Question

Describe in your own words why you think the trait theory of leadership may have inherent flaws. Why is trait theory inappropriate? You may consider the following question: even though there's no such thing as a natural-born leader, why are the majority of Fortune 500 CEOs white men (and a big chunk of those white men are tall - above 6' in height). Why does this contradiction exist?

Answer 1

The trait theory of leadership indicates that the leaders are inborn and thus if a person has some unique physical traits such as colour, appearance, height, physique the chances of him or her to be a successful leader are quite high.

There are many flaws in this theory as for being the leader, just having the physical appearance and traits are not important. There are some behavioural and personality traits which play an important role in the success of a leader. These traits are risk-taking abilities, effective communication skills, ability to motivate others, proactive nature and so on. These factors are completely ignored in the trait theory and thus it does not present the true picture of the traits that should be possessed by an effective leader.

This theory is not suitable as if just by having the physical appearance and traits a person can become the leader, then there would have been numerous leaders in the society who fall as the category of the trait theory But in reality, there are many factors that play an important role in the development of the leader. These can be situational, personality related.

If we look precisely the statement that the majority of Fortune 500 CEOs white men (and a big chunk of those white men are tall - above 6' in height is a complete myth. On research conducted, it has been found that the average height of the CEOs of fortune 500 companies is 5feet 11 and only 35% of CEOs have a height of 6 feet 2 and more.