This paper examines two distinct approaches to studying effective leadership. The first, drawn from Simonton's (1988) archival study of thirty-nine American presidents, applies a personality-based framework to assess leadership effectiveness, ultimately finding that situational variables — such as war years and assassination — outperform personality traits as predictors of presidential performance. The second approach, from Bryman, Stephens, and Campo (1996), emphasizes qualitative research methods and context-sensitivity, illustrated through interviews with British police officers. Together, these studies reveal the limitations of purely trait-based models and highlight the growing value of context-aware, qualitative methods in leadership research.
This paper demonstrates the technique of comparative source analysis: presenting two studies with different methodologies and theoretical orientations, identifying what each contributes, and synthesizing their findings into a broader argument. Rather than summarizing each study in isolation, the writer positions them in dialogue — asking how personality, context, and circumstance each explain leadership effectiveness.
The paper opens with a brief framing of leadership research as a field, then devotes the central sections to close reading of Simonton (1988) and Bryman et al. (1996) in sequence. Each study receives a description of methodology, key findings, and analytical commentary. The final section draws a comparative conclusion about the relative merits of quantitative and qualitative approaches, providing a tidy resolution to the methodological contrast established at the outset.
Over the decades, much research has been devoted to studying leadership traits and the qualities of an effective leader. Among the primary approaches to assessing leadership are personality theory and the qualitative approach to leadership research. Each methodology offers distinct advantages, and together they provide a more complete picture of what makes a leader effective.
In the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1988), D. K. Simonton applied the personality basis of leadership research, which examines leadership effectiveness as a product of particular personality traits. For this study, Simonton carried out an archival analysis of the personalities and personal histories of thirty-nine American presidents, relating those findings to their perceived effectiveness as heads of state. An analysis of eighty-two separate personality characteristics was ultimately reduced to five general categories: "the interpersonal, charismatic, deliberative, creative, and neurotic styles" (Simonton, 1988).
Simonton raises a foundational question in leadership research: whether a great leader is born or becomes great according to circumstances. As he frames it, "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). This tension between innate traits and situational factors runs throughout the study.
Since most of the subjects were historical figures, the methodology relied primarily on archival research. American presidents leave behind a wealth of biographical and historical documents that chronicle every facet of their lives and tenure. Among the many factors considered were the charisma of the leader, cabinet nominations, executive orders, Supreme Court resignations, age at marriage, and birth order, among many others.
The results of this investigation indicate that, from a wide range of variables, many presupposed "characteristics" of a great leader offer little predictive ability regarding how a person will actually perform once they assume a leadership role. Simonton found that a review of 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).
From this abundance of archival information, Simonton concluded that most personality variables had little predictive value when assessing whether a man would make an effective president. The best predictor variables in the study were situational events — such as assassination attempts or years spent at war — that had little to do with a president's personality profile. This finding seems to support the belief that effective leaders are not necessarily born, but may instead be shaped by circumstance and experience.
A more recent approach to the study of leadership places greater emphasis on qualitative research. This 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 many recent leadership researchers to resist overgeneralizing their findings. The "New Leadership" approach relies more heavily on interviews and first-hand accounts than previous studies did. As Bryman, Stephens, and Campo (1996) observe, "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."
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, and those interviews were then analyzed to elicit the officers' attitudes toward leaders and effective leadership techniques in particular.
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.