-1-

Trait Theory Overview Trait theory is the earliest and oldest approach to the study of leadership, spanning almost a century of organized study. Trait theory holds that leaders possess a similar set of traits or characteristics (Williams, 2008) that help mark them out as leaders or prospective leaders. Early versions of this theory posited that leaders are born and not made, thus if one does not have the right stuff, as identified by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991), there is no way to become an effective leader. This concept of a superior individual able to exert influence on others is similarly related to the Great Man Theory, popularized by Thomas Carlyle (1907, as cited from Judge et al, 2002), which holds heroes or great men responsible for influencing the fate of the nation through their innate personal attributes and divine inspiration (Cawthon, 1996). Trait theory is principally involved in the measurement of traits, which can be described as relatively stable individual characteristics, such as abilities, psychological motives (Williams, 2008), that influence behavior. Several problems with early trait research might account for the apparent deficiency of significant findings as quantitative methodologies and technology, needed to validate tenets of the concept, at the time, were not highly sophisticated. Little was known about the psychometric attributes of the measures used to categorize traits which resulted to inconsistencies in the measures used to consider the same construct thus making it challenging to duplicate or validate findings. In addition, many of the trait studies relied on samples of students or lower-level managers rather than individuals in noteworthy positions of leadership (House and Aditya, 2007).

-2-

Early trait research was largely a-theoretical, as it fails to establish a direct linkage between individual characteristics and leadership. Early studies on the concept also did not take into account the influence of mitigating situational variables on leader traits and measures of leader effectiveness, which resulted in the dearth of consistent findings linking individual traits to leadership effectiveness, which led management theorists to abandon the concept abandoned in the 1950s, particularly after the review by Stogdill in 1948. For a considerable length of time, trait theory has been thought of as wrong by management theorists and criticized for failing to establish consistent trait differences between leaders and non-leaders. On the other hand, surge of proponents advocating transformational and charismatic leadership concepts and more recent studies, supported by empirical evidence, establish the linkage between traits and effective leadership further confirms distinct attributes of successful leaders such as drive, desire to lead, honesty / integrity, self-confidence, emotional intelligence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business (House and Aditya, 1997; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991). Historical Development and Conceptual Discussion According to Bennis (1998), an American consultant, one of the notable pioneers in the study of contemporary leadership concepts and organizational consultant, leaders are people who are able to express themselves fully, knows what they want, why they want it, knows how to achieve their goals and how to communicate what they want to others, in order to gain their cooperation and support. But what is it that gives rise to someone to excel and gain influence in this respect? Historical study of the lives of people who have been noted as great or effective leaders (like Abraham Lincoln, Jack Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, etc.) establishes the fact that

-3-

they indeed have very different qualities or traits that separate them from ordinary individuals or non-leaders. Early works on leadership were based on inherited characteristics or traits of individuals that make them effective leaders. Leader traits as defined by Zaccaro (2007) pertain to the relatively coherent and integrated patterns of personal characteristics, reflecting a range of individual differences that foster consistent leadership effectiveness across a variety of group and organizational situations. Interest was therefore placed on discerning these traits, through the study of notable leaders, built upon the fundamental assumption that if other people could also be identified possessing these traits, then they, too, could also become great leaders. History is rich in providing examples of how different societies that ascribe leadership ability to genetic characteristics that can be passed on for generations through bloodlines. Example of which are the pharaohs from ancient Egypt and even early and medieval royal dynasties who are bestowed qualities of divinity, authority, discrimination and justice (Gehring, 2007). Gordon Allport, an American psychologist who gained prominence during the early 1900s and considered as one of the founding figures in the study of personality, saw traits as broad, general guides that lend consistency to behavior. He identified thousands of traits and organized them into three levels: cardinal, central and secondary traits. Cardinal traits pertain to attributes which an individual may be strongly identified with (imperialistic drives of Alexander The Great, Hitler; Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhis desire to pursue equality and justice for all people regardless of social class and race), central traits are fundamental to an individual's character (level of sociability, intro or

-4-

extroversion, etc.), while secondary traits are more peripheral in nature (preference for certain food types, fashion style, etc.). Raymond Cattell, a British and American psychologist and contemporary of Allport, identified 16 personality factors that formed the basis for differences in individual behavior. Catells contribution also served as basis for the subsequent formation of the Big Five traits which will be discussed in subsequent sections (Nelson and Quick, 2006). A great amount of work was conducted in the 1940s and the 1950s to determine the common traits of effective leaders. Hans Eysenck, a German psychologist, noted for his work on genetics of personality and intelligence, suggested that personality is reducible to three major traits - extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism (Beech et al, 2001). Birds (1940) summary of leader traits refers to accuracy at work, knowledge of human nature and moral habits as key leader traits. n the late 1940s up to the latter part of the 1950s Stogdill and Mann, in separate studies, created the most inclusive summary of various research made on the subject and identified intelligence, decisiveness in judgment, speech fluency, interpersonal skills and administrative abilities as key types of traits of effective leaders. Robert Stogdills first survey of early trait studies carried out between 1904-1947, identified a set of important leadership traits that differentiates leaders from other individuals and they are as follows: intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, selfconfidence, and sociability. His findings revealed that trait alone does not guarantee an individual to become a leader, rather key leadership traits must be applicable to situations wherein the leader is operating in and that leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders

-5-

in another situation. This study marked the onset of new approaches to leadership that focus on behavior and situations (Northouse, 2007). Other management theorists including Gibb (1947, as cited by House and Aditya, 2007) and Jenkins (1947, ibid) were able to establish the linkage between traits and measures of leader effectiveness. Regrettably such findings could not be replicated in subsequent studies which led many leadership scholars to believe that identifying universal traits are futile and the subsequent abandonment of the study of the traits theory (House and Aditya, 2007). The preliminary conclusion from early studies of leader attributes was that there were no consistent universal traits that distinguish effective leaders from other individuals a view that stemmed from the review by Ralph Stogdill in 1948 concluded that the existing studies have not demonstrated the efficacy of the trait approach failed to isolate key behavioral patterns that made a difference. Cartwright and Zander (1968, as cited from Beech et al, 2001) identified that leaders are more intelligent, more dependable, more responsible, more active and socially participative, and more likely to have higher socio-economic status. The clarification of several theoretical issues and new empirical findings made during the early 1970s brought about a resurgence of interest in the study of leadership traits. Bem and Allen (1974, as cited by House and Aditya, 2007) contended that trait-relevant predictability is a trait in itself which can be portrayed by self-monitoring tendencies of individuals; high selfmonitoring individuals react more to situation signs / cues whereas low-monitoring individuals are more likely to react behaviorally regardless of the strength of situational cues.

-6-

Walter Mischel (1973), an American academic and trait and social psychologist and one of the notable founders of the cognitive social theories, identified the role of the motivational type cognitive processes, strong and weak situations, in altering behavior. Schneider (1983, as cited by House and Aditya, 2007) addressed one of the key criticisms of the trait theory, which argue that traits must be stable and envisage behavior over significant periods of time and across varying situations, by positing that traits signify indicative individual characteristics towards particular situations as compared to general or all-encompassing situations and that behavior will likely depend particular situations, environment and individual disposition at a given time. Another noteworthy finding was made by House and Baetz (1979, ibid) who pointed out that when studies of adolescents and children are omitted from Robert Stogdills 1948 review, the resultant data show a consistent set of traits such as intelligence, pro-social assertiveness, self-confidence, energy, and task-relevant knowledge. In his ensuing work in 1974, Stogdill stretched out the list of traits positively associated to leadership to incorporate adaptability to situations, alertness to social environment, ambition and achievement focus, assertiveness, cooperation, decisiveness, dependability, dominance, energy, persistence, self confidence, tolerance of stress and willingness to assume responsibility as key leadership traits. He further concluded that his earlier work understated the universality of certain traits demonstrated by leaders. He also referred to intelligence, conceptual skills, creativity, diplomacy and tactfulness, fluency in speaking, knowledge about group task, organization skills, persuasiveness and social skills as key skills noted in successful leaders (Northouse 2007; House and Aditya, 2007).

-7-

More recently Jago (1982) identified leadership as a property or set of properties possessed in varying degrees by different people ascribed leader traits under the following categories: physical and constitutional factors, personality characteristics, social characteristics, skill and ability. McCall and Lombardo (1983) studied both successful and failed leaders based on interviews held with executives from three US-based industrial organizations and identified four primary traits, including specific attributes, by which leaders could succeed or 'derail':

Problems with Interpersonal Relationships insensitivity to others, being too cold or aloof, and overly ambitious.

Failure to Meet Business Objectives Betrayal of trust and poor performance. Inability to Build and Lead a Team Failing to staff delegate and manage effectively. Inability to Develop or Adapt Inflexibility and inability to think strategically. Lord, DeVader and Aliger (1986), working on the earlier works of Mann in 1959,

conducted a meta-analysis of early studies on leader traits and confirmed the role of followers' embedded leadership theories in elucidating their findings regarding three key traits (intelligence, dominance and masculinity). In the same context, Gardner (1989) proposed a number of leadership attributes that go beyond the situational influences namely: physical volatility and stamina, intelligence and action-oriented judgment, eagerness to accept responsibility, task competence, understanding of followers and their needs, social skills, need for achievement, capacity to motivate people,

-8-

courage and determination, trustworthiness, decisiveness, self-confidence, assertiveness, adaptability/flexibility. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) asserted the explicit distinction between leaders and other people based on work conducted putting forward a six leadership traits the right stuff that distinguish leaders from non-leaders and this include: Drive traits or motives reflecting high effort level that includes achievement motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity and initiative.

Desire to Lead the desire to influence and lead others that also relates to ones need to obtain power to enable one to get things done or attain pre-identified goals or objectives,

Honesty and Integrity pertains to the correspondence between word and deed and the virtue of being truthful.

Self-confidence and Emotional Stability that relates to an individual possessing an even temper, maturity and a high level of control on ones emotions.

Cognitive Ability pertains to an individuals intelligence that will enable him to formulate suitable strategies in varying situations.

Knowledge of the Business that relates to the industry, company and other technical matters and does not necessarily relate to ones level of educational attainment.

Kirkpatrick and Locke also identified other desirable traits of successful leaders such as charisma, creativity and flexibility and further argued that individuals can be born possessing the above traits, subsequently learning them or both.

-9-

The list of traits and skills is by no means indicative as the number of leader traits identified by proponents of the trait theory equals the number of research conducted (Burke and Cooper, 2006). However, a certain level of likeness of traits and characteristics can be identified such as intelligence, pro-activeness, masculinity, etc. Contemporary studies offered fresh perspectives on and brought about the revival of trait theory namely McLellands Achievement Motivation and Leader Motive Profile, Houses Theory of Charismatic Leadership and Kenny and Zaccaros works on leader sensitivity and flexibility. Key Leadership Traits After a centurys worth of research conducted on trait theory of leadership Northouse (2007) summarized the five major leadership traits that individuals might aim to posses or cultivate in order to be perceived by others as leaders and these include: Intelligence that includes strong levels of verbal and perceptual abilities and reasoning which should not deviate too far from that of his or her subordinates. Self-confidence is the ability to be self-assured about ones competencies and skills and includes self-esteem to enable one to influence others and the belief that one can make a difference.

Determination is the desire to get the job done and includes attributes such as persistence, initiative, dominance and drive.

Integrity pertains to the quality of honesty and trustworthiness that enables leaders to inspire confidence and loyalty in others because they can be trusted.

- 10 -

Sociability is the leaders inclination to seek out pleasant social relationships. This also pertains to leaders who display sociability, are friendly, outgoing, courteous, tactful and diplomatic.

Consensus among leadership trait researchers has emerged and gave rise to the establishment of the basic factors, commonly called the Big Five or the five-structure model, that comprise personality (Judge, Bono, Ilies and Gerhardt, 2002; Northouse, 2007). These factors include:

Neuroticism The tendency to display poor emotional adjustment or negative affects such as insecurity, anxiety and hostility and is trait that is negatively related to leader emergence and leader effectiveness.

Extraversion The tendency to be sociable, assertive, active, and to experience positive affects such as energy and zeal. Extraversion is perceived a leader-like quality and is positively related to leader emergence and leader effectiveness, though more strongly to the former.

Openness Refers to the temperament or tendency to be imaginative, non-confronting, unconventional and autonomous. Openness is associate to divergent thinking and is strongly related to personality-based and behavioral measures of creativity. Studies indicate that open individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders and be effective leaders.

Agreeableness The tendency to be trusting, acquiescent, caring and gentle; agreeableness relates negatively to leadership as the relationship between both concepts is ambiguous.

- 11 -

Conscientiousness Pertains to the predisposition to be thorough, organized, controlled, dependable and decisive. This trait yields higher levels of success for the leader as conscientious individuals have more tenacity and persistence, values that are often attributed to effective leaders.

The study by Judge and colleagues found a strong linkage between the Big Five Traits and leadership and that extraversion was the factor most strongly attributed to effective leaders, conscientiousness was the second factor most related to leadership, followed by neuroticism and openness with the former negatively related to leadership. Agreeableness on the other hand, was found to be only weakly associated with leadership. Hundreds of personality characteristics have been acknowledged that are applicable to personality. Some characteristics with noteworthy implications in organizations are: locus of control, self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-monitoring, and positive/negative affect (Nelson and Quick, 2006).

Locus of Control - The extent to which individuals distinguish control over a situation being internal or external is called locus of control. Locus of control relates the range of beliefs that individuals have in terms of being controlled by self (internal locus) or controlled by others or the situation (external locus).

Self-Esteem - An individual's self-worth is referred to as self-esteem. Individuals with high self esteem have positive feelings about themselves. Low self-esteem individuals are intensely affected by what others think of them, and view themselves negatively.

Self-Monitoring - The degree to which people base their behavior on cues from other people and situations is referred to as self-monitoring. Individuals high in self-

- 12 -

monitoring pay attention to what behavior is suitable in certain situations by watching others and behaving accordingly. Low self-monitoring individuals favor that their behavior reflects their attitudes, and are not as flexible in altering their behavior to situational cues.

Positive/Negative Affect - Individuals show attitudes about situations in either a positive or negative fashion. An individual's tendency to draw attention to the positive aspects of situations is referred to as positive affect, while those emphasizing less optimistic views are referred to as having negative affect. Employees with positive affect are absent from work less often. Negative affect individuals show higher percentage of absenteeism and tardiness.

Another way to assess the impact of traits on leadership is through the concept of emotional intelligence which encompasses an individuals affective (emotions) and cognitive (thinking) domains. The Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is the only one of the major tests that measures Emotional Intelligence, including set of mental abilities that include perceiving, facilitating, understanding and managing emotions, in a manner consistent with traditional intelligence testing (Matthews, Roberts, and Zeidner, 2004; Northouse, 2007). Sosik and Megerian (1999), in their study to measure the link between emotional intelligence and effective leaders, looked at the self-awareness aspect of emotional intelligence and leadership and resulted to the empirical support for emotional intelligence being the foundation of other aspects of leadership. The aim of the study was to answer two questions: the first question tried to find "what aspects of [emotional intelligence] distinguish those leaders who are in concurrence with others concerning their transformational leadership traits from those who

- 13 -

are not in agreement". The second question asked "how do non-military leaders who are in conformity with others regarding their transformational leadership qualities differ in terms of performance from those who are not in agreement" (Ibid., p. 368). The study confirmed that leaders who undervalued their leadership were positively linked to social self-confidence while leaders who overvalued their abilities were negatively related to sensitivity. The authors also offered that self-awareness may allow leaders understand the emotional implications of their own feelings and thoughts. Managers who retain correct selfawareness have more attributes of emotional intelligence and appear to be more successful in dealing with their superiors and subordinates. The high public self-consciousness facet of emotional intelligence may be beneficial for managers who are interested in success, although "this does not guarantee high ratings of transformational leadership and effectiveness by ones subordinates" (Ibid., p. 386). Matthews, Roberts, and Zeidner (2004) in their study on Emotional Intelligence (EI), addressed that the range and scope of definitions that currently exist within the literature make inevitable comparisons between the science of EI and the allegory underlying the Tower of Babel. Definitions of EI vary from the capacity to adapt to difficult situations, to the personality characteristics of integrity and character, to a cognitive ability for handing out and effectively using emotional information.

Concept Application

- 14 -

One of the most obvious applications of understanding human traits relates to ones ability to measure these traits for personal awareness and development purposes. Some of the assessment devices, designed and developed based on trait theory include The Thematic Apperception Test, Cattells 16 Personality Factors, and similar tests designed to measure the Big Five. Trait analysis will enable one to identify his strong and weak points as a sort of an indirect barometer to indicate how others perceive them in the organization. This also enables individuals to ascertain whether they have the desirable qualities required for specific job types or roles that will enable them to achieve professional advancement. However, since assessment devices developed comprise mainly of self-report type tests this then lead to potential problems as test takers may not be completely honest in their response to questionnaires thus resulting to inaccurate personality rating. Trait assessment measures also provide direction to individuals as to which traits to develop or enhance, required attributes they lack which they can subsequently develop by making changes, or through experience and training, particularly those aspiring for leadership positions. Many career type assessment or career planning measures look at personality traits and judge against ones individual traits with those who are already doing well in a specific career. Based on ones attributes, assessment is subsequently drawn to determine possible careers or college majors that fit ones personality therefore offering that particular individual greater chance of success, in the event he decides to pursue such course of action (Northouse, 2007; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991). Strengths

- 15 -

The trait theory has several identifiable strengths, first of which is its intuitive appeal as it clearly fits our traditional notions on leaders being special kind of individuals, who can do extraordinary things and who are out front and leading the way in our society. Because the romanticized premise of leadership based on the perception of the distinguishing make up of effective leaders that reside in special traits they possess people have a need to see their leaders as gifted people and the trait approach ticks this requirement. A second strength of the trait theory that can be cited is its reliance on statistical or objective data, unlike many other theories on leadership, the subjectivity or personal experience of the theorists plays no role in trait theory. It is supported by almost a century of research thus giving credence to its breadth and depth. Another strength highlights leadership component in the leadership process. Although this can also be cited as a potential weakness, because of its exclusive focus on the role of the leader his attributes and its causal effect on his efficacy, the trait approach has been able to provide us with a more profound understanding of how a leaders personality relates to the leadership process. The trait approach also provides us with relevant benchmarks against which personal assessment can be made as to whether an individual has what it takes to be an effective leader. Because the trait approach identifies desirable leadership traits, one can endeavor to reinforce individual strengths and minimize, if not eliminate, weaknesses. Lastly, and as previously mentioned trait theory has been used to develop a number of personality assessment devices that provide an easy way to understand the range of information regarding individual's personality, social interaction, and beliefs about the self and the world

- 16 -

around him. Understanding traits allows one to compare different people, to establish which traits allow a person to fare better or equip him with the required faculties to make informed decisions in his studies, in his relationships, or in a specific career path (Northouse, 2007, Mumford et al, 2000). Limitations The first problem with early studies on trait theory is its failure to produce a unified list of key traits or a definite set of characteristics that made a leader - whatever the situation. Proponents of the trait theory also played down the impact of situational variables (including the possible direct association between personality traits to success in different situations, as Stogdill has subsequently suggested in his previous studies) and tended to mix some very different qualities. Stogdill emphasized on the significant role of situational factors on leader emergence and effectiveness and even countered that leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in another situation. Different management theorists offered different and endless sets of attributes, some traits placing less importance to other traits brought about by subjective resolve and interpretation of important leadership traits, in spite of enormous studies conducted on the subject matter. This resulted to the variations in trait taxonomies across different authors. Trait theory is cited as a poor predictor of impending behavior. While we may be able to say, in general that a person falls on the high end or low end of a specific trait, trait theory fails to address a person's state or the temporary way of interacting and dealing with ones self and others. For example, a typically shy person may be quiet, reserved, intellectual, and calm in most situations but may seem outgoing and fun when around close friends. Likewise a normally

- 17 -

gregarious person may act shy, reserved, and drawn when subjected to unfamiliar or unnerving situations. Another limitation is that the concept does not address trait development and also provides little or no guidance in changing negative aspects of ones personality. Despite the significant volume of information gathered on studying the relationship between individual traits, leader emergence and efficacy, literature offers no details on personality development lacks a means to bring about change and thus fails to provide a useful approach for leadership training and development (Northouse, 2007; Gehring, 2007; House and Aditya, 1997; Zaccaro, 2007). Conclusion Trait theory asserts that effective leaders possess that differentiate them from ordinary individuals and that in order to understand leadership makeup and related processes, a study focusing on breaking down behavior patterns into series of observable traits needs to be carried out. These set of traits or characteristics include (to a lesser extent) physical and personality attributes. Significant number of traits has been identified by different management theorists, from Allport, Stogdill, Mann, Kirkpatrick and Locke, etc., over the course of a centurys worth of research on the trait approach which have been lauded, contested, abandoned and subsequently revisited. Those traits include drive, the desire to lead, honesty or integrity, cognitive ability, self-confidence and emotional stability. Other personality models leader attributes were also offered by proponents of the trait approach such as the five-factor model (Big Five), and emotional intelligence. Assessment devices were also developed to enable individuals to assess their leadership traits for personal awareness development. The trait

- 18 -

approach however failed to provide mechanism to provide specific means to change negative aspects of ones personality, given that personal attributes are largely stable and fixed thus not likely amenable to change. It was once thought that certain class of people would naturally possess these traits, due to its ascribed inherent nature, however studies have shown that possession of such traits alone does not warrant individuals to become effective leaders because of the impact of situational factors on leader efficacy and emergence. Leaders who already posses the key traits (or some or as many of them) as identified by the trait approach must also conduct themselves in such a way that encourage people to achieve pre-defined group or organizational goals or outcomes. In closing, personal leadership traits are still needed and play an important role in shaping ones potentials to enable one to assume leadership position, however, this must be combined with a combination of innate abilities, passion, a sense of purpose and the capability to carry out planned strategies. Leaders must also have enough understanding to socially interact or work in teams, possess resilience and tenacity to allow him to steer across different situations and possess the capabilities to mentor his followers in order to be able to steer them towards a desired outcome and to allow his assumed authority (that came along with the position) to spread through to other people.

- 19 -

References Beech, N., Cairns, G., Livingstone, H., Lockyer, C., Tsukas, H., (2001), Managing People in Organizations, Volume 1, University of Strathclyde Graduate School of Business. Bennis, W. (1998) On Becoming a Leader, London: Arrow. Cawthon, David L. (1996), Leadership: The Great Man Theory Revisited, Business Horizons, May/Jun96, Vol. 39 Issue 3, p1, 4p; (AN 9606205861). Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from Business Source Complete database. Cooper, C. L. and Burke, R. J. (2006) Inspiring leaders. Routledge, London. ISBN: 9780415363020. Gardner, J. (1989) On Leadership, New York: Free Press. House, R.J., and Aditya, R. M., (1997), The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?, Journal of Management [0149-2063] House yr:1997 vol:23 pg:409. Retrieved on January 31, 2009 from Business Source Complete database. Jago, A. G., (1982), Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research, Management Science, Vol. 28, No. 3, March 1982, pp. 315-336. Retrieved on January 31, 2009 from Business Source Complete database. Judge, T. A.,Ilies, R., Bono, J. E., and Gerhardt, M. W., (2002), Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review, Journal of Applied Psychology; Aug2002, Vol. 87 Issue 4, p765-780. Retrieved on January 31, 2009 from Business Source Complete database.

- 20 -

Kirkpatrick, S. A., and Locke, E. A., (1991), The Executive; Vol. 5 Issue 2. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global database. Lord, R. G.; De Vader, C..; Alliger, G. M., (1986), A Meta-Analysis of the Relation Between Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An Application of Validity Generalization Procedures, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 Issue 3, p402-410, 9p; (AN 5111639). Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from Business Source Complete database. Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., (2004), Seven Myths About Emotional Intelligence, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p179-196, 18p, 2 charts; (AN 14595131). Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from Business Source Complete database. McCall, M., and Lombardo, M. (1983), Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed, Center for Creative Leadership, Technical Report #21, Greensboro, NC. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a Cognitive Social Learning Reconceptualization of Personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283. Mumford, M. D.; Zaccaro, S. J.; Johnson, J. F.; Diana, M.; Gilbert, J. A.; Threlfall, K. V., (2000), Patterns of Leader Characteristics: Implications for Performance and Development, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p115, 19p, 4 charts; (AN 2987731). Retrieved on January 31, 2009 from Business Source Complete database. Nelson D.L., and Campbell-Quick, J. (2006), Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Realities and Challenges, Thomson South-Western: 5th Edition. Northouse, P.G., (2007), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th Edition, Sage Publications, Inc.

- 21 -

Sosik, J. J., Megerian, L. E., (1999), Understanding Leader Emotional Intelligence and Performance: The Role of Self-Other Agreement on Transformational Leadership Perceptions, Group and Organizational Management; Vol. 24 Issue 3. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global database. Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A survey of the literature, New York: Free Press Williams, C. (2008), Effective Management, Thomson South-Western. Williams, C., (2008), Effective Management, 3rd Edition, Thomson Southwestern. Zaccaro, S. J., Trait-Based Perspectives of Leadership, American Psychologist, Jan2007, Vol. 62 Issue 1, p6-16, 11p, 2 diagrams; DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6; (AN 23745893). Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from Business Source Complete database.