Goal Importance Congruence vs. Trait-Based

¶ … Goal Importance Congruence vs. Trait-Based Perspectives in Leadership

Organizational Leadership is a notion which has been subject to a wide variance of theoretical discussions. Indeed, over the course of just a few decades, infinite numbers of constructs have been proposed to explain the optimal modes of leadership, management and decision-making required for ever-changing organizational contexts. As a consideration of the articles by Colbert et al. (2008) and Zaccaro (2007) will demonstrate, some theoretical constructs may actually be posed in opposition to one another. Indeed, where the former considers leadership according to what it refers to as 'goal importance congruence,' the latter argues in favor of a 'trait-based perspective' on promoting the ideal leadership model. Both articles address the dilemma of adopting a single leadership model to a wide variance of organizational contexts, but beyond this, they largely diverge in their conception of effective leadership.

Quite to the point, the article by Colbert et al. seems to make the argument that the specific nature of the leader is actually secondary to the degree to which leadership perspectives appear to resonate with the perspectives of top management. As Colbert et al. approach this question, the achievement of organizational goals is measured as a function of the common-ground shared between an organization's Vice President and its CEO. This examination of leadership is also rendered more complex by the invocation of a change scenario for any organization under consideration. Therefore, of the 94 'top management teams' selected for examination, the presence of a process of 'transformational leadership' would be a determinant for participation.

This differs from the mode of Zaccaro's research, which instead views leadership independently from the general conditions of the organization. To this end, Zaccaro concedes that the trait-based view of leadership has been subjected to much critique and deconstruction, but makes the case that a more refined approach to the leadership model could be quite constructive. The research here argues in favor of a trait-based approach that revolves on the interaction of different permutations of preferred leadership traits. In Zaccaro's view, an appropriate combination of these traits will ultimately produce a comprehensive leadership model which could be applied to virtually any organizational circumstance. By its very nature, this assumption seems to depart from the view by Colbert et al. that leadership is best understood in relativity to certain core organizational features. As Zaccaro acknowledges, the trait-based approach to leadership seems to characterize the role as something independent from the organization and attributable to special individuals with a particular leadership-oriented personality.

In order to correct what Zaccaro acknowledges are the inherent flaws to the trait-based leadership mode, he attempts to separate those traits which he perceives are connected to individual leadership models and those traits which tend to have a more direct connection to universal principles of organizational success, efficiency, effectiveness and cultural stability. Accordingly, Zaccaro indicates that "this distinction suggests that some leader attributes will be more stable and cross situational in their influences, whereas others will be more situationally bound . . .More important, stable or traitlike individual differences may predict the level of statelike attributes that can be attained and exhibited by the leader." (p. 7)

In other words, Zaccaro indicates that selected leadership traits will typically be those which inherently denote the capacity to whether or manage any array of organizational scenarios or dilemmas. It is thus that we may consider his research in comparison to the article by Colbert et al. Here, the scenario proposed is a process of transformational leadership, which is believed by the researchers to be best facilitated by a 'goal importance congruence' which places the priorities of core management teams in direct proximity to the priorities of an organization's senior VPs. The researchers argue that the closer this proximity, the greater we may be able to predict the success of a transformational process. Accordingly, the researchers tells that "a key role of all business leaders is defining strategic goals for their organizations and aligning the efforts of all organization members with these goals (e.g., Messick, 2005). Strategic leadership theory suggests that the values, experiences, and knowledge of leaders in the upper echelons of organizations impact the strategic decisions made by these leaders, ultimately influencing organizational performance." (Colbert et al., 82)

In many ways, this strikes the reader as a direct counterpoint to that which is intended by trait-based leadership assessments. Colbert et al. do not make specific reference to a set of preferred traits nor do they attempt to put forth the argument that any specific sets of leadership qualities may be used to predict organizational success. The more operative issue, in their perspective, is the relative harmony between the expectations and decisions of those at the top levels of leadership and the shared belief in these expectations and decisions as channeled through those management leaders who must ultimately execute them. For Colbert et al., this is especially true during the transformational process, in which management is asked to implement sweeping and culture-changing change plans. The inherency of internal resistance, the likelihood of encountering unexpected setbacks and the long-term vision which are all required during a process of transformation are best facilitated by a unified front at differing levels of leadership.

That said, there is an argument to be made that the two theories examined in this discussion are not actually mutually exclusive. Though Colbert et al. do not make direct consideration of trait-based leadership, they do not discount the relevance of individual leadership qualifications either. This allows us to build the argument according to Zaccaro's perspective that some compatibility may actually be established. To this end, Zaccaro refutes the idea that trait-based leadership should be viewed as totally distinct from transformational models. The author argues that in the 1980s, "models of charismatic and transformational leadership rose to prominence in the leadership literature. These models, while recognizing the important role of the situation in leadership, pointed once again to the extraordinary qualities of individuals as determinants of their effectiveness." (Zaccaro, 6)