and
physical activity were also positively correlated with leadership, as was restlessness.
One of the last traits to be discussed was cooperation, which was found in three main
forms. First, leaders were found to rate higher in cooperativeness than their followers. Second,
the ability to enlist cooperation and control in others was valued as essential to leadership. And
third, a sense of social responsibility was found more in leaders than in non-leaders within these
studies.
To supplement this long list of traits, the following longitudinal study reflects the
transferability and persistence of leadership. A study of 230 leaders in elementary school and
middle school, whereby 206 were again studied in their senior year of high school, showed a .19
correlation between leadership in elementary school and senior year and a .52 correlation
between middle school and senior year. There was a high correlation between athletic leadership
in middle school and in the senior year of high school.
Many studies found that success in leadership during school was an indicator of success
in one’s career. More leaders than non-leaders in high school will go on to college. Those who
displayed leadership in high school will be more likely to continue on to college than those who
did not exhibit leadership. Out of those who go onto college, the individuals who had traits such
as superior socio-economic background and intelligence tended to be more successful in both
leadership and their career. One researcher noted that “whatever is required to excel in the
extracurricular life of the high school seems to be the same thing that contributes most to success
later” (Stogdill 75).
In a study of college students who were going to enter the military via West Point
Academy, 116 students were able to be examined. They were predicted for military success
based on the traits of potential value and intelligence. Assessment of bearing and appearance
were correlated higher with leadership rank than the assessment of athletic ability, tactics and
academic standing. This means that their military success in college was determined more so by
their appearance and external character than by their athletic ability or grade point average.
Interesting to note, was that the significance of leadership traits differed with the
situation. For example, a child who was a leader in general everyday situations would have
exhibited different personality traits than a child who was a leader in a misconduct situation.
Studies have noted that taller individuals excelled in athletic leadership and shorter people had a
tendency to excel in academic leadership. Superior socio-economic status as well as intelligence
tended to separate leaders from followers as well. Leadership traits for girls at age twelve
(daring, humor) were different than at age fifteen (popularity, happy, friendly) due to an increase
in maturity. However, boys at age twelve (daring, active, friendly) displayed similar traits at age
fifteen (daring, active in games and fights). This reflects a future theory discussed within this
paper that many of these leadership traits will only emerge given the appropriate environment.
My hope in providing this information is to reinforce ideas about leadership you may
have already considered. At the same time this reinforcement occurs, many questions should
arise. For instance, someone who displays courage and initiative will be looked at as a leader,
but one needs to ask if this is true for all ages, or in all situations or contexts; the answer may be
surprising. The research analysis aids leaders and followers alike by allowing them to examine
themselves. They can look at each trait and its explanation and determine how well they fit that
mold and why that may be. Once a leader or follower considers which traits they find most
important, and to what degree they exemplify these traits, they can begin to analyze other
theories. As you will see, trait theory is the foundation, the stepping stone for the other theories
of leadership. Without an understanding of the research behind trait theory, one will never fully
understand the contemporary models of leadership analysis.
Stogdill’s Conclusions to the 1947 Findings:
There are four states necessary for the appearance of leadership:
1.) Development of determination and self-control
2.) Grasp of abstractions and social ideals
3.) Awareness of personalities
4.) A sufficient memory span to pursue remote goals rather than immediate objectives.
Overall, the factors associated with leadership up until 1947 can be classified under six
headings:
1. Capacity: intelligence, alertness, verbal facility originality, and judgment
2. Achievement: scholarship, knowledge, and athletic accomplishments
3. Responsibility: dependability, initiative, persistence, aggressiveness, self-confidence,
and the desire to excel
4. Participation: activity, sociability, cooperation, adaptability, and humor
5. Status: socioeconomic position and popularity
6. Situation: mental level, status, skills, needs and interests of followers, objectives to be
achieved
Traits of Leadership: A Follow-up (1948-1970)
In the beginning of the twentieth century, leaders were considered “superior individuals
who, as a result of fortunate inheritance or social adventure, possessed qualities and abilities that
differentiated them from people in general” (Stogdill 78). However, after Stogdill, Bird and
Jenkins each completed thorough analyses of trait theory, this position began to shift. After
1947, there was a move from locating a set of universal leadership traits to traits that were
situation-specific. The reason for this was the conclusions of these researchers. Bird read over
20 studies that described 79 traits, but only four of those traits appeared in more than five
studies. Jenkin’s analysis of military leadership led him to the statement that “military
leadership was specific to the military situation under investigation” (Stogdill 78). When
coupled with Stogdill’s findings, the shift away from the universal list approach began to take
place.
This new evolution of trait theory stressed that leadership was “entirely situational” and
that individual characteristics alone cannot accurately predict one’s leadership. As studies
continued, the method of multi-variable analysis gave way to a single attribute focus during
experiments. With the past results intact, theory began to drive much of the data.
The following paragraphs summarize the findings of Ralph Stogdill as he examined 163
studies of leadership traits that were published between the years 1948 – 1970. In these surveys,
there were no negative findings reported, only positive or significant relationships. These
positive relationships were considered as such if (1) a given trait was significantly correlated
with some measure of the effectiveness of leaders, (2) a sample of leaders were found to differ
significantly from a sample of followers on the trait, (3) a sample of effective leaders were found
to differ significantly from a sample of ineffective leaders on the trait, or (4) a sample of high-
status leaders were found to differ significantly from a sample of low-status leaders on the trait.
The last portion of this section involves factor analysis of the traits of leadership. This means that
a review of leadership publications between 1945 and 1970 was conducted in order to determine
which factors were most common.
Unlike the 1948 survey, the 1970 survey found very little interest in physical
characteristics such as height or weight. It was noted that a larger size is certainly not a
disadvantage in acquiring leadership status, but is not a necessary characteristic either. For
example, the taller players on a sports basketball team are expected to be some of the best, but
this does not absolutely mean they will emerge as leaders. Furthermore, the 1970 survey found
that physical characteristics may complement a leader, or a leader may compensate for a lack of
physical stature, such as the case of Napoleon. However, police officers who are smaller in
stature are more likely to be attacked and harassed than larger police officers. Overall, there
tended to be little focus on this correlation, but above average height and weight was never noted
as a disadvantage.
There were differences noted between level of energy and age when comparing the
results of the 1948 and 1970 survey. In terms of activity, energy and stamina, the 1970 survey
showed a dramatic increase in the finding that highly successful leaders exhibited a high amount
of energy. When discussing age, the 1970 survey found that “great men often displayed signs of
outstanding achievement at a relatively young age, but it can take time to rise to the top in a
corporate or governmental setting” (Stogdill 82). Stogdill concluded that “young persons who
desire quick recognition of their talents should seek a profession where prestige is based on
individual accomplishment” (Stogdill 82).
Of the 19 studies surveyed between 1948 and 1970, the topic of social status was found
to have different conclusions. Those who desired a political office had a greater chance of doing
so if they came from a family with high social status. However, more top executives in 1965
were coming from poorer, middle-income families. In terms of college, it was found that being a
member of a fraternity provided one with high social status, and that a large percentage of
student leaders on a college campus were in fraternities. Once again, this does not mean one
must be in a fraternity to be a leader, but statistically, membership heightened one’s chances.
During this time period, there were 14 studies which analyzed education in terms of
leadership. Senior managers with college degrees increased from 28.3% in 1900 to 74.3% in
1964. In 1958, it was noted that once women reached middle management, they found it
difficult to rise to a higher level within an industrial organization. Their “mobility” however, has
dramatically increased since then. Granted, there are still glass ceilings that women can “hit” in
the workplace, but I feel it is important to note that the number and severity of these proverbial
ceilings is much less than it was in the past, and is still improving.
The conclusions drawn from a study of social background found the following: (1) high
socioeconomic status was an advantage in obtaining leadership status, (2) leaders who rose to
high-level positions in industry were more likely to come from the lower socioeconomic level of
society than they were in the past half-century, and (3) leaders tended to be better educated now
than they were formerly.
By 1970, there were 25 reports of a positive relationship between leadership and
intelligence as well as leadership and ability. This was in comparison to the 17 studies which
found this relationship prior to 1948. Also similar was the “curvilinear relationship between
managerial success and intelligence” (Stogdill 83). Those on the low and high ends of
intelligence are less likely to achieve managerial success; essentially, they are ostracized because
it was difficult for these individuals to communicate in an effective way. To achieve these
results, a specific form of intelligence testing was utilized. It was found that intelligence tests
which discriminated verbal ability among those at the upper portion of the intelligence curve,
similar to Miller’s analogies (used to predict success in graduate schools), were the most valid
forms of intelligence testing to determine one’s potential to rise in firms or agencies.
In the 1970 list, the following personality traits held a positive relationship with
leadership: aggressiveness, assertiveness, independence, objectivity, enthusiasm, and tolerance
of stress. Characteristics in the 1948 study that were reported twice as often in the 1970 list were
alertness, originality, personal integrity, and self confidence. Further results in the 1970 study
found that dominance, self-control and outgoing personality may be found in some leaders, but
not in others. Once again, this was situation-specific.
When dealing with task-related personality characteristics, both the 1948 and 1970 study
found that leaders were characterized by a need for achievement, a sense of responsibility, and a
desire to be dependable when completing set objectives. Furthermore, the 1948 and 1970 survey
both concluded that leaders were “active participants” in their activities. Socially, leaders
interacted easily with a wide range of personalities, had their interaction appreciated by others,
cooperated well with others and enlisted cooperation from others. Group members respected
leaders because their characteristics fostered a sense of loyalty and cohesion from the other
group members. Therefore, the 1970 survey noted a strong relationship between task-related
activities and social activities.
When completing a factor analysis of leadership, the most frequently occurring factors
were social and interpersonal skills, technical skills, administrative skills, intellectual skills,
leadership effectiveness and achievement, social nearness, friendliness, supportive of the group
task, and task motivation and application. What this indicated however, was that leaders differed
greatly in the degree to which they utilized the above factors. For instance, some leaders may
have been highly task motivated, while others were good at maintaining friendly, professional
relationships; the best leaders however, were able to do both simultaneously (Stogdill 85). This
is merely a general list of the most desired factors within a work-place setting; generally, the
more traits a person possesses, the more effective they will be as a leader.
The next group of leadership factors dealt with personal characteristics. Leaders were
described in terms of emotional balance, willingness to assume responsibility, ethical conduct,
ability to communicate, dominance, energy, experience, courage and maturity. Leaders were
further guided to success in these characteristics if they were able to display a strong sense of
motivation towards the job as well as personal integrity. Factor analysis was able to “display a
well-balanced picture of the skills, functions, and personal characteristics of leaders in a wide
variety of situations” (Stogdill 86). Once again, the more factors one possesses, the more likely
others will consider that individual to be a leader.
In conclusion, the similarities between the 1948 and 1970 surveys helped to establish
what inherent traits existed in effective leaders. However, it should be emphasized that most of
the variance in who emerges as a leader and who emerges as successful were subject to the
situational effects of the environment; the difference between being a leader and being successful
is that an individual who is a leader displays leadership characteristics in a multitude of
environments while an individual who is considered successful will only display leadership
qualities in limited environments. Thus, a leader will emerge as such time and time again, while
someone who portrays leadership qualities in only one environment, is not labeled as a genuine
leader, but was merely successful in that environment. Another emphasis point is that there was
no overall comprehensive theory when it came to the personality of leaders. All Stodgill had to
work with was statistical evidence from numerous surveys and research projects. All in all,
Ralph Stogdill concluded that determination, persistence, self-confidence and ego strength are
the essential traits possessed by a successful leader (Stogdill 87). Further insight is provided on
Stogdill’s personal list.
For the trait of determination/persistence, Stogdill turned to the studies performed by
Drake (1944), Webb (1915), Bellingrath (1930), Eichler (1934) and Sheldon (1927). Drake and
Webb found correlations of .23 and .59 respectively between leadership and “strength of will.”
What is interesting in Webb’s research is that he found a .53 correlation between leadership and
persistence but a correlation of .70 between leadership and “persistence in overcoming
obstacles.” When Bellingrath studied high school students, he obtained a .68 correlation
between leadership and persistence. Finally, Eichler and Sheldon found correlations of .23 and
.34 respectively for the relationship between leadership and persistence.
The only study whose focal group was listed was that of Bellingrath, in which he derived
a very high correlation. Webb’s correlation varied .17 when analyzing “persistence in
overcoming obstacles” as opposed to just “persistence.” This suggests that when a researcher
expands the definition of the trait he is analyzing, it might produce a different correlation than
that of the singular trait. Other than that, the correlations varied, which reaffirms the theory that
the situation in which the trait is applied is very important.
Stogdill analyzed the following correlations for the relationship between selfconfidence/ego strength and leadership: .58 by Bellingrath (1930), .59 by Drake (1944), and .12
by Webb (1915). We see that these are the same researchers listed for the trait of
persistence/determination. For his study, Bellingrath once again examined high school students,
but the focus groups of Drake and Webb are not known. The clear observation here is that
Bellingrath and Drake contain very similar correlations, while Webb’s conclusion was extremely
low. It would be interesting to know the situational environment within Drake’s study in order
to make comparisons. If the population studied by Drake was similar to Bellingrath, then that
would confirm Bellingrath’s findings. But if the population was different, then that would begin
to substantiate the claim that self-confidence is a necessary trait in multiple contexts. It would
also be intriguing to analyze the situational environment in Webb’s study that influenced such a
low statistic.
Table One summarizes the findings of Stogdill by listing the positive and negative
findings for each leadership trait. A positive finding indicates that there was a positive
correlation with leadership, and a negative finding indicates that there was a negative correlation
with leadership. However, only the 1948 survey included negative findings as the 1970 survey
was focused solely on the positive correlations in order to make connections to the 1948 survey.
As Table One will indicate, certain traits derived a higher number of positive findings than
others. Though as stated previously, this does not necessarily indicate that this trait is more
important, only that it was studied more. Anytime there is a zero listed, this means that the
correlation was not significant enough to report an accurate finding. The traits were broken
down into six categories: physical characteristics, social background, intelligence and ability,
personality, task-related characteristics and social characteristics.
Table Two list correlations found for these traits. As one can see, many of the leadership
traits contain a wide range of correlations. This does not indicate that the research is invalid or
was done incorrectly however. What this indicates is that different researchers underwent the
study of that trait using different methods and different subjects. For example, under the trait of
appearance, different correlations were found for children, for adolescent boys and for adolescent
girls. The trait of extroversion has one correlation based on a study of young girls; this is not a
correlation on which to base the remaining members of the general population, but it is the only
number reported on that trait for this particular time period. Thus, the population studied has a
significant impact on the results. Not all the studies indicate what population they observed
however and this makes it difficult to fully examine their conclusions. The subject within the
trait that is analyzed is also very important. Under fluency of speech, Flemming (1938) studied
interesting conversation within the topic of fluency and receive a much different result than
Zeleny (1939) who analyzed total remarks made in a classroom setting. There are a number of
factors as to why different researchers will obtain different correlations when studying the same
leadership trait, and the following tables reinforces this idea. However, only the 1948 survey
chose to include the correlations, the 1970 study did not.
A Personal Reflection on Stogdill’s Work:
To describe it lightly, the list of traits analyzed by Stogdill was very comprehensive and
thorough. I admire this man’s work on the subject and after hours of research, feel obligated to
devote my own time towards this list as well. Therefore, I have selected specific traits cited by
Stogdill and offered my personal opinion; in doing this, my hope is to reiterate why they are so
important. Not only were these traits important half a century ago during their time of study, but
they can still be found in abundance today. One of the most reassuring points for me is that for
each of the traits Stogdill analyzed, I can think of a contemporary experience to apply them
towards.
To begin, I agree with Stogdill, Bird and Jenkins that the environmental context
determines who emerges as a leader. For example, age is a tremendous asset to have, because
with age comes wisdom. However, this will only aid an aspiring leader if they are placed in a
situation where their wisdom is applicable to the circumstances at hand. Simply because
someone is older does not always mean they will always emerge as a more effective leader than
those who are younger. For instance, consider if someone is too old or too young. I could see
this being a huge disadvantage depending on which age group they are trying to lead. If the age
group is too young, then they will have trouble relating to them and will ultimately be ineffective
as a leader. Height and weight is based on context as well. I only consider height and weight to
be a determining leadership factor on sports teams, and not a factor in everyday situations.
Although, I do not see weight or height ever being a disadvantage, unless someone’s height or
weight is so extreme that it inhibits their daily activities. Ultimately, I feel that the characteristic
of age will depend on the context, and height and weight are not formidable leadership traits.
In terms of physique, energy and health, I have varying opinions. If someone has
tremendous physique and athleticism, this does not mean they will be always be an effective
leader. These traits are external factors and will only advance someone so far before they are
forced to demonstrate their true leadership potential, that being their inner traits and
characteristics. I do believe a leader should be in good health, however, and that bad health will
be ultimately detrimental given the right circumstances. I can envision situations where a leader
who works through bad health would be inspiring to their people. However, if this process
makes it harder for the leader to recover, then I would consider it detrimental to their leadership
capabilities. Energy is vital however; displaying charisma and motivating your people are
essential to good leadership. The trait of excitability is very similar to this. When leaders are
excited, their followers tend to become excited as well. This needs to be conducted under the
right circumstances however, and not used in excess or it will lose its effects. If the leader
becomes excited over every little detail, then the followers will be unable to differentiate when
they did a good job and an outstanding job. Thus, this trait needs to be practiced in moderation.
I have similar feelings towards the traits of popularity, prestige and social status. Just
because someone is popular does not mean they will be an effective leader. Furthermore, if a
person has nothing else to lead with besides high social status and the prestige that ensues, they
will not be looked upon as a leader for very long. Once again, this is an example of an external
factor that needs to be supplemented with prominent inner traits such as honor and integrity
before the individual’s leadership can be considered as effective.
In terms of speech, a leader needs to have a vocabulary that indicates a high level of
intelligence, but not too advanced that their people will not understand what the leader is
communicating. If a leader is unprofessional or juvenile in their language, then this will be
reflected in the follower’s perception of that leader, and ultimately their performance. Leaders
who are very talkative can still be effective as long as their dialogue is not wasted. Those who
develop an appropriate balance between discussing everyday matters (as to seem human in front
of your followers) and talking shop (discussing work-related matters) will establish a good
relationship with their people.
I agree that intelligence is essential. A leader could have all the bravado in the world, but
unless they can bolster this with appropriate actions, they will be at a loss. People will not place
their faith in an incompetent person, as they will not feel comfortable or safe in concerns to their
future. A follower must know that their leader is mentally capable of handling their
responsibilities; there should never be any doubt. Furthermore, leaders need to know how to
effectively accomplish their objectives and this is where the trait of knowledge presents itself.
However, a leader must also have emotional intelligence (Goleman 1995), namely the capability
to read the emotions of their people and respond accordingly. Each follower is different and can
be placed under a unique developmental level. Due to this, a leader cannot always approach the
team or organization as a whole when addressing problems and offering solutions. Sometimes, a
leader will have to give someone personal attention based on their individual needs. “Emotional
intelligence, the skills that help people harmonize, should become increasingly valued as a
workplace asset in the years to come" (Goleman 160). Leaders who are high in mental and
emotional intelligence will be the most effective in terms of the trait of intelligence.
When analyzing scholarship, I agree that someone’s success in college is an excellent
predictor of their success in the real world. However, one who does well in high school may not
be a leader when they arrive in college. High school and college are such different academic
environments and one’s leadership characteristics in high school may not have the same positive
result in college. College is genuinely the time when people truly realize who they are and what
they believe in. The leadership principles they refine during this period will hopefully stay with
them for years to come and benefit them within their career field.
The question of introversion/extroversion is a complicated matter. In the majority of
cases, I feel a leader must be an extrovert who feeds energy off of other people. Extroverts tend
to talk to their people more, gather more information from them, express compassion towards
their followers more frequently, and are more willing to enter a social conversation in order to
praise their subordinate or receive informal feedback from them. However, sometimes
introversion is a good method as well. An example from the military is where people are
compelled to follow orders whether or not they respect the individual. In this case, if the leader
can lead by example and by actions instead of words, he or she will win the respect of their
people. Being an extrovert will not hurt, but it is not necessary for military success.
I only consider dominance to be a significant leadership trait amongst children. It’s not
as though children respect the leadership qualities of a bully, but they cannot help but follow his
or her directive (mostly out of fear). As people get older, the trait of dominance loses a lot of its
initial impact; though if the job is not getting done, someone needs to take charge, and a more
dominant person will often be the one to remedy this situation. However, people will respect
someone more if they can get the job done without intimidating their people. In this case, I feel
there is a significant difference between followers who do their job because they feel they have
to, and those who do their job because they want to. A leader who can get someone to do their
job out of sheer will and motivation has a much more effective leadership style than someone
who intimidates their subordinates to follow directives.
I agree that initiative, persistence and ambition are also essential traits. No job or
organization is ever perfect. Initiative to generate new ideas or revamp existing guidelines will
greatly benefit an organization. Having the persistence to follow these ideas and assess their
importance each year is necessary as well because the environment might have changed.
Persistence will also cause a person to bring up more ideas and try presenting old ones again if
they still feel their idea is valid. In terms of ambition, this may sound odd, but a leader must
want to be a leader. Even if they are unsuccessful at first, the ambition to do better and try
harder will go a long way. Ambitious people are more likely to take risks and seek adventure
and excitement within their job. If their ambition is fulfilled by the completion of goals, a
feeling of pride and satisfaction will occur. Oftentimes, these traits become absorbed in the
leader’s everyday activities and cause them to be even more beneficial to those around them and
the organization as a whole. Thus, I consider initiative, persistence and ambition to be extremely
important characteristics of a leader.
A leader must also be responsible. They must accept their responsibilities and carry them
out to fullest degree possible for the benefit of their people. However, they must also be
responsible for their actions. A public acceptance of blame is nothing to shy away from, and is a
much better solution than passing the blame onto someone else when your people know full well
it is your fault. Therefore, a leader must be responsible for their job duties and accept
responsibility when they fail to perform those job duties. If a leader can do this, then their
followers are more likely to follow their example and accept responsibility for their actions as
well.
This view of responsibility can be balanced with the trait of modesty. A leader must be
modest enough to know when they are at fault and ultimately accept this fault, yet they must also
not be too modest. If they are too modest, they will never really feel like they are the best person
for the job or fully acknowledge that the work they are doing is as great as it probably is. The
leader must experience these positive feelings of accomplishment at times in order to stay
effective in their role.
I also agree with the finding that the mood of a leader is contagious. If the leader is in a
bad mood, this tends to bring down the positive energy of the group. On the other hand, a
positive mood exhibited by the leader will maintain the positive energy of those in the group
while alleviating the negative moods of others. One way a leader can do this is through humor.
However, it has been my experience that leaders must be careful not to use humor too often, or
their people will not take them seriously. Like many other leadership characteristics, a balance
must be achieved here to truly be effective.
I further believe that leaders should have conviction. They should have outlined goals
and guidelines they wish to attain and adhere to and must be willing to back these up as much
and as often as possible. However, a leader must be careful because if the situation changes,
they must be ready to adapt and adjust. Pride should never overwhelm a leader, and they need to
know when conviction must give way to reason and logic.
Anger can be a positive trait if it displays to the follower a sense of pride and love for the
organization. For instance, the leader became angry because a certain project did not have the
desired outcome and as a result, the group is negatively affected. If the leader did not get angry,
then it may be perceived as if he or she did not really care what happened. However, a leader
must not display public anger towards an individual within the group; they must always criticize
in private. Furthermore, someone who gets consistently angry at stumbling blocks will be
perceived as unstable and overtime the followers will be reluctant to place their faith in this
leader. Thus, the level of self control used by the leader will depend on the situation. They need
to know when they can publicly express their feelings and when it is better to hold them inside.
Social activity is very important to the development of a leader. No matter what
profession a leader is engaged in, they should know how to interact with others using tact and
social grace. No one respects a simple “yes-man” however. Being too nice will make the
individual appear as soft and weak. The best leaders know how to disagree with an idea or point
of view in a diplomatic fashion so as to not sever the relationship with that individual; and if the
relationship did indeed need to terminate, this would also be done in a tactful manner. The best
breed of leaders can cooperate with anyone in order to get the job done, but be willing to stand
up for their opinion if need be. Constant social mobility and participation are essential for the
development of this particular leadership trait.
Overall, many of the leadership traits require a fine balance. One context may require an
extreme use, and another a moderate or mild use. Knowing how to apply oneself comes with
time and experience. A good leader will be patient when dealing with these changes and realize
they will never know everything there is to know about leading a group of people. Each day, a
leader refines their personal list of leadership traits and characteristics. One of the most beautiful
things about the leadership process is that a leader grows and develops without even knowing it.
If they are wise, the leader will not fight this change and accept each “leadership challenge” as
an opportunity to develop into a better leader for their people.
The Transition from Trait to Behavior:
Plutarch’s work, The Parallel Lives (A.C.E. 100) noted that for every leader found in
Greece, a similar one emerged out of Rome during parallel conditions. This example introduces
the idea of situationalism. According to situationalists, the environmental condition determines
the development and emergence of leadership. Thus, what determines a leader is not only their
inherent traits, but the various situations in which these traits can be applied. For example,
someone who is strong in the traits of compassion and friendliness will be considered a leader
only if they are in a situation where they can demonstrate those traits and where those traits
move the group closer to achieving its goal.
As the leadership literature evolved, trait theory was followed by personal-situation
theory. In order to understand the ideals of this theory, consider researchers such as Cane who
noted that the three factors for a leader are (1) the personality traits, (2) the nature of the group
and of its members and (3) the event confronting the group. On the other hand there is personalsituation theorist J.F. Brown who listed five field dynamic laws of leadership: that the leader
must (1) be identified as a member of the group they wish to lead, (2) be of high potential
interpersonally (have strong social skills), (3) adapt themselves to the existing structure of
relationships (4) realize the long-term trends in this structure and (5) recognize that leadership
increases in potency at the cost of reduced freedom of leadership. What these two points
emphasize is that just as different researchers investigated different traits under trait theory,
different researchers examined multiple situations under personal-situation theory. Every
researcher’s conclusion is vital to the development of leadership analysis; however the only
proven conclusion is that no researcher derived the exact same conclusions as another.
What is apparent however is that certain situations will elicit certain behaviors from
leaders. For example, a student-athlete in college will not behave the same way when in the
classroom as when on the playing field. Consider that they will display different behaviors when
doing group projects or individual study as opposed to team meetings and game-time prowess;
they may indeed be leaders in both situations, but their behavior will respond in accordance to
the environment. Most importantly, each behavior will reflect certain traits.
This is important because the leadership traits analyzed by Stogdill and other trait
theorists (as reported in the previous section) did not wither and fade. Within personal-situation
theory, these traits are combined with one another and put into action to form a behavior, which
is a response to a given situation. Thus, the timeline has gone from individual trait analysis in
1948 to individual trait analysis within specific situations in 1970, to traits combined together as
behaviors in a response to a given situation. This is how trait theory is applied to current studies
of leadership. Numerous examples can be seen in the following section, titled “contemporary
publications.”
“Contemporary publications” serves to provide a summarized insight of the many
different faces of leadership theory found within today’s literature. Neither publication is more
relevant than the other and all have poignant positions of which they address. It is important to
read these excerpts with an open mind and be receptive to the unique information each will
provide. Whenever possible, take time out to see how each of these passages has been applied in
your own life and what connections can be made back to the traits we discussed in Stogdill’s
section.
Contemporary Publications
Leadership researcher Stephen R. Covey has isolated eight essential traits that create
effective leaders in his book Characteristics of Principle-centered Leadership. The first trait is
that leaders are continually learning. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, such as
taking classes, reading, training, listening, and questioning. By engaging in these behaviors, traits
such as knowledge, intelligence, initiative and drive to succeed are greatly enhanced. Those who
continually strive for advanced education will learn to listen with “their eyes and ears” (Covey
33). These are the people who greatly desire to raise their personal bars of knowledge to the next
level. They make promises to themselves and then continually strive to fulfill them. As these
promises are fulfilled, both personal growth and confidence will increase and aid these
individuals in mastering the next level.
Second, “they are service-oriented” (Covey 34). In essence, they have a load to carry; a
“yoke” (Covey 34) that is harnessed on them every morning when they wake up, pushing and
pulling them to serve others. In this image, they are harnessed to others as well and can foster
traits such as compassion, nurturance and conscientiousness.
Principle centered leaders “radiate positive energy” (Covey 34) is the third characteristic.
These individuals exhibit the majority of the following characteristics: optimistic, positive,
upbeat, cheerful, pleasing, happy, enthusiastic, hopeful, and believing. By displaying these
qualities, traits such as social participation, sociability, interpersonal skills and enthusiasm
combine to produce the behavior. The positive energy demonstrated by these individuals has an
effect on the “neutral or negative” (Covey 35) energy exuded by others. Consider if the energy of
another person is too negative; what’s remarkable is that these people have enough wisdom to
use additional strategies such as humor and patience in order to soothe the environment. This
radiation of positive energy leads directly into the next essential characteristic.
Fourth, principle-centered leaders “believe in their own people” (Covey 35), meaning
they do not overreact to the negative behavior of others and they also naturally forgive any
offenses. They are not so naïve as to not see other’s weaknesses, but they focus instead on
someone’s potential. Sometimes this is an “unseen potential,” (Covey 35) one they believe is
there, but has yet to present itself. These people believe that forcing one’s characteristics on
others will only temporarily solve the situation. Instead, they believe that the prospective talents
lie within each of their followers and do their best to foster their development. Thus, they do not
believe in the traits of aggressiveness or dominance, but in the traits of patience, tolerance of
stress and persistence against obstacles.
As a fifth characteristic, Covey’s leaders strive to “lead balanced lives” (Covey 36).
These people are active socially, physically, mentally and spiritually. They possess a healthy
sense of humor and are able to laugh at themselves. More than anything, they understand how to
have fun. They do not view topics in their life as dichotomies but on continuums and priorities,
and they contain a self-honestly that is obvious to others. Furthermore, these people “don’t
brood about yesterday or dream about tomorrow” (Covey 36); this is a perfect example of the
trait of self-confidence. They live each day as just that and focus on the moment. Rarely are
they described as zealots or extremists, but as moderate and wise in their actions. Moreover,
they are happy to view the success of others and do not indulge in “self-pitying martyrdom”
(Covey 36). These types of leaders take success well and view failure as one step away from
success. By engaging in these types of behaviors, these leaders are reflecting the traits of
emotional balance, control, drive to achieve, stability and tolerant of stress.
For the sixth characteristic, “they see life as an adventure” (Covey 37). Essentially,
“their security lies in their initiative, resourcefulness, creativity, willpower, courage, stamina,
and native intelligence rather than in the safety, protection, and abundance of their home camps,
of their comfort zones” (Covey 37). Due to this, traits such as resourcefulness, creativity,
initiative, enterprise and originality are necessary components. These people have a sense of
security that comes from within rather than those around them. They feed off of new
experiences and treat old experiences as if they were new. Minus raw intuition, there is little that
tells them their decisions will be the right ones, but this is something in their lives that excites
them.
Seventh, these leaders are synergistic. By synergistic, Covey means they “see things as a
whole rather than the sum of its parts” (Covey 37). This means that they tend to focus on the big
picture and use that image as a motivational force when getting the job done. Synergistic leaders
display the traits of ability to enlist cooperation, responsibility in the pursuit of objectives, and
administrative ability. They work smart, they work hard and they are incredibly productive. In
group situations, they tend to balance out the weaknesses of others; they also believe in the
people they work with and tend to delegate easily and efficiently. When engaging in problem
solving, these individuals separate the problem from the people with whom they are working.
They do not care to battle for position or attempt to take full control. Oftentimes, the other
individuals involved will follow their lead and together they will come up with a synergistic
solution, one that is usually better than a compromise.
Finally, Convey feels that effective leaders “exercise for self-renewal” (Covey 38).
These individuals exhibit the four dimensions of the human personality: physical, mental,
emotional, and spiritual. Physically, they consistently engage in aerobic exercise to strengthen
their endurance, as well as stretching exercises. Both of these increase blood flow throughout
the body and lead to the display of the trait of tough-mindedness as well as appearance and
energy level. Mentally, these people constantly read, write, visualize and attempt to solve
problems. By doing this, they increase the traits of intelligence and overall judgment.
Emotionally, they make an effort to listen, to be patient and to show love and compassion to
others. Spiritually they center their lives on prayer, scripture reading, meditation and fasting;
this reflects the traits of nurturance, tolerance and emotional balance. Combined, these four
dimensions instill discipline and a sense of responsibility in individuals who choose to practice
them. Furthermore, the constant effort to exercise these four “dimensions of life,” (Covey 38) is
an effort to “sharpen the saw” (Covey 38). Convey explains that if you are always too busy
“cutting with your saw,” (Covey 38) it will eventually go dull. Thus, the establishment of these
four dimensions prepares an individual for leadership roles. As one can see, the 8 characteristics
of principle-centered leadership contain behaviors that are reflective of leadership traits analyzed
in the previous section; without those traits, the behaviors could never emerge.
Another great book in which to learn aspects of trait theory is Common Fire. In this
collective work the authors list six main attributes required for today’s leader. They are
community, compassion, conviction, courage, confession and commitment.
Establishing a sense of community is highly important. By learning from others and
establishing a “can do” attitude early on in life, one builds a solid foundation for which other
aspects of leadership can be added. Those who learn early on that when you are given a job, you
should do it, and do it right the first time will have an established moral fiber engrained in them
by the time they reach adolescence. When in the developmental stage of adolescence, the
biggest impact on people is other adolescents. As Harold Loukes states, “adolescents should not
be preached at, but given tasks” (Common Fire 41). These tasks should be structured in a way
that the adolescents will have to work together in order to accomplish it. Adolescence is a
perfect time period to learn team building skills and a sense of interdependence with those
around you. In this way, leadership begins to emerge in explicit, rather than implicit ways and
traits such as cooperativeness, extroversion, social participation and possibly popularity begin to
be refined. College is an important time as well, because individuals are on their own for the
first time and can truly cultivate their commitment to a community. Be it a dorm or student
organization, a college student can practice living in a community dedicated to certain principles
and morals they hold dear. This is great time to learn from mistakes and truly establish the
person you want to become. In this manner, traits such as personal integrity, ethical conduct,
social participation, and the balance between introversion and extroversion should be fully
emerged. Finding mentors within student groups is another great way to cultivate the leadership
principles being to fully emerge within college students. This way, when the students finally
enter the real world, they will be ready to live and thrive within a community.
There is an importance of “tribe” in a person’s life; a sense of belonging that is essential
to well-being. The work states that you cannot be trapped by this sense of belonging however;
leaders must learn to place themselves on a line of marginality. This means that the compassion
you show towards those in your “tribe” (Common Fire 63) should be shown towards others as
well. People need to live on the edge of the tribe and encounter “otherness” (Common Fire 65).
Only by branching outside the tribe can individuals truly understand what it means to be
compassionate. This may sound like common sense, but Common Fire warns that this ideal is
not as self-evident as it may seem. There is a difference between empathy and compassion which
must be understood. “Empathy is the ability to understand and share another’s feelings while
compassion adds a general sense of responsibility and tendency to make commitments”
(Common Fire 69). There are also two different types of marginality to consider. One type is
vulnerable marginality, where you are forced to branch out due to circumstances (Common Fire
73). This may be due to the personal need of survival or being ostracized by your own tribe;
either way, the choice to branch out and seek the compassion of others was not your original
choice, but was made for you. Value marginality on the other hand means that you grew up with
these values and have seem them displayed by others in your life as you developed (Common
Fire 75). This example of marginality becomes second-hand nature to a person and leads them
to demonstrate these traits of compassion as well. These two variations of marginality are
important to trait theory because through this process, the leader learns to formulate many social
characteristics such as social participation, nurturance and sociability. They will also examine
their social status as well through comparisons within their tribe as well as to other tribes.
Leaders must also be able to demonstrate conviction, which is a trait all by itself.
“Meaning does not exist by itself, we create it” (Common Fire 107). Whether or not we want to
accept it, it matters what we think. Our viewpoint on the subject will ultimately determine our
actions. This definition of conviction includes five essential terms: dialogue, interpersonal
perspective-taking, critical systemic thought, dialectical thought and holistic thought, all of
which are important. The habit of dialogue will cause one to consistently learn the meaning of
relevant items in their life via ongoing interaction between oneself and others. Conviction is
further enacted through interpersonal perspective-taking where the ability to see things through
the eyes of others. Critical, systemic thought is the “capacity to identify parts and the
connections among them as coherent patterns and to reflect on them” (Common Fire 113).
Dialectical thought will enhance meaning and conviction by recognizing contradictions in one’s
life and working with them to ensure they do not “enact closure on your outlook or reframe your
responses” (Common Fire 120). Finally, holistic thought provides one the ability to view life as
an interconnected whole (reflective of Covey’s synergy) and practice “practical wisdom”
(Common Fire 121).
The next chapter focuses on the topic of courage. The claim of Common Fire is that
courage centers on imagination, which is defined as our internal images of how we view the
world. In order to have a high-functioning imagination, traits such as originality and creativity
will need to be a formidable presence. One should seek to find relationships in the world that are
truthful and then create positive internal images. Religion plays a huge role in this when forming
this commitment. “Religion revives boundaries outward” (Common Fire 142) and “creates a
sense of interdependence between human beings” (Common Fire 143). Facing visions of
injustice can also push one harder because they realize that courage will be needed in order to
combat this injustice. The chapter states that it can be good to seek out the troubled situations,
because you will find hope within them if you turn towards an imagination of positive internal
images. By doing so, the leader fosters essential leadership traits, such as self-confidence,
persistence against obstacles, drive to achieve and desire to excel. It is important to realize that
imagination will not fully block out all the “bad stuff” we see in the world, but can help us
rationalize with it so that we are not infected by the ensuing negativity.
The chapter centering on confession stresses that one does not have to be a martyr in
order to be remembered as a leader (Common Fire 172). Oftentimes, people with those
characteristics will burn out before they can have a true effect. This means that traits such as
balance and control need to be a reliable force within the person. The book warns of imposing
your values on others in an act of self-righteousness as they will not remain once one is removed
from the environment and significantly decreases the chances these values will naturally emerge
out of your followers. One should confess to themselves what the “costs” (Common Fire 174)
are with their job. Questions such as what is the impact their job has on their health,
relationships and finances are helpful to ask. Leaders should also ask themselves if it (the
process of getting to where they are today) was worth it or if they think that they are
misunderstood. They should further ask what their ambition is driven towards, if they use their
power in a good or bad context or if they have a need to please or a need to be needed. If this is
true and the individual has “shadows” (Common Fire 177) of regret and inconsistencies then
they should listen to them. The book states that an inner voice is there to help us change, to
guide us to becoming a more effective leader and human being. They should also examine their
fears and confess to having them. Whether they have a fear of being a nobody or a fear of never
fully realizing their potential, they should accept and grow from these fears. Once accomplished,
the leader will have advanced the traits of independence, tough-mindedness, and normality.
The book further points out that these inner wounds can heal and that a person can rise
from the guilt and “give a voice to their inner conversations” (Common Fire 190). One should
forgive oneself as well as others for any and all mistakes and leave nothing bubbling inside. If
leaders can accept who they are and find a sense of peace, it will be much easier for them to lead
effectively day after day, no matter the circumstances. This will lead to strength of conviction
and a refined sense of personal integrity
Chapter seven dealt with commitment and presented two essential questions. One asked,
“how do people become committed to the common good?” (Common Fire 195) and the other
inquired “What sustains them?” (Common Fire 195). Common Fire believes the answer to both
these questions is the same, namely “they are sustained by the very processes that have made
them who they are” (Common Fire 195). People need to do what they love. If people do what
they love, then their drive to achieve and desire to excel will be heightened even more. If they
focus on duty and self-sacrifice alone, they neglect a sense of deep growth pride and love which
can emerge. Most leaders set out to “satiate the world’s ‘hunger’” (Common Fire 197) and feel a
calling to solve the needs of the world and be a driving force towards its revolution. Many get
this calling from spiritual motivation and feel that this desire will never be quenched or satiated,
that it will always drive them to continue their work. This sense of commitment also causes
leaders to remember that they are interconnected. They have built networks over their lifetimes
with people as driven as they are and they wish to be committed to sustaining those as well.
Therefore, traits such as social participation and interpersonal skills are further developed as
well. What was interesting was that very few of these “visionaries” (Common Fire 205) that the
book’s authors interviewed had clear visions of what the future would hold. The reason that
their visions were amorphous was that they were so focused on the present, on their current state
of performance and commitment, that they had not time to think about what may occur ten years
from now. While one does not have their entire life planned out, having a sense of what is
desired in the future will help one adequately direct their responsibilities in the appropriate
manner.
More than anything, these leaders ignited a fire at some point in their lives and are
committed to sustaining it. Many leaders throughout the world have a common fire burning
within to do well, not only for others but for themselves, and it is because they allow this fire to
lead them to a sense of responsibility and action that they are effective leader.
Clearly, Common Fire is an important book for any aspiring leader to read. Within its pages are
located behavior after behavior which is made up of trait upon trait. Furthermore, these
behaviors are generalized, meaning they can be practiced by anyone willing to put forth the
effort. The individual traits is something we have already discussed, but this book points them
out in the context of behavior to help us understand their current influence in the world of
leadership.
Common Fire also analyzes what the impact of experience can be on future leaders.
Based on one’s experience, one can become a “threshold person” (Common Fire 52) or have
enjoyed the experience of hospitable and safe places. Any experience containing either of these
two categories is a positive one for a leader and will foster traits such as emotional balance and
control, independence and non-conformity, tolerance of stress, and nurturance.
Frances J. Yammarino and Bernard M. Bass performed an interesting study called LongTerm Forecasting of Transformational Leadership and Its Effects Among Naval Officers.
Midshipmen at the Naval Academy were studied for levels of charismatic and inspirational
leadership. They were followed into their activity duty assignment for five years where further
information was garnered though performance reports from their superiors as well as their
subordinates. Through this process, a measure of “transformational” (Clark and Clark 153)
leadership was ascertained.
Before this study is analyzed, the difference between transactional and transformational
leadership must be noted. Transactional leadership is agreed to be the less effective method.
This method shows leaders working with subordinates to accomplish the tasks at hand via a
reward system. Often, these rewards are “fulfilled for those followers who carry out successfully
what is required of them,” (Clark and Clark 152) and disciplinary threats are used for on those
not performing to standards set by the leader. In many cases, transactional leadership is a recipe
for mediocrity, with disciplinary exercises being counterproductive in the long run. Essentially,
transactional leadership is better than an inactive third style, known as laissez-faire, but can fail
for a variety of reasons.
Transformational leadership on the other hand is when “leader broaden and elevate the
interests of their subordinates, when they generate awareness and acceptance among the
subordinates of their purposes and mission of the group and when they move their subordinates
to go beyond their own self-interests for the good of the group” (Clark and Clark 153).
Transformational leaders are seen as charismatic and inspiring. They command respect and
instill a sense of loyalty within the group. Also a transformational leader is respectful towards
the needs and desires of their subordinates and work with them to achieve individual goals as
well as group goals. Intellectual stimulation is another by-product of a transformational leader
(Clark and Clark 164). These leaders cause their subordinates to become aware of their
surroundings and problems within the group environment. The overall comprehension and
conceptualization of the subordinates’ ability to enact problem-solving solutions to common
troubles within the organization is greatly enhanced as a result.
There are distinct difference between transactional and transformation leaders. In terms
of trait theory, the major difference between the two would be that traits such as enthusiasm,
energy, activity, originality, creativity and initiative are found in transformational leaders. Both
transformational and transactional leaders share traits such as intelligence, appearance, selfconfidence, personal integrity and drive to achieve, but a transformational leader would have the
addition of the above listed traits. Due to this, the transformational leader has more of an impact
on their subordinates and is considered to be more effective leaders.
In order to conduct this study, precursors such as grade point average in high school and
verbal and math aptitude preadmissions scored were examined. Success in these areas was
found to positively correlate with the midshipman’s grade point average and academic success at
the Naval Academy. Furthermore, academic performance was positively correlated with “active
management,” (Clark and Clark 156) whereby the officer was actively involved in the affairs of
his or her subordinates. This indicates a measure of the traits of intelligence and administrative
ability.
Those who actively managed their people and displayed signs of transformational
leadership were described as leaders in a more positive light than were those who practiced
transactional leadership. Those who demonstrated the lassiez-faire type of leadership were not
described as leaders and were viewed in a negative light by both superiors and subordinates.
Moreover, those who displayed signs of transformational leadership while at the Naval Academy
tended to display those characteristics while on active duty as well.
There were nine leadership scales created for use in this study. Four were
transformational scales, four were transactional scales and one was laissez-faire. After each
sentence, the individual taking the survey could mark their answer from 0-4 with 0 being “not at
all” (Clark and Clark 158) and 4 representing “frequently, if not always” (Clark and Clark 158).
The numbers were tallied up and averaged for each of the three groups. Whichever group had
the highest average was the group the officer was placed into. This was very important for the
next step of the survey research.
Transformational Leadership (four categories) (Clark and Clark 159)
1. Charisma (six items)
example: “I am ready to trust him/her to overcome any obstacle”
0 1
2
3
4
2. Individualized Consideration (six items)
example: “Gives personal attention to me when necessary”
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
3. Intellectual Stimulation (six items)
example: “Shows me how to think about problems in new ways”
4. Inspirational Leadership (six items)
example: “Provides vision of what lies ahead”
Transactional Leadership (four categories) (Clark and Clark 159)
1. Contingent Promises (three items)
example: “Talks about special commendations and promotions for good work” 0 1
2
3
2. Contingent Rewards (three items)
example: “Personally pays me a compliment when I do good work”
0 1 2 3 4
3. Active Management (four items)
example: “Would reprimand me if my work was below standard”
0 1 2 3 4
4. Passive Management (four items)
example: “Shows he/she is a firm believer in ‘if it aint broke, don’t fix it’” 0 1 2 3 4
Non-leadership (1 category) (Clark and Clark 159)
1. Laissez-faire (six items)
example: “However I do my job is OK with him/her”
0 1
2
3
4
4
After the data was analyzed to see if the officer fell under the category of
transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire, a comparison was made to the results from the
“Consequences Survey.” The consequences survey provided information on how the
subordinate reacted to the officer’s leadership style. This was done in three categories: extra
effort, satisfaction, and effectiveness. Extra effort measured how much extra time and energy a
subordinate would be willing to put into their job, satisfaction measured the subordinate’s
response to their leader, and effective measured the impact the officer had upon the subordinate.
1. Extra Effort (four items)
Example: “I do more than I am expected to do in my work”
2. Satisfaction (two items)
example: “In all, how satisfied were you that the methods of leadership used by this officer were
the right one s for getting your unit’s job done?”
3. Effectiveness (four items)
example: “How effective is this officer in meeting the job-related needs of his/her
subordinates?”
As can be expected, those who were rated as transformational leaders had a higher
average on the consequences survey than did those rated as transactional leaders and
transactional leaders had a higher average than those who were rate as laissez-faire. This shows
that while traits such as intelligence and desire to excel are extremely important, the best leaders
bolster these traits with enthusiasm, energy and initiative.
It’s always great when the opportunity to be guided by a different perspective presents
itself. The New Leader: A Synthesis of Leadership Research in Australia and New Zealand by
Ken Parry does just that. In his essay, Parry outlines what he feels are the nine characteristics of
a “new leader” (Parry 82).
First and foremost, Parry states that leaders are developed rather than trained.
Furthermore, this type of development is “work centered” (Parry 89) which reflects the traits of
self-confidence and independence. Second, a new leader is continuously learning, and this
process aids in their overall development. Parry describes this characteristic in the same fashion
explained by Covey; by engaging in behaviors leading towards the advancement of education,
leaders are enhancing the traits of intelligence, knowledge, initiative and education. Parry
considers the third aspect to be that new leaders constantly develop and train other leaders.
Doing this can only serve to aid the advancement of their team or organization and would thus
enhance the individual traits of desire to achieve, desire to excel and responsibility in the pursuit
of objectives. When leaders train and develop others, they foster a sense of self-awareness in
their followers so that the followers are put on the path of transformation to becoming leaders.
The fourth characteristic is a desire to be changed as much as a desire to change. This means the
leader is able to self-assess and determine the aspects in their behavior that need to be changed.
The possession of ethic and socially responsible values is the fifth characteristic. Practicing
these values makes these new leaders “socially responsible and adds to the relationship between
leader and follower values by pushing them towards congruence” (Parry 98). By engaging in the
fourth and fifth characteristic, the traits of personal integrity, ethical conduct, and strength of
conviction are heightened as well. Parry’s sixth characteristic is listed as the willingness to be a
part of a team as much as the “head” (Parry 98) of a team. New leaders must be able to make
that switch from team player to authoritarian depending on what the situation calls for. If done
correctly, this will establish a sense of team cohesion and create numerous positive outcomes.
Furthermore, the traits of cooperativeness, social participation, ability to enlist cooperation and
drive to achieve will be sharper. Parry adds the possession of “feminized” characteristics as the
seventh. Female-dominated professions tend to display a much greater sense of kindness,
compassion and overall caring than do male professions. The males would benefit greatly from
this paradigm and the women may learn to “increase their compatibility with power-coercive and
transactional behavior” (Parry 99). Furthermore, “communication will be up, down, and
sideways: and it will be collaborative and in an individually considerate form” (Parry 99) when
displaying feminized leadership characteristics. Through this practice, the leader will further
develop their traits of nurturance and administrative ability. Finally, new leaders need to be both
transformational and transactional. Although transactional behavior is fairly common, the art of
leading transformationally has been analyzed by researchers for a number of years and as stated,
is considered to be the best method of leadership.
Parry also provides what he feels the future holds for leadership and trait theory. Parry
notes that the majority of leadership research thus far has centered on managers or managersubordinate relationships. Parry hopes that further studies will be “researched as a process that
can occur throughout organizations” (Parry 101). Furthermore, the balance of
qualitative/quantitative methodology has been in favor of quantitative methods thus far when
researching leadership. However, the focus on qualitative methodology is increasing and will
dominate the leadership field in years to come.
Parry’s Leadership Profile
Parry also describes something he calls the “leader profile” (Parry 100). This profile is
only enhanced through practice and effort however. Therefore, in order to be a new leader, one
must incorporate these practices into their everyday life. Some of these practices are as follows:
1. Potential leaders should develop themselves transformationally and transactionally.
A. While traits such as intelligence and drive to excel should be present, a leader should also
develop a sense of enthusiasm, energy and initiative.
2. They should develop these skills in their followers at the micro and macro levels.
3. When selecting a workgroup, these leaders should select people who hold and practice values
that are comparable to their own.
A. This will further the leaders development of personal integrity and ethical conduct
4. Good listeners as well as good talkers (tact, nurturance).
A. However, they must be polite and culturally aware, as different people will convey their
message in different ways.
B. This is great way for the leader to further their social traits of tact and interpersonal skills.
5. These individuals will obtain leadership lessons on-the-job just as much as they do from
formal education.
A. By doing so, this will increase the traits of education and adaptability.
6. Once a leader forms a leadership perspective in the eyes of the men and women they are in
charge of, they need to explain this perspective in a method that their people will best
understand.
A. This will increase the traits of interpersonal skills, diplomacy and social participation.
7. New leaders should always “self-analyze and self-assess” their leadership and decision
making capabilities.
A. In turn, these leaders instill a sense of analytical thinking within themselves which can
lead them to be better evaluators of their people’s progress.
B. They will also foster strength of conviction, responsibility in the pursuit of objectives and
persistence against obstacles.
8. New leaders should be able to balance their strategies.
A. By doing so, this will lead to a heightened practice of balance and control.
9. These leaders should also have terms such as balance and strategy at their disposal so they
can incorporate both transformational and transactional.
A. This is a great method for a new leader to begin their journey on developing those traits
necessary to the practice of transformational leadership.
In Some Personality Characteristics of Senior Military Officers, Herbert Barber
compares the personality characteristics of senior military officers to a general population of
male college students. The 270 military officers studied were students at the U.S. Army War
College. Ninety percent of this group has commanded a battalion or higher and the average age
was 43 with average length of service being 19 years or higher. The research tools used were the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Element B, and the Rokeach Value Survey.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests four marks of personality. The first being
extroversion verses introversion which will indicate if one prefers “the external world of people
or the internal world of ideas” (Barber 441). The indicator will also test sensing verses intuition
which will reflect whether one pays more attention to “practical data,” (Barber 442) or to their
own imagination. The trait analogous to sensing would be tough-mindedness and objectivity.
The third personality trait tested is thinking verses feeling, which will reveals whether the subject
relies on applied logic or personal feelings when making decisions. Thinking would further
reveal tough-mindedness, but would reflect judgment and decisiveness as well. Feeling displays
the traits of emotional balance and nurturance. The last personality mark revealed by the
indicator is judging verses perceiving which displays whether one categorizes their external
world or responds to their world flexibly. If they respond to their world flexibly, then this would
fall under the leadership traits of adaptability and adjustment. However, if the leader tends to
categorize their external world, then they are reflecting the traits of objectivity and toughmindedness.
Element B measures the three needs that are in each of us (inclusion, control and
openness) (Barber 442). Inclusion refers to the desire to join a group and be social; control
involves the needs for structure and established guidelines; and openness deals with one’s desire
to be emotionally available to others. In terms of leadership traits, inclusion is analogous to
social participation while openness is best related to the trait of nurturance. The questionnaire
provided in Element B will measure the individual’s characteristics of behaving towards others
in these three areas.
The Rokeach Terminal and Instrumental Values Survey asks the individual to rank order
a set of alphabetically listed values in terms of the importance the values hold for them (Barber
442). Some of the values are instrumental (such as honesty and being logical) while other values
are classified as terminal (such as peaceful and happy).
The results, included in the following attachments, display the differences in leadership
traits between military officers and college students. This study was of personal interest to me,
as I am a male college student about to embark on a military career. The Element B results tell
us that that there is a greater difference of satisfaction between what the senior military officers
want and receive from themselves and the people around them then what they are actually
getting than that of the general population. Other major differences are that senior military
officers control people more than the general population but are not as open with others. The
senior military officers also desire to control others and have people include them more so than
the general population. In fact, the only similarity between the senior military officers and the
general population is the way people include them. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator reveals
several differences as well. In terms of the percentages however, both senior military officers
and the general population prefer sensing over intuition, thinking over feeling and judging over
perceiving. However, the differences between the two are much higher in senior military
officers. As such, senior military officers prefer sensing, thinking, and judging to a higher
degree than does the general population. The major difference occurred in the pair of
introversion verses extroversion. The general population preferred extroversion over
introversion while senior military officers preferred introversion over extroversion; once again,
the difference in the percentages was larger in the senior military officers. The results of the
Rokeach Survey are self-explanatory and require little explanation on my part.
ROTC Survey: Top Five Leadership Traits
The survey itself was broken into two sections. First the cadets were told to circle their
AES Year (either a 100, 200, 300, or 400 which corresponds to a Freshman, Sophomore, Junior
or Senior). I chose to keep this survey confidential so that the answers would be as truthful as
possible and the cadets would not feel anxious or restricted about voicing their opinions. The
cadets were instructed to circle their top five preferences of leadership traits they desire in their
immediate commander out of the possible twenty-eight traits that were provided. The second
part contained five short answer questions which were relevant to ROTC matters itself and not to
the study of leadership as pertains this paper. The answers to the second section varied greatly.
The subjects in this study were Air Force ROTC cadets at Miami University of Ohio.
The cadets are a mixture of male and females as well as Freshman, Sophomores, Juniors, and
Seniors. The cadets took this survey during Leadership Laboratory (the two hour period of Air
Force ROTC instruction which occurs weekly). This is important because this means they
completed the survey while in a military environment. Due to this, they were in a military
mindset which I feel had an impact on their selection. What was interesting about this particular
environment was that the cadets were filling out this survey during uniform inspection, which
added some extra pressure to the situation. As the survey indicates, there were informed to fill
out the survey as quickly as possible and that there was no right or wrong answers.
Before the results of this survey can be analyzed, there are a few terms and guiding
principles one should be familiar with. Every Air Force ROTC detachment across the United
States is divided by class. 100’s are Freshman, 200’s are Sophomores, 300’s are Juniors and
400’s are Seniors. Furthermore, 100’s and 200’s are classified as GMC (General Military
Course) and 300’s and 400’s are considered POC (Professional Military Course). The reason
there is a split is that a POC is an Air Force ROTC cadet who has successfully passed Field
Training, a four week “boot camp” between the Sophomore and Junior Year. If a cadet does not
complete this training, they may not continue on in the program. This distinction is important for
numerous reasons. The main being that the POC are the cadets who plan, organize, and regulate
all Air Force ROTC related activities. Because of this, they have more leadership experience
than the GMC, which makes it interesting when comparing the percentages of each trait which
the GMC and POC prefer (see the table titled “Percentages by Individual Classes”).
In terms of the results, traits such as confidence, integrity, honesty, intelligence and
responsible were universal throughout the two groups; however, the GMC value traits such as
enthusiasm and energy much more than the POC. One reason for this is because during ROTC
related activities, the GMC are often the ones being taught in the role of a follower. Due to this,
they values leaders with energy and enthusiasm that will keep them involved in the learning
activity at hand. The POC on the other hand, value traits such as tact and drive to achieve at a
higher percentage than the GMC. The reason the POC value tact as a leadership trait is due to
the command structure that can be found within the cadet themselves. The command structure is
based on rank, which means that when you are a Junior, your best friend in the program of two
years may now be a higher rank than you, and you must follow their command. Because of this,
the leadership trait of tact is valued; someone who can assume a high position of command
without developing an ego or becoming bossy is preferred by their peers. The trait of drive to
achieve emerges due to the command structure as well. POC cadets appreciate other POC who
can take their job “to the next level” because they know this will improves the detachment as a
result. The GMC will not notice this trait as readily because they are in the follower role and do
not fully understand the responsibility of being a POC. There were no T-test run due to the small
sample size of the POC cadets and that this survey was not conducted in a manner which
provided the availability of means or averages.
Ideas for further studies include a longitudinal study to see what five traits are important
to an Air Force ROTC cadet as a Freshman, Sophomore, Junior and Senior. This study can still
be done with full confidentiality if each participant is marked with an assigned number as
opposed to their name. The researcher could not only analyze how each cadet has grown in
terms of leadership assessment, but how the class as a whole has grown. What would be truly
interesting to analyze would be the difference in preferred leadership traits as one transitions
from being a GMC to a POC after the completion of Field Training.
Fill this out as quickly as possible. Do not think about the answers, just go with your first
instinct. There is no right or wrong answer.
Except this one: Circle your AES Year
100
200
300
400
Read through and then Circle the Five Traits you look for most in a Leader:
Confidence
Honesty
Intelligence
Originality
Tolerance of
Stress
Non-conformity
Tact
Bravery
Integrity
Technical Skills
Extroversion
Initiative
Pride
Appearance
Social Skills
Enthusiasm
Energy
Tough-mindedness Drive to achieve
Attractiveness
Responsible
Compassion
Spirituality
Creativity
Conviction
Humor
Popularity
Nurturing
How can LeadLab better prepare you to be a person who reflects those circled traits?
In your opinion, how should a leader treat the people they are leading?
What negative qualities would cause a leader to not be taken seriously by their people?
Who is a GMC cadet you look to as a leader who sets the example or reflects the five traits you
circled? Why do you think so?
Who is a POC cadet you look to as a leader who sets the example or reflects the five traits you
circled? Why do you think so?
Is being in the Front Leaning Rest fun?
When you are done…ground the paper/pen to your right foot and come to Parade Rest
LEADERSHIP TRAITS: A PERSONAL REFLECTION
“Look at it this way Echo Flight, people are like waves. Waves rise and fall, they do this
every minute of every day. But leaders are like the waves who gain momentum by including the
other waves around them. By doing this, they rise higher and higher each time they fall, it’s a
source of momentum for them, a source of strength. Everyone falls, everyone fails, but leaders
rise higher each time they do this and they do it through a solid foundation of personal morals
and values and through the support of others around them. The question this morning is, what
type of wave are you and what will your impact be when you hit the shore.” All things
considered, this was an excellent speech to hear at 3:45 in the morning during my Air Force
ROTC Field Training of the summer of 2002. My Flight Training Officer looked tired and worn
out that June morning, but his words made sense. I truly thought about what kind of wave I was,
and what my impact would be when I hit the shore (entered active duty). Those words have
stuck with me ever since.
To begin, people do not follow G.P.A.’s and salaries, nor do they follow muscles or
stunning good looks; at least not forever. External factors such as numbers and appearance are
simply not enough. Instead, people follow character. For within this character lies personality
traits, morals, values and ultimately, truth; for you cannot fake your character. You can fake a
smile or a laugh here or there, or for a period of time become serious about a subject simply
because you feel socially compelled, most anyone can do that. But you cannot fake who you are,
your true self will present itself to others in one form or another. After noting this, your people
will be able to generate a list of characteristics about you and this list will be a reflection of your
character. In my mind, a leader’s list (composed by their people, not by themselves) should
include as many of the following traits and behaviors as possible.
Inspirational/Motivational:
Do leaders need to inspire their people? The answer is a clear and resounding yes. But
before this can occur, leaders themselves must be inspired by something. There needs to be
some person or some presence within these individuals’ lives that causes them to work as long
and hard as they do. There needs to be a source of power present for a leader from which they
can draw their strength on an everyday basis. Oftentimes, this is where religion comes in.
Leaders of great faith will turn to religious scripture or prayer to gather their strength and
conviction, especially when times get hard. Often, this tends to carry them through difficult
periods of leadership when others experiencing the same things may stumble and fall. They feel
as if they are living a “faith-centered life” and this fosters a sense of accomplishment and
confidence in their abilities. Once these leaders are themselves inspired, they can exhibit this
inspiration to others in the form of works or words. If they believe in themselves, they can easily
display a sense of charisma towards their people. Furthermore, this charisma will be natural and
believable, which I feel is essential if your people are to be inspired. Otherwise, the leader is
merely faking their actions and will become burnt out at some point.
Integrity
There are three corps values in Air Force ROTC, and they are as follows: “Integrity
First, Service before Self, Excellence in All We Do.” They almost mean the same thing
depending on how you look at it, but integrity is emphasized being the first one listed. It’s
important for leaders to do the right thing in all situations and at all times; and they must do this
regardless if anyone is looking. Integrity cannot be a mere display you put on for your followers
when in reality you cut corners and cheat to achieve success. No, integrity needs to be a way of
life and must be practiced everyday. If your people can trust you, if they can place their faith in
you, then they will be loyal to you. Having integrity is the foundation to a solid relationship with
your followers.
Lead from the front….but the back is okay too.
Leaders always have to set the example. You can never ask your people to do anything
that you yourself would not do. For example, Air Force ROTC ushers at the home football
games. We only need twenty per game, so everyone only has to usher once. For this reason, I
am there at every game, because we have brand new people each time. It’s not always fun and I
do not always want to be there, but it is these type of situations where it is most important to be
visible. This leads me to my next point, that a leader should be seen doing their job. Bosses who
lock themselves in their office and sends directive e-mails will not get the same followership
from their people as one who communicates openly and publicly. If you want your people to do
something, then you had better show them you are willing to do it as well. Leading from the
front means being the first one in the office in the morning and the last one to leave at night.
When your people come in, they should see you in your office, door open, doing work and being
productive. This vision will make them want to do the same, or at least it should. Leaders are
evaluated every minute of every day. One false word or inappropriate action can tarnish months
of respectable behavior. A leader is always on display, and if you stop taking pride in your job,
then so will your people.
You can also lead from the back, as in the AFROTC Corp Value “service before self.” I
remember varsity cross-country practice and my role as team captain. When it was time for a
water break, I was never positioned at the front of the line. Currently when one of the officers
provides free pizza or candy for a job done well, I will not even think about grabbing a piece
until all my people have had the opportunity. There are many situations where being last in line
is the right place for a leader to be found; it all depends on the context.
3am courage/Obsessive
Should leaders keep an incessant count on their color-coated paper clips, or keep a
constant inventory on the number of pencils in their office? No, that would be a bit extreme, but
I do feel a little obsession is healthy. If someone feels compelled to stay up all night to finish a
project even though its not due for three days, then more power to them. If they have that “3 am
courage,” as Napoleon coined it, to stay up late and get up early, then that’s okay as well. As
long as nothing negatively affects their job performance, I feel this is alright. The leader should
go to bed comfortably knowing the work they did that day meant something, that there was
something that got accomplished. Most leaders don’t lead by a clock. The day is not over at
5pm when the whistle blows; the day is over when they say it’s over. If they still have some
juice left, and can do a bit more work so their people don’t have to, then that is great. Over time
an individual will know their own limits and when there is no sense in working late that night
because they are mentally and physically drained. But everyday they should push themselves.
When you are in your office, there should be no easy days. No organization is perfect and there
is always work to be done or something that can be improved. The leader needs to act on it.
There should be a “fire in their belly,” something that drives them and pushes them everyday to
maintain a certain standard. I personally feel the best leaders are the ones whose “fire” is never
extinguished and they are never satisfied.
Act now, not later.
When an idea comes to you, it is okay to jot it on a piece of paper or in your palm pilot if
you are busy. But it is much better to act upon it. If you have what you think is a really great
idea, then bring it up. The worst thing that happens is your people disagree. As long as you
provide rational view-points and your people provide rational reactions, then progress has been
made no matter if the idea becomes implemented or not. There is no reason to wait for
tomorrow, for that could be a missed opportunity. In order to do this, the leader needs to be able
to act free of restrictions, be them mental, physical, or theoretical. One way is to neglect watches
as I feel time constraints hinder one’s ability to react. There should definitely be a way to keep
time so you do not miss important appointments or meetings, but other than that, there is no
reason to keep time. Time can hold you back and a leader needs to be able to respond
appropriately to any given situation with a clear head.
See the “Big Picture,” then paint it for your people
If at any time one of their people asks them “why are we doing this…what’s the
purpose?” Then the leader better have an answer and it better be a well-developed, logical one.
If the leader has no answer, or gives a “half-baked” answer, that will most likely be reflected in
the future performance of that follower. There should be three or four key objectives a leader
wants to accomplish each quarter, month, year, etc. A leader needs to constantly ask, “What am
I doing right now, this very day, that will help me accomplish these goals?” And furthermore,
“what are my people doing?” The answer to these questions will be much more positive if the
leader has made it clear to their people what the objectives are and why they are important. Why
will everyone benefit due to their completion; essentially, “why should they care other than
money?” Money provides food, clothing and a roof for families, but if it is the single driving
force for a person to go to work, then that follower will fail to be motivated on several different
accounts. Describing the big picture will help your people understand why their job can be a
rewarding experience. If your people know what they are working towards, they will be more
likely to perform to their true potential for you.
Confidence
Confidence is essential. As stated earlier, a leader is being evaluated every minute of
every day. If for one minute you falter, or lose faith in the “mission,” then your people may as
well. Not only that, but you must have confidence in your own abilities. No one wants to deal
with someone who is overly cocky or conceited, but a leader should believe that they deserve to
be in the position they are in. They need to feel like they truly are the best person for the job and
willingly accept the responsibilities that ensue, no matter how daunting they may seem. This is
another one of those qualities that you cannot fake for a long time. If a person is unsure of
themselves and their abilities, this will be reflected eventually and their people will take notice.
The leader needs to be authoritative and leave little doubt in the minds of their people about who
is in charge. There is a balance here however, and this leads me to my next point.
Compassion
Just as important as mental intelligence, possibly even more, is emotional intelligence.
Namely, a leader needs to be observant of their people and realize their individual needs. Each
follower is different; they have led different lives, hold different morals and values, and have
different things that motivate them. Some of your followers may respond well to authority and
some may not; as a leader you must know your people and be compassionate to their needs.
Family issues need to come first before the job. You should truly care about their lives outside
work and demonstrate that to them. A leader needs to be mindful to the lifestyle of others and
respect their needs. If you take care of your people, then they will take care of you.
Know what is important
I feel that the most essential characteristic of a leader is “knowing what is important.” A
leader needs to constantly ask, “Why am I doing this job?” or “What service am I providing to
society through my works?” You could be getting the job done, but your people are miserable.
You could be the most successful person in the world, but maybe you’re not happy yourself.
Every couple of days, a leader needs to analyze the status of their organization. If your people
are doing things simply because they have been done in the past, then you are wasting their time
and energy. Does that purpose from the past still hold today? Does it still have meaning? These
are important questions that must be answered.
Fearless
Not only should leaders never display a sense of fear or cowardice in front of their
people, but theoretically they should never display it at all. A leader needs to fight intimidation
from both people and objects and take on the responsibilities before them without any fear
whatsoever. Confidence and intelligence can play a role in this, but overall this is still a trait that
can be developed. A leader needs to be willing to put themselves on the line each and every day
for their people. They need to be willing to sacrifice themselves in a risk-taking situation and
leave nothing behind. They should not be overly-attached emotionally or mentally to any one
person or object, and be able to control their actions. Many times, a leader will be placed in a
unexpected, stressful situation and they need to be able to maintain their composure and keep a
cool head. However, fear can be a good thing as well, because you can grow from the
experience. A leader must conquer any and all fears and transform those negative feelings into
strength. This will add to confidence, and over time make them much more capable of handling
stressful situations. Thus, like many other negative traits, fear can be transformed into
something that will benefit the entire group.
These ten paragraphs provide insight into what I believe it takes to be a leader. Constant
dedication to the development and display of these characteristics will take a leader to the next
level of leadership. Someone who has all of these traits will have a positive relationship with
their people and themselves, and it will be for all the right reasons. Aspects such as these are so
important when it comes to leading a group of people. However, it is rare to find an individual
who possesses all ten of these traits and consistently employs them for the benefit of their team
or organization. However, all these traits can be developed. They are almost like building
blocks; you just have to start somewhere.
Conclusion:
Thank you for completing a journey of trait theory as applied to the research topic of
leadership. As we can see, trait theory is essential to the study of leadership. It was important in
1904 and is still relevant today. Stogdill’s summaries of 1947 and 1970 paved the way for future
theorists to enhance our level of understanding of the topic of leadership. Whether one believes
in a universal list, situation-specific theories which breed behavior, or a combination of the two,
one thing is for certain. Trait theory is at the center of all of this and is vitally important in
today’s workforce. Whether one’s career field lies in industry, education, public service, the
military, or the like, leadership plays a dynamic role in the success of any organization. As this
paper indicates, without trait theory, there is no solid foundation for leadership to stand upon.
This is why we must continually study trait theory and never forget the importance it holds
within our lives.
About the Author
Leadership Opportunities from High School to College:
Activity
Varsity Cross Country
Spring Track
Church Youth Group
Coach – Cross Country/Track
Air Force ROTC
Arnold Air Society
(Community Outreach
organization within
AFROTC)
Aerospace Warrior Squadron
Activity
Paid Training For
Space and Missile
Program
Paid Training
(Field Training)
OAF-OSI Professional
Development Training
Dates
Offices
1996-1999
Captain in the Fall of 1999
1997-1998
Sophomore Captain
1996-2000
Co-Leader in 1999-2000
1998-2000
9-10 Age Group Coach
Spring 2001- Fall 01’ – Deputy Flt. Commander
Present
Spring 02’ – Flight GMC-A
Spring 02’ – Guideon Bearer
Spring 02’ – Student Gov. Rep.
Fall 02’ – Flight Commander
Spring 03’ – Standardization
Officer
Fall 03’ - Vice Commander
Fall 2001- Present Public Administration Staff
Air Force Association Liaison
Director of Operations
Information Management
Fall 2003 –
President
Present
Organization
Dates
United States Air Force 03 April to 05
April
United States Air Force 16 May 2002- 14June
2002
United States Air Force 09 June 2003 –
20 June 2003
MAJOR AWARDS, SCHOLARSHIPS, SPECIAL
RECOGNITIONS
Title
Date
Affiliation
Varsity Award
Captain Award
Fighting Back Award
Volunteer Award
Co-Leader on Church Retreat
Graduation with Honors
Granted ROTC Scholarship
Presidential Scholarship
Fall 1996-1999
Fall 1999
Fall 1999
Fall 1999
Spring 2000
Spring 2000
Spring 2001
Fall 2001
Spring 2002
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Fall 2001
Spring 2002
Fall 2002
Spring 2003
Fall 2001
Sep 2001, Oct 2002
Spring 2002
Randolph Cross-Country
Randolph Cross-Country
Randolph Cross-Country
Randolph Township
Resurrection Parish
Randolph High School
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
Spring 2002
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
Spring 2002
Fall 2002
Summer 2002
Spring 2003
Fall 2003
Fall 2002
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
Miami University
United States Air Force
Miami University
Scholarship Ribbon
Academic Honors Ribbon
Arnold Air Society Ribbon
Cadet of the Month
American Legion General
Military Excellence Award
Order of the Purple Heart
Leadership Award
Cadet of the Semester
W. Fred Cottrell Scholarship
Certificate of Training
Honors Awards
(Admission to Program)
Joseph F. Hogan Research
Scholar Room
Outstanding Flight Commander
Physical Training Ribbon
American Legion Scholastic
Excellence Award
Sgt. Donald E. Fitzmaurice
Outstanding Staff Officer
Decoration:
Recruitment Ribbon
500 Club (Perfect PFT)
Fall 2002
Spring 2003
Spring 2003
Spring 2004
Spring 2003
Fall 2003
Spring 2004
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
Miami University
(Honors Program)
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
Arnold Air Society,
Miami University
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
AFROTC, Miami Univ.
Afterword
I feel that all my leadership experiences have been beneficial. High school was an
important time in my life because I started to mature as an adult while beginning to understand
what being a leader truly means. Coaching nine and ten year olds in cross-country and being a
varsity captain in high school for my cross-country team at the same time taught me that despite
the similarity of the activity, you cannot use the same leadership style on different groups. The
nine and ten year olds had much more energy and required a lot more patience and compassion
from me due to their age. The kids required detailed instruction and at times I had to be more of
an entertainer (make jokes or goof off with them) in order to keep their interest. The males on
the high school varsity team acted very similar to nine and ten boys at times, (I’ll admit that) but
required less direction. They understood that I was the captain and that my orders were straight
from the coach; essentially, whatever I told them to do, they did without hesitation.
In comparison, leading a church retreat was a very different experience as we were
looked at as the role models. Church retreats are different environments than a cross-country
practice or student organization and there is hardly ever a discipline problem or need for
authority. All the students wanted to be there and willingly did whatever they were asked. I
experienced very few “leadership challenges” during these times and often utilized a relaxed,
coaching method of leadership. These experiences served as a solid foundation of what was to
come.
The leadership experiences I have gained in college are second to none. Air Force ROTC
has taught me more in three and a half years than I ever thought possible. Discipline, service,
integrity and excellence have been embedded into my daily activities since I began the program.
I’ve completely lost track of all the times I have seen a fellow cadet display the above qualities.
What I love the most is that they display them out of sheer free will and desire; ROTC cadets act
the way they do because they know it is the right thing to do, it’s as simple as that. I have
learned a tremendous amount through my leadership positions in ROTC as well as Arnold Air
Society and especially during my four week field training at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.
My experiences during these years solidified my understanding of leadership traits and my desire
to display them. I am the leader I am today because I was lead by great leaders as a Freshman
and Sophomore; without that impact I would never be the person I am currently. To summarize,
every major leadership lesson I have learned in college has occurred within a ROTC
environment and I owe a lot of my success to the skills this program has provided me.
In the future, I hope to take the leadership lessons I learned while in college and apply
them successfully as a Second Lieutenant in the Air Force within the sector of Logistics
Readiness. During that time, I will continue to learn, develop and constantly refine the skills I
already have. While I’m not sure where my future classification will take me, I am certain I will
apply the leadership lessons I have learned, and I am greatly looking forward to it.
Annotated Bibliography
Barber, Herbert F. Some Personality Characteristics of Senior Military Officers.
Measures of Leadership, p. 441-449.
This study utilized the Myers-Briggs Indicator, Element B, and the Rokeach Values to
determine which leadership traits are held by senior military officers as opposed to leaders in
college. The results of these tests show which traits are uniform within the two groups and
which traits are found within only one group. This article was important to the paper as well as
myself because the results analyzed both college and military levels of leadership.
Clark, Kenneth E., and Miriam B. Clark. Measures of Leadership. New Jersey: Leadership
Library of America, Inc., 1990.
This collection of over 40 renowned leadership scholars provides readers with a wide
range of topics to study. Research conducted in this book was taken from military academies,
Fortune 500 companies, universities, colleges and other government businesses that greatly
affect everyday life. This provided me with a wide variety of categories to draw comparisons
from and make connections. Furthermore, I am definitely interested in military studies for my
thesis, and this collaboration of stories and experience has greatly helped.
Common Fire: Leading Lives of Commitment in a Complex World. Boston: Beacon Press,
1996.
This particular book provides insight into the common characteristics which effective
leaders share in an ever-changing environment. This is very applicable to today’s world, and the
authors thoroughly explain what commitment to these common principles entails for today’s
leader. This book aids the paper by providing story upon story which reflect the leadership
topics addressed in the chapters. These stories help the reader truly understand the leadership
characteristics by providing personal accounts and real world application.
Covey, S. R. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Fireside, 1991.
Covey answers numerous leadership questions concerning motivation, balance, survival
and change with the explanation of his eight principle-centered leadership traits. He supports his
views with personal accounts, historical allusions and contemporary applications. This provides
the paper with a current viewpoint of leadership literature that is intended to be applied to
today’s world. His viewpoints are a fresh perspective on trait theory and he has proven himself
to be a credible author through his previous books.
Goleman, D. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, 1995.
Though I have only read an excerpt, I felt it was necessary to cite this reference for the
paradigm it created within my line of thinking. I had never considered there to be a second form
of intelligence and now I realize how vital this is within the workplace. I believe it was always
there, it just never had a label. Goleman not only provided that, but offered reasoning as to why
emotional intelligence is so important for a leader to possess.
Parry, Ken W. The New Leader: A Synthesis of Leadership Research in Australia and New
Zealand. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1998, Vol.5, No. 4.
In this article, Parry provides research on leadership traits he has studied in the nations of
New Zealand and Australia. The publication provides examples of transformational and
charismatic leadership and how a leader can begin to instill these values into themselves.
Transformational and charismatic leadership are heavily debated and researched items within the
discipline of leadership today and serve well as topic areas for the paper.
Stogdill, R. M. Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press, 1974.
Stogdill takes his readers on a journey from 1904-1970 as he analyzes the origins of trait
theory. Through this book I learned that leadership has changed from 1904 to 1970 and from
1970 to the present day. Some traits however, have remained constant and Stogdill is quick to
point those out, as well as the major differences. This particular book is extremely thorough and
greatly aids the paper’s goal of providing the history of trait theory.
Yammarino, Francis J., and Bernard M. Bass. Long-term Forecasting of Transformational
Leadership and Its Effects Among Naval Officers: Some Preliminary Hearings.
Measures of Leadership, p. 151-171.
This longitudinal study analyzed the traits of Naval officers in their current career as
opposed to when they were in the Naval Academy. Three types of leadership styles were
analyzed: laissez faire, transactional and transformational. This study determined which style the
officer’s subordinates preferred as well as the current effects of the officer’s current leadership
practice. This is important to the paper as it expands on my own personal experience. I have
seen examples of all three of these types of leaders in my ROTC career and can easily make
connections to this study.
TABLE ONE
Characteristics
24A
Number of
Positve Findings
Number of Zero or
Negative Findings
1948 Survey 1970 Survey
1948 Survey Only
Physical Characteristics
Activity, energy
Age
Appearance, grooming
Height
Weight
5
10
13
9
7
24
6
4
0
0
0
8
3
4
4
22
15
5
14
19
6
5
2
0
23
9
11
13
25
6
12
15
10
0
0
0
10
0
0
6
11
11
0
5
0
0
7
6
0
17
7
0
11
12
4
31
14
3
1
13
7
13
9
7
28
0
9
0
0
0
0
6
8
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
12
0
12
21
17
10
0
0
0
0
0
Social Background
Education
Social Status
Mobility
Intelligence and Ability
Intelligence
Judgement, decisiveness
Knowledge
Fluency of Speech
Personality
Adaptability
Adjustment, normality
Aggressiveness, assertiveness
Alertness
Ascendence, dominance
Emotional balance, control
Enthusiasm
Extroversion
Independence, nonconformity
Objectivity, tough-mindedness
Originality, creativity
Personal integrity, ethical conduct
Resourcefulness
Self-Confidence
Strength of Conviction
Tolerance of Stress
Task-Related Characteristics
Drive to achieve, desire to excel
Drive for responsibility
Enterprise, initiative
Persistence against obstacles
Responsibility in the pursuit of objectives
Task Orientation
17
6
6
13
0
0
7
0
0
11
0
10
14
20
8
3
16
4
5
4
1
35
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Social Characteristics
Ability to enlist cooperation
Administrative ability
Attractiveness
Cooperativeness
Nurturance
Popularity, prestige
Sociability, interpersonal skills
Social participation
Tact, diplomacy
TABLE TWO
25B
Examples of Correlations
Characteristics
1948 Survey
Researcher
not reported
(-.32 to .72)
0.21 (.81)
(-.13 to .71)
0.23
Bellingrath (1930), Brown (1934)
Pigors (1933), Arrington (1943)
Flemming (1935),( Partridge (1934) )
Hunter and Jordan (1939)
Hunter and Jordan (1939)
not reported
Sorokin and Zimmeman (1928)
0.28
.34 to .69
not reported
.59, (.28)
Hunter and Jordan (1939), Remelin (1938)
Bellingrath (1932), Drake (1944), Webb (1915)
Caldwell (1920)
Zeleny (1939), ( Flemming (1935) )
.13 to .21
Eichler (1934), Flemming (1935)
.29, (.20)
Tryon (1939), ( Ackerson (1942) )
.12 and .36
0.46
Ackerson (1942) - boys and girls respectively
Goodenough (1930)
.38 to .70
-0.32
Bellingrath (1930), Drake (1944)
Webb (1915)
.58, .59, .12
Bellingrath (1930), Drake (1944), Webb (1915)
.64, .29, .47
Bellingrath (1930), Drake (1944), Webb (1915)
0.70
not reported
Webb (1915)
Baldwin (1932),, Bellingrath (1930), Burks (1938)
Physical Characteristics
Activity, energy
Age
Appearance, grooming
Height
Weight
Social Background
Education
Social Status
Mobility
Intelligence and Ability
Intelligence
Judgement, decisiveness
Knowledge
Fluency of Speech
Personality
Adaptability
Adjustment, normality
Aggressiveness, assertiveness
Alertness
Ascendence, dominance
Emotional balance, control
Enthusiasm
Extroversion
Independence, nonconformity
Objectivity, tough-mindedness
Originality, creativity
Personal integrity, ethical conduct
Resourcefulness
Self-Confidence
Tolerance of Stress
Task-Related Characteristics
Drive to achieve, desire to excel
Drive for responsibility
Enterprise, initiative
Persistence against obstacles
Responsibility in the pursuit of objectives
Task Orientation
Social Characteristics
Ability to enlist cooperation
Administrative ability
Attractiveness
Cooperativeness
Nurturance
Sociability, interpersonal skills
Social participation
Tact, diplomacy
0.69
Webb (1915)
.17 to .68
Zeleny (1939)
.08, .27, .73
Drake, Flemming, Webb
Rokeach Survey
55D
Instrumental Values
TOP FIVE "Most Valued"
General Male
Senior Military Officers
Honest
Ambitious
Responsible
Broad-minded
Courageous
Honest
Responsible
Competent
Courageous
Logical
BOTTOM FIVE "Least Valued"
General Male
Senior Military Officers
Loving
Intellectual
Logical
Obedient
Imaginative
Loving
Forgiving
Obedient
Cheerful
Polite
Terminal Values
TOP FIVE "Most Valued"
General Male
Senior Military Officers
World at Peace
Family Security
Freedom
Comfortable Life
Happiness
Family Security
Self-Respect
Freedom
Sense of Service
Wisdom
BOTTOM FIVE "Least Valued"
General Male
Senior Military Officers
Mature Love
World of Beauty
Social Recognition
Pleasure
Exciting Life
Comfortable Life
Equality
Social Recognition
Pleasure
World of Beauty
List of Terminal and Instrumental Values
55C
Terminal Values
Instrumental Values
A Comfortable Life
Ambitious
An Exciting Life
Broad-minded
Equality
Competent
Family Security
Cheerful
Freedom
Concerned
Happiness
Courageous
Inner harmonry
Forgiving
Mature Love
Helpful
National Security
Honest
Pleasure
Imaginative
Salvation
Independent
Self-Respect
Intellectual
Sense of Service
Logical
Social Recognition
Loving
True Friendship
Obedient
Wisdom
Polite
World at Peace
Responsible
World of Beauty
Self-Control
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
55A
Percentage of Preference Pairs
Senior Military Officers
General Population
E
I
44.2
55.8
E
I
52.5
47.6
S
N
69.3
30.7
S
N
58.5
41.6
T
F
87.6
12.4
T
F
56.8
43.3
J
P
78.6
21.4
J
P
51
49.1
Percentage Yielded
Senior Military Officers
100
87.6
60
78.6
69.3
80
55.8
44.2
30.7
40
21.4
12.4
20
0
E
I
S
N
T
F
J
P
51
49.1
J
P
Pesonality Trait
General Population
Percentage Yielded
E - Extroversion
I - Introversion
S - Sensing
I - Intuition
T - Thinking
F - Feeling
J - Judging
P - Perceiving
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
52.5
E
58.5
47.6
I
56.8
43.3
41.6
S
N
T
F
Personality Characteristic
Element B Mean Scores
55B
Senior Military Officers
The Way it is
The Way I want
Difference
(Satisfaction)
I Include People
4.2
5.4
-1.2
People Include Me
3.5
5.7
-2.2
I Control People
4.8
6.5
-1.7
5
4.3
0.7
I Am Open With People
2.6
3.5
-0.9
People Are Open With Me
3.5
4.7
-1.2
People Control Me
General Population
The Way it is
The Way I want
Difference
(Satisfaction)
I Include People
4.6
5.2
-0.6
People Include Me
3.5
5
-1.5
I Control People
3.8
5
-1.2
People Control Me
4.2
3.2
1
I Am Open With People
3.2
3.9
-0.7
People Are Open With Me
2.7
3.9
-1.2