Leadership Traits for the 21st Century

¶ … Leadership

Perceptions of what makes a leader

Possessing leadership qualities entails more than simply having a leadership position with a title. In fact, some of the most effective organizational leaders may have no official designation as a leader at all; rather their source of leadership arises from the personal qualities which they radiate and their willingness to take effective action to realize organizational goals. Leadership is essential for the organization to function and to define its future path so most firms engage in leadership training and cultivation. However, the characteristics which define leadership can be extremely controversial and organization-specific. Leadership can be elusive and subjective in quality; although all organizations ultimately want leaders to help achieve their goals on one hand, on the other hand factors such as perceived dominance, the gender of the leader, and the organizational culture can all impact leadership perceptions.

One common concept of a leader is that the leader inevitably dominates group settings by the force of his or her personality. In fact, according to Anderson & Kilduff (2009), there are some indications that simply having a dominant personality can increase one's perceptions of being competent, in contrast to other group theorists which suggest that more subtle and intangible qualities are needed, including higher levels of competence and commitment. Dominance is defined as "the tendency to behave in assertive, forceful, self-assured ways" and "to be more active in groups, speak assertively, and make direct eye contact" (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009, p.491). Although groups are more likely to be successful in meeting their goals if the most competent individuals rise to levels of leadership, in actual practice, individuals with dominant traits (regardless of their level of expertise) "speak more, gain more control over group processes, and hold disproportionate sway over group decisions" (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009, p.491). Task competency is still necessary to motivate individuals to perform above and beyond their capabilities and to unify as a group on some level but leaders with dominant traits are perceived as being more task competent, regardless of whether this is actually the case.

The degree of dominance in terms of personality traits vs. task competency may also vary depending upon the personality and the perceived needs of the group. Engineers are more likely to view task competency as an essential component of success while individuals in other professions are more likely to prioritize less tangible skills and attributes (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009, p.491). This is not entirely surprising, given the need for specific, technological competencies to succeed in a scientific discipline such as engineering vs. A more subjectively-based arena such as advertising. One study of Israeli military leadership recruits and the degree to which informal leadership was influential in shaping their experiences found that social skills were extremely important in fostering comradery amongst the soldiers. "Whereas in some situations, in order to emerge as leaders, individuals would need to rely on their technical skills, in others, like ours, social skills are more crucial" (Luria & Berson, 2013, p.1009). Homogeneity of background, age, and motivation may also have been a factor in emphasizing the social bonding component of conveying leadership authority.

But while different social contexts will perceive certain attributes (character vs. competence) as important to a greater or lesser degree in leadership, overall dominant behavior also enhances the perception of the individual's confidence and thus his/her right to exercise leadership. In one study of small group dynamics by Anderson & Kilduff, (2009) "group members would perceive individuals higher in trait dominance as more competent along task and social dimensions and that these perceptions would mediate the link between trait dominance and influence" (p.491). Although few people would openly assert that dominance itself was a desired quality and intrinsic to competence, competence perception and dominance are linked.

Perceptual bias vs. actual, demonstrated competence by dominant individuals can have a powerful effect. On one hand, this suggests that individuals that want to be perceived as leaders may need to cultivate more dominant traits to ensure that their competence is acknowledged and observable to the outside world. Leadership qualities are viewed more and more in most organizations as something to be cultivated and not something innate to the individual. Learning to enhance such perceptions may be an essential quality to motivating individuals, particularly in small group sessions. It is important to remember that dominance does not necessarily mean being bullying and aggressive. In fact, these traits can actually make someone look weak, given that they can clearly be read as obvious social anxiety regarding one's status on a hierarchy more than the actual ability to demonstrate competence. Dominant types ascend "group hierarchies by appearing helpful to the group's overall success as opposed to aggressively grabbing power. Indeed, it seems that dominance leads to influence at least in part because it entails more confident and initiative-taking behaviors, such as putting forth answers to problems before others do" (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009, p. 500). On the other hand, studies have found that a "high positive correlations between dominance, and hostility and negative outcomes, and between dominance and narcissism" which suggests that in the long-term, dominance may not serve the common, organizational interest as a whole (Luria & Berson, 2013, p.997).

A reluctance to assume leadership can cause group members to turn to dominant personalities to fill the void. But organizations may need to be better able to identify hidden leaders and to encourage organizational members to be less impressed by dominant characteristics and more by actual competence. Learning to communicate and to work better together is an important step in this process. And even dominant personalities may find that they are better able to reap the benefits of their dominance if they acquire the skill set of being able to use that dominance to work well in conjunction with others. "Individuals who are highly motivated to lead will seek to influence peer members in order to establish their status as leaders" but this requires cooperation from the other parties, particularly if the leadership is being exercised on an informal basis and is not derived directly from a formal position of leadership (Luria & Berson, 2013, p.999). Finally, although dominance may be the preeminent motivation for most would-be leaders, it may not necessarily be for all leaders or there may be other motivating factors at play as well. "Motivation to lead may arise from a number of influences, including "affective-identity motivation" or a personal need for power, "social-normative motivation" which arises from a sense of duty, and "non-calculative motivation, where individuals are motivated to lead not as a result of cost -- benefit calculations" (Luria & Berson, 2013, p.997). Non-calculative motivation may derive from the fact that the individual simply believes that his or her position is correct or an innate desire to pursue excellence.

Once again, organizational attitudes may have a strong influence in the degree to which certain behaviors are and are not accepted of potential leaders. In highly competitive organizations, aggressiveness may be rewarded and would-be leaders are likely to mimic such behaviors; also, more aggressive individuals in general are apt to be drawn to more confrontational workplaces. In organizations where collaboration is genuinely embraced (versus mere lip service being paid to the notion) and teams rather than individuals are graded in terms of performance measurements, members may be more willing to listen to leaders that exhibit stronger interpersonal skills and higher degrees of emotional intelligence, versus pure aggressiveness.

Leadership is thus a mix of being competent and knowing what to do and 'selling' that competence to others in a preferably positive fashion, versus motivating other individuals by fear and intimidation. Ideally, the organization wants to support those who can command the attention of others and motivate them while still justifying their leadership positions with competence and actual knowledge. Training leaders while also encouraging others to recognize that leadership is essential given the extent to which subjective perceptions of leadership may be biased. However, simply defining leadership solely in terms of current standards can be problematic. Not only by displays of dominance, but also cultural preconceptions of what constitutes a leader, including gender, can impact leadership perceptions in a negative way. On one hand, leaders need to be trained to make their voices heard. On the other hand, simply defining leaders according to those perceptions can reinforce existing social prejudices. "Only 3% of the top management positions in the United States are held by women (Adler, 1999), and only 11% of the directors of Fortune 500 companies are women (Brett & Stroh, 1999)" (Neubert & Taggart, 2004: 175). Women may be perceived as less dominant and thus less competent even if the same behaviors were exhibited by a male.

It should be noted that not all leadership studies have linked dominance and leadership ability. Of the 'Big Five' personality traits, according to Neubert & Taggart (2004) in a multiple regression analysis of various trait-based studies, only "agreeableness, and to a lesser extent, extraversion, were significantly related to leadership," i.e. interpersonal qualities which were not necessarily gendered (p. 178). Of course, definitions of leadership can be subjective even in the minds of researchers (one of the challenges in comparing leadership studies): while it is possible that aggressive leaders may be better able to command obedience, this does not necessarily mean that compelling obedience is synonymous with leadership.

Other meta-analyses have suggested that "extraversion and in particular the facets of self-confidence, dominance, and sociability were the strongest predictors of leadership emergence" with a particular stress upon dominance and sociability as components of extroversion (Luria & Berson, 2013, p.996). Agreeableness and dominance are not necessarily gender-specific traits. However, women of the same level of ability as their male counterparts still tend to be judged as inherently less competent than males and as less intelligent and are socialized to be less aggressive and confrontational. This can create an impression of women as less able to exercise leadership even though they may be equally capable as their male counterparts (Neubert & Taggart, 2004, p.179). Moreover, women who do strive to be equally as assertive as males may still be penalized for seeming 'shrill' and overbearing.'

This does not mean that it is impossible for women to assume positions of leadership; rather, it means that it is more difficult for women to do so and that women with the same levels of intelligence, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness and other leadership characteristics may find it more difficult to translate their positive attributes into leadership gains (Neubert & Taggart, 2004, p.180). In fact, informal leadership positions may be more difficult for women to secure because of the fact these must be given through the willingness of a group, not dispensed by a formal hierarchy. A woman may have a formal leadership position but still struggle to assert informal leadership over others vs. A male. In fact, in an organization where misogyny is tacitly endorsed, a woman in a position of power may become a target of negative abuse, versus someone who commands respect.

It might seem that certain female traits seem to lend themselves to leadership on an informal basis including "a strong relationship between giving task-related advice and leadership emergence" (Neubert & Taggart, 2004, p.180). However, it was found that such characteristics tend to be expected of women and women accrue less rather than more informal leadership status as a result of showing such characteristics. On the other hand, even when atypical gender roles are assumed, women may struggle: "It appears that because conscientiousness and emotional stability are not stereotypical expectations for women, these characteristics do not accrue the same leadership credit for women as they do for men" (Neubert & Taggart, 2004, p.180). Even when women exhibit competence and stability, these traits are less likely to be 'read' as leadership traits, even though on the surface they appear to be gender-neutral. Furthermore, "Women who have traits typically associated with male leadership…may receive less leadership credit & #8230;.if women hold similar positions within team members' advice and support networks, their contributions are undervalued" (Neubert & Taggart, 2004, p.180).

Organizations must fight to overcome this: first, because quite simply, anti-discrimination policy is part of current law. Secondly, organizations can reap the benefits of a greater number of its employees' leadership potential if it is more mindful of traits such as sexism. The failure to perceive leadership qualities in women on an informal basis can stymie female advancement and can also limit the capacity of formally-designated female leaders to exercise competence. To combat this, a number of strategies have been adopted, including affirmative action to advance women to positions of formal leadership and thus enhance the perception that women can be competent leaders; however, this does not necessarily address the problem of women not being taken seriously as competent leaders on a day-to-day basis in informal capacities. Another approach is to "attempt to trumpet the competitive advantage of 'feminine' management, but this may have the unintentional consequence of increasing the strength of gender stereotypes and their impact on team dynamics" and not all women exhibit such stereotypically feminine traits (Neubert & Taggart, 2004, p.188). Greater self-reflection on the part of organization's membership is demanded in terms of how it perceives leadership, this can be achieved by having explicit feedback sessions in which members discuss how leadership is perceived and in which they become more cognizant of their own stereotypes.

Such reflection is not only useful regarding gender but also in terms of other prejudices which can affect perceptions of leadership regarding race, religion, and sexual orientation (Neubert & Taggart, 2004, p.188). For example, not all cultures view having a dominant character as essential to leaders and some value the ability to engage in conciliation and harmony as more important. Making eye contact and aggressively dominating conversation tends to be valued in more individualistic, low-context societies and individuals from other cultures may not necessarily rank high in leadership attributes based upon such a culturally specific method of evaluating leadership. When leadership is defined solely in terms of highly Westernized, low-context ideals, this can hamper the organization's global competitiveness and act as a barrier to greater cultural integration of the organization. Greater sharing of leadership roles within the organizational structure to diffuse power can also reduce the tendency to view leadership in traditional, dominant terms: if a variety of personalities and genders assume leadership roles, this can also work to diffuse stereotypes (Neubert & Taggart, 2004, p.188).

The need to cultivate leadership without reinforcing stereotypes remains important for all organizations and will continue to be so in the future. Organizations must also take a long-term view. Although dominance may be a key facet of leadership in gaining credibility small group functioning, organizations must keep an eye upon leadership potential in terms of the organization's long-term future planning. According to Dries & Pepermans (2012), intellectual curiosity; strategic insight; the ability to make good decisions and solve problems; the ability to learn; drive; and "emergent leadership factors" such as motivation and self-promotion are all critical components of leadership (p. 361). The desire to be a leader in and of itself is reflected in such emergent factors. This is also critical component of leadership and once again seems to reinforce the notion that perceived dominance is important: individuals high in dominant personality characteristics crave leadership positions. However, leaders must also be proactive in self-education and able to engage in environmental scanning. Emotional intelligence and responsiveness (again, qualities which are not necessarily associated with masculinity) are also thus critical components of leadership.