Question

Can the findings of trait approaches be used to train potential leaders? Which traits seem easier to teach? Which are more stable

Answer 1

Regardless of issues in trait approaches, these findings can be helpful for managers and organizations in many ways. For instance, thinking about leader traits enables associations to choose perfect individuals into places of duty. The way to profiting from the findings of trait specialists is to know that not all traits are similarly successful in foreseeing leadership potential overall conditions.

In huge, bureaucratic, and rule-bound associations, for example, the government and the military, a leader's traits may have less to do with how the individual carries on and whether the individual is an effective leader.

Some authoritative circumstances enable leader traits to have a more noteworthy effect. For instance, in little, pioneering associations where leaders have a great deal of elbow room to decide their very own conduct, the sort of traits leaders carry may have any kind of effect in leadership potential.

Besides, a few traits become important in explicit conditions. For instance, dauntlessness is probably going to be a key trademark in military leaders, yet not really in business leaders. It is critical to distinguish the conditions under which various traits influence a leader's presentation, just as whether an individual rises as a leader.

Extraversion trait seems easier to teach. Extraverts are agreeable, decisive, and vigorous individuals. They appreciate connecting with others in their condition and show self-assurance. Out of all personality traits, extraversion has the most grounded association with both leader rise and leader viability.

Conscientiousness trait is more stable because conscientious leaders are sorted out, step up to the plate, and exhibit perseverance in their undertakings. Conscientious individuals are bound to develop as leaders and be powerful in that job.