Leadership research: theories, practices, and organizational impact

Leadership

Over the decades, much research has been devoted to studying leadership traits and the qualities of an effective leader. Some of the approaches to assessing leadership include personality theory, as well as the qualitative approach to leadership research.

In the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1988), D.K. Simonton used the personality basis of leadership research that looks at the effectiveness of a leader as a result of particular personality traits. For this study, Simonton carried out an archival analysis of the personalities and personal histories of thirty-nine American presidents, and related that to their perceived effectiveness as Heads of State. An analysis of eight-two separate personality characteristics were ultimately reduced to five general categories; "The interpersonal, charismatic, deliberative, creative, and neurotic styles." (Simonton, 1988).

Simonton makes the point that research into leadership is frequently concerned with the question of whether a great leader is born, or becomes a great leader according to circumstances. "Is leadership a matter of being the right person, or is it due more to being at the right place at the right time?" (Simonton, 1988).

The results of this investigation into leadership indicate that from a wide range of variables, many presupposed "characteristics" of a great leader offer no predictive ability of how a person will perform once they assume a leadership role. In fact, Simonton points out, a look at over three dozen American presidents reveals that most of the variance in leadership performance is accounted for by six main variables: "These transhistorically invariant predictors are years in office, number of war years, assassination, scandal, whether the president was a war hero, and intellectual brilliance." (Simonton, 1988).

Since most the subjects of this study were, obviously, historical figures, the methodology used primarily involved archival research. Fortunately, American presidents have a wealth of biographical and historical documents that chronicle every facet of their lives and tenure. Some of the many factors that were considered in this study included; charisma of the leader, Cabinet nominees, executive orders, Supreme Court resignations, age of marriage, birth order, and many others. From this abundance of information, Simonton was able to conclude that most of these variables had little predictive value when considering whether a man would make an effective president.

This study provides some interesting insights into leadership and the different approaches to studying what goes into making an effective leader. The personality approach to leadership examines how much of an impact a person's character traits have on their leadership potential. Interestingly, Simonton's study seems to point to a low correlation between personality characteristics and leadership ability. The best predictor variables in this study were events, such as assassination or war years, that had little to do with a President's personality profile. This would seem to encourage the belief that leaders aren't necessarily born, but may be taught.

A more recent approach to the study of leadership involves a greater emphasis on qualitative research. This research method concentrates on individual situations and the leadership qualities unique to them, as opposed to the more quantitative methods used in the past. An important emphasis of qualitative research is the context of a given situation. This awareness of context has led to a certain reluctance for many recent leadership researchers to avoid overgeneralizing their findings. This "New Leadership" approach relies more on interviews and first-hand accounts than previous studies. "While quantitative research will almost certainly continue to enjoy methodological hegemony within the field for many years, there is little doubt that qualitative research is beginning to make inroads into the field." (Bryman, Stephens & Campo, 1996).

In The Importance of Context: Qualitative Research and the Study of Leadership, Bryman, Stephens and Campo (1996) apply their context-aware technique to a British police constabulary. The researchers conducted extensive interviews with British police officers. These interviews were then studied to elicit officers' attitudes towards leaders, and effective leadership techniques in particular.