ALED TEST 1

Be able to identify characteristics of and explain emotional intelligence

Emotional Intelligence Another way of assessing the impact of traits on leadership is through the concept of emotional intelligence, which emerged in the 1990s as an important area of study in psychology. It has been widely studied by researchers and has captured the attention of many practitioners (Caruso & Wolfe, 2004; Goleman, 1995, 1998; Mayer & Salovey, 1995, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000; Shankman & Allen, 2015). As the two words suggest, emotional intelligence has to do with our emotions (affective domain) and thinking (cognitive domain) and the interplay between the two. Whereas intelligence is concerned with our ability to learn information and apply it to life tasks, emotional intelligence is concerned with our ability to understand emotions and apply this understanding to life's tasks. Specifically, emotional intelligence can be defined as the ability to perceive and express emotions, to use emotions to facilitate thinking, to understand and reason with emotions, and to effectively manage emotions within oneself and in relationships with others (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). There are different ways to measure emotional intelligence. One scale is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000). The MSCEIT measures emotional intelligence as a set of mental abilities, including the abilities to perceive, facilitate, understand, and manage emotion. In general, the MSCEIT appears to have acceptable content validity and reliability (Boyatzis, 2019); however, a review of research on emotional intelligence found that the emotional intelligence levels in people assessed using this measure seem to be declining over time. Some posit that this may be due to initial studies of emotional intelligence overstating the findings (Gong & Jiao, 2019). Goleman (1995, 1998) takes a broader approach to emotional intelligence, suggesting that it consists of a set of personal and social competencies. Personal competence consists of self-awareness, confidence, self-regulation, conscientiousness, and motivation. Social competence consists of empathy and social skills such as communication and conflict management. Shankman and Allen (2015) developed a practice-oriented model of emotionally intelligent leadership, which suggests that leaders must be conscious of three fundamental facets of leadership: context, self, and others. In the model, emotionally intelligent leaders are defined by 21 capacities to which a leader should pay attention, including group savvy, optimism, initiative, and teamwork. Unlike other traits we've discussed in this chapter, there is evidence that emotional intelligence is not a fixed characteristic; it can be improved through training that focuses on enabling leaders to label their emotions and then regulate them (Ashkanasy, Dasborough, & Ascough, 2009). One experiment compared leaders who received training to those who received no training (a control group). Those in the trained group exhibited improved emotional intelligence competencies and significantly improved outcomes: lower stress, higher morale, and improved civility (Slaski & Cartwright, 2003). Likewise, a meta-analysis of 58 studies of emotional intelligence training that included control groups showed a moderate positive effect for the training (Mattingly & Kraiger, 2019). Goleman and Boyatzis (2017) articulated four broad aspects of emotional intelligence: Self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. They suggest that individuals can improve their emotional intelligence by engaging in a combination of personal reflection and seeking feedback to the following questions: What are the differences between how you see yourself and how others see you? This can help you to understand how your self-perception might differ from your reputation. What matters to you? The areas of your emotional intelligence that you want to improve on should reflect the feedback you've gotten as well as your personal aspirations. What changes will you make to achieve these goals? Identify specific actions to take to improve. Many organizations also see emotional intelligence as a trait that can be changed and have adopted emotional intelligence training as part of their leadership development. For example, FedEx's Global Leadership Institute has an emotional intelligence training program for new managers that challenges these leaders to focus on the following every day at work: Know yourself—increase self-awareness of emotions and reactions Choose yourself—shift from unconscious reactions to intentional responses Give yourself—align moment-to-moment decisions with a larger sense of purpose A key principle of the training is that "emotions drive people, [and] people drive performance." FedEx has tracked the improvements in managers' emotional intelligence and reported an 8% to 11% increase in competencies due to the training—a statistically significant difference (Freedman, 2014). In addition, the U.S. Army developed a brief internet-based training program for enhancing emotional intelligence. Because military personnel serve under dangerous and emotionally stressful conditions, the training was designed to help reduce the development of depression, anxiety, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The training helped service members strengthen their emotional flexibility, adaptability, and coping by improving the ability to understand and control their emotions (Killgore, 2017). There is a debate in the field regarding how big a role emotional intelligence plays in helping people be successful in life. Some researchers, such as Goleman (1995), suggested that emotional intelligence plays a major role in whether people are successful at school, home, and work. Others, such as Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) and Antonakis (2009), made softer claims for the significance of emotional intelligence in meeting life's challenges. A major review of leadership research identifies "emotions in leadership" as a general category but does not specifically mention emotional intelligence (Dinh et al., 2014). It appears that emotional intelligence is not considered mainstream in leadership research. At the same time, Kotsou, Mikolajczak, Heeren, Grégoire, and Leys (2019) determined that the studies that have been done on the efficacy of emotional intelligence training have not included follow-up research to determine the long-term effects of such training. A review of the literature by Ashkanasy and Daus (2002) summarizes what we can safely conclude: Emotional intelligence is distinct from, but positively related to, other intelligences (such as IQ). It is an individual difference; some people have more emotional intelligence than others. Emotional intelligence develops over a person's lifetime and can be improved with training. Finally, it involves abilities to effectively identify and perceive emotion and the skills to understand and manage emotions. In summary, emotional intelligence appears to play a role in the leadership process. The underlying premise suggested by the emotional intelligence framework is that people who are more sensitive to their emotions and the impact of their emotions on others will be leaders who are more effective. As more research is conducted on emotional intelligence, the intricacies of how emotional intelligence relates to leadership will be better understood.

What are the weaknesses of Trait theory?

In addition to its strengths, the trait approach has several weaknesses. First and foremost is the failure of the trait approach to delimit a definitive list of leadership traits. Although an enormous number of studies have been conducted over the past 100 years, the findings from these studies have been ambiguous and uncertain at times. Furthermore, the list of traits that has emerged appears endless. This is obvious from Table 2.1, which lists a multitude of traits. In fact, these are only a sample of the many leadership traits that were studied. Another criticism is that the trait approach has failed to take situations into account. As Stogdill (1948) pointed out more than 70 years ago, it is difficult to isolate a set of traits that are characteristic of leaders without also factoring situational effects into the equation. People who possess certain traits that make them leaders in one situation may not be leaders in another situation. Some people may have the traits that help them emerge as leaders but not the traits that allow them to maintain their leadership over time. In other words, the situation influences leadership. Leader traits also may interact with the situation in that certain traits may predispose a person to assume leadership roles in organizations. For example, leaders with higher openness to experience may thrive in the innovative, energetic environment of a high-technology start-up company, but once that company is established and running on a routine, they may begin to feel stagnant, negatively affecting their performance. Yet, research on traits has not incorporated the situation (Zaccaro et al., 2018), including such factors as the leader-member relationship, team characteristics, or organizational culture that enhance or constrain the influence of traits on performance. A third criticism, derived from the prior two criticisms, is that this approach has resulted in highly subjective determinations of the most important leadership traits. Because the findings on traits have been so extensive and broad, there has been much subjective interpretation of the meaning of the data. This subjectivity is readily apparent in the many self-help, practice-oriented management books. For example, one author might identify ambition and creativity as crucial leadership traits; another might identify empathy and calmness. In both cases, it is the author's subjective experience and observations that are the basis for the identified leadership traits. These books may be helpful to readers because they identify and describe important leadership traits, but the methods used to generate these lists of traits are weak. To respond to people's need for a set of definitive traits of leaders, authors have set forth lists of traits, even if the origins of these lists are not grounded in strong, reliable research. Research on traits can also be criticized for failing to look at traits in relationship to leadership outcomes. This research has emphasized the identification of traits but has not addressed how leadership traits affect group members and their work. In trying to ascertain universal leadership traits, researchers have focused on the link between specific traits and leader emergence, but they have not tried to link leader traits with other outcomes such as productivity or employee satisfaction. For example, trait research does not provide data on whether leaders who have high intelligence and strong integrity have better results than leaders without these traits. The trait approach is weak in describing how leaders' traits affect the outcomes of groups and teams in organizational settings. A final criticism of the trait approach is that, other than for emotional intelligence, its usefulness for leadership training and development is limited. Even if definitive traits could be identified, teaching leaders to improve these traits is not an easy process because traits are not easily changed. For example, it is not reasonable to send managers to a training program to raise their IQ or to train them to become extraverted. While there is some evidence that the trait of emotional intelligence may be improved with training, it is unclear whether these effects are long lasting. The point is that traits are largely fixed psychological structures, and this limits the value of teaching and leadership training.

What is the definition of power we use in leadership education?

The concept of power is related to leadership because it is part of the influence process. Power is the capacity or potential to influence. People have power when they have the ability to affect others' beliefs, attitudes, and courses of action. Judges, doctors, coaches, and teachers are all examples of people who have the potential to influence us. When they do, they are using their power, the resource they draw on to effect change in us. Although there are no explicit theories in the research literature about power and leadership, power is a concept that people often associate with leadership. It is common for people to view leaders (both good and bad) and people in positions of leadership as individuals who wield power over others, and as a result, power is often thought of as synonymous with leadership. In addition, people are often intrigued by how leaders use their power. Understanding how power is used in leadership is instrumental as well in understanding the dark side of leadership, where leaders use their leadership to achieve their own personal ends and lead in toxic and destructive ways (Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013). Studying how famous leaders, such as Adolf Hitler or Alexander the Great, use power to effect change in others is titillating to many people because it underscores that power can indeed effectuate change and maybe if they had power they too could effectuate change. In her 2012 book The End of Leadership, Kellerman argues there has been a shift in leadership power during the last 40 years. Power used to be the domain of leaders, but that is diminishing and shifting to followers. Changes in culture have meant followers demand more from leaders, and leaders have responded. Access to technology has empowered followers, given them access to huge amounts of information, and made leaders more transparent. The result is a decline in respect for leaders and leaders' legitimate power. In effect, followers have used information power to level the playing field. Power is no longer synonymous with leadership, and in the social contract between leaders and followers, leaders wield less power, according to Kellerman. For example, Posner (2015) examined volunteer leaders, such as those who sit on boards for nonprofit organizations, and found that while these individuals did not have positional authority in the organization, they were able to influence leadership. Volunteer leaders engaged more frequently in leadership behaviors than did paid leaders. In college courses today, the most widely cited research on power is French and Raven's (1959) work on the bases of social power. In their work, they conceptualized power from the framework of a dyadic relationship that included both the person influencing and the person being influenced. French and Raven identified five common and important bases of power—referent, expert, legitimate, reward, and coercive—and Raven (1965) identified a sixth, information power (Table 1.1). Each of these bases of power increases a leader's capacity to influence the attitudes, values, or behaviors of others. Table 1.1 Six Bases of Power Referent Power Based on followers' identification and liking for the leader. A teacher who is adored by students has referent power. Expert Power Based on followers' perceptions of the leader's competence. A tour guide who is knowledgeable about a foreign country has expert power. Legitimate Power Associated with having status or formal job authority. A judge who administers sentences in the courtroom exhibits legitimate power. Reward Power Derived from having the capacity to provide rewards to others. A supervisor who compliments employees who work hard is using reward power. Coercive Power Derived from having the capacity to penalize or punish others. A coach who sits players on the bench for being late to practice is using coercive power. Information Power Derived from possessing knowledge that others want or need. A boss who has information regarding new criteria to decide employee promotion eligibility has information power. Sources: Adapted from "The Bases of Social Power," by J. R. French Jr. and B. Raven, 1962, in D. Cartwright (Ed.), Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (pp. 259-269), New York, NY: Harper & Row; and "Social Influence and Power," by B. H. Raven, 1965, in I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current Studies in Social Psychology (pp. 371-382), New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. In organizations, there are two major kinds of power: position power and personal power. Position power, which includes legitimate, reward, coercive, and information power (Table 1.2), is the power a person derives from a particular office or rank in a formal organizational system. It is the influence capacity a leader derives from having higher status than the followers have. Position power allows leaders to attain central roles in organizations; for example, vice presidents and department heads have more power than staff personnel do because of the positions they hold in the organization. In addition, leaders' informal networks bring them greater social power, which separates leaders from nonleaders (Chiu, Balkundi, & Weinberg, 2017). Table 1.2 Types and Bases of Power Position Power Personal Power Legitimate Referent Reward Expert Coercive Information Source: Adapted from A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management (pp. 3-8), by J. P. Kotter, 1990, New York, NY: Free Press. Personal power is the influence capacity a leader derives from being seen by followers as likable and knowledgeable. When leaders act in ways that are important to followers, it gives leaders power. For example, some managers have power because their followers consider them to be good role models. Others have power because their followers view them as highly competent or considerate. In both cases, these managers' power is ascribed to them by others, based on how they are seen in their relationships with others. Personal power includes referent and expert power (Table 1.2). In discussions of leadership, it is not unusual for leaders to be described as wielders of power, as individuals who dominate others. In these instances, power is conceptualized as a tool that leaders use to achieve their own ends. Contrary to this view of power, Burns (1978) emphasized power from a relationship standpoint. For Burns, power is not an entity that leaders use over others to achieve their own ends; instead, power occurs in relationships. It should be used by leaders and followers to promote their collective goals. In this text, our discussions of leadership treat power as a relational concern for both leaders and followers. We pay attention to how leaders work with followers to reach common goals.

Be able to identify, explain, and apply the individual attributes listed

Beginning in the early 1990s, a group of researchers, with funding from the U.S. Army and Department of Defense, set out to test and develop a comprehensive theory of leadership based on problem-solving skills in organizations. The studies were conducted over a number of years using a sample of more than 1,800 Army officers, representing six grade levels, from second lieutenant to colonel. The project used a variety of new measures and tools to assess the skills of these officers, their experiences, and the situations in which they worked. The researchers' main goal was to explain the underlying elements of effective performance. They addressed questions such as these: What accounts for why some leaders are good problem solvers and others are not? What specific skills do high-performing leaders exhibit? How do leaders' individual characteristics, career experiences, and environmental influences affect their job performance? As a whole, researchers wanted to identify the leadership factors that create exemplary job performance in an actual organization. Based on the extensive findings from the project, M. Mumford and colleagues formulated a skill-based model of leadership (Figure 3.2). The model is characterized as a capability model because it examines the relationship between a leader's knowledge and skills (i.e., capabilities) and the leader's performance (M. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, et al., 2000, p. 12). Leadership capabilities can be developed over time through education and experience. Unlike the "great man" approach (discussed in Chapter 2 of this text), which implies that leadership is reserved for only the gifted few, the skills approach suggests that many people have the potential for leadership. If people are capable of learning from their experiences, they can acquire leadership skills. The skills approach can also be distinguished from the leadership approaches, discussed in subsequent chapters, that focus on behavioral patterns of leaders (e.g., the style approach, leader-member exchange theory, and transformational leadership). Rather than emphasizing what leaders do, the skills approach frames leadership as the capabilities (knowledge and skills) that make effective leadership possible (M. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, et al., 2000, p. 12). Description Figure 3.2 Influence of Leader Characteristics on Leader Performance Source: Adapted from "Leadership Skills for a Changing World: Solving Complex Social Problems," by M. D. Mumford, S. J. Zaccaro, F. D. Harding, T. O. Jacobs, and E. A. Fleishman, The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), p. 23. Copyright 2000 by Elsevier. The skill-based model of M. Mumford's group has five components: competencies, individual attributes, career experiences, environmental influences, and leadership outcomes (performance and problem solving) (Figure 3.2). Individual Attributes The leftmost box in Figure 3.2 identifies four individual attributes that have an impact on leadership skills and knowledge: general cognitive ability, crystallized cognitive ability, motivation, and personality. These attributes play important roles in the skills model. Complex problem solving is a very difficult process and becomes more difficult as people move up in an organization. These attributes support people as they apply their leadership competencies. General Cognitive Ability. General cognitive ability can be thought of as a person's intelligence. It includes perceptual processing, information processing, general reasoning skills, creative and divergent thinking capacities, and memory skills. General cognitive ability is linked to biology, not to experience. General cognitive ability is sometimes described as fluid intelligence, a type of intelligence that usually grows and expands up through early adulthood and then declines with age. In the skills model, intelligence is described as having a positive impact on the leader's acquisition of complex problem-solving skills and the leader's knowledge. Crystallized Cognitive Ability. Crystallized cognitive ability is intellectual ability that is learned or acquired over time. It is the store of knowledge we acquire through experience. We learn and increase our capacities over a lifetime, increasing our leadership potential (e.g., problem-solving skills, conceptual ability, and social judgment skills). In normally functioning adults, this type of cognitive ability grows continuously and typically does not fall off in adulthood. It includes being able to comprehend complex information and learn new skills and information, as well as being able to communicate to others in oral and written forms (Connelly et al., 2000, p. 71). Stated another way, crystallized cognitive ability is acquired intelligence: the ideas and mental abilities people learn through experience. Because it stays fairly stable over time, this type of intelligence is not diminished as people get older (Rose & Gordon, 2015). Motivation. Motivation is listed as the third attribute in the model. While Kerns (2015) identified three categories of motivations (self-interest, career considerations, and higher purposes) that propel leaders, the skills model takes a different approach, instead suggesting there are three aspects of motivation—willingness, dominance, and social good—that are essential to developing leadership skills (M. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, et al., 2000, p. 22). First, leaders must be willing to tackle complex organizational problems. This first step is critical. For leadership to occur, a person must want to lead. Second, leaders must be willing to express dominance—to exert their influence, as we discussed in Chapter 2. In influencing others, the leader must take on the responsibility of dominance because the influence component of leadership is inextricably bound to dominance. Third, leaders must be committed to the social good of the organization. Social good is a broad term that can refer to a host of outcomes. However, in the skills model it refers to the leader's willingness to take on the responsibility of trying to advance the overall human good and value of the organization. Taken together, these three aspects of motivation (willingness, dominance, and social good) prepare people to become leaders. Personality. Personality is the fourth individual attribute in the skills model. Placed where it is in the model, this attribute reminds us that our personality has an impact on the development of our leadership skills. For example, openness, tolerance for ambiguity, and curiosity may affect a leader's motivation to try to solve some organizational problems. Or, in conflict situations, traits such as confidence and adaptability may be beneficial to a leader's performance. The skills model hypothesizes that any personality characteristic that helps people to cope with complex organizational situations probably is related to leader performance (M. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, et al., 2000). Competencies As can be observed in Figure 3.2, problem-solving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge are at the heart of the skills model. These three competencies are the key factors that account for effective performance (M. Mumford et al., 2012). Problem-Solving Skills. What are problem-solving skills? According to M. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, and colleagues (2000), problem-solving skills are a leader's creative ability to solve new and unusual, ill-defined organizational problems. The skills include being able to define significant problems, gather problem information, formulate new understandings about the problem, and generate prototype plans for problem solutions. M. Mumford, Todd, Higgs, and McIntosh (2017, p. 28) identified nine key problem-solving skills leaders employ to address problems: Problem definition, the ability to define noteworthy issues or significant problems affecting the organization Cause/goal analysis, the ability to analyze the causes and goals relevant to addressing problems Constraint analysis, the ability to identify the constraints, or limiting factors, influencing any problem solution Planning, the ability to formulate plans, mental simulations, and actions arising from cause/goal and constraint analysis Forecasting, the ability to anticipate the implications of executing the plans Creative thinking, the ability to develop alternative approaches and new ideas for addressing potential pitfalls of a plan identified in forecasting Idea evaluation, the ability to evaluate these alternative approaches' viability in executing the plan Wisdom, the ability to evaluate the appropriateness of these alternative approaches within the context, or setting, in which the leader acts Sensemaking/visioning, the ability to articulate a vision that will help followers understand, make sense of, and act on the problem.

Be able to identify and explain the influence of CAREER & environmental influences

Career Experiences. The skills model suggests that the career experiences (represented in Figure 3.2 as the topmost box) acquired in the course of leaders' careers influence their development of knowledge and skills for solving complex problems. M. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, and colleagues (2000, p. 24) pointed out that leaders can be helped through challenging job assignments, mentoring, appropriate training, and hands-on experience in solving new and unusual problems. In addition, the authors think that career experiences can positively affect the individual attributes of leaders. For example, certain on-the-job assignments could enhance a leader's motivation or intellectual ability. In the first section of this chapter, we discussed Katz's (1955) work, which notes that conceptual skills are essential for upper-level administrators. This is consistent with M. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, and colleagues' (2000) skills model, which contends that leaders develop competencies over time. Career experiences help leaders to improve their skills and knowledge over time. Leaders learn and develop higher levels of conceptual capacity if, as they ascend the organizational hierarchy, the kinds of problems they confront are progressively more complex and longer term (M. Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly, et al., 2000). Similarly, upper-level leaders, as opposed to first-line supervisors, develop new competencies because they are required to address problems that are more novel, are more poorly defined, and demand more human interaction. As these people move through their careers, higher levels of problem-solving and social judgment skills become increasingly important (M. Mumford & Connelly, 1991). So the skills and knowledge of leaders are shaped by their career experiences as they address increasingly complex problems in the organization. This notion of developing leadership skills is unique and quite different from other leadership perspectives. If we say, "Leaders are shaped by their experiences," then it means leaders are not born to be leaders (M. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, et al., 2000). Leaders can develop their abilities through experience, according to the skills model. Environmental Influences. Another important component of the skills model is environmental influences, which is illustrated at the bottom of Figure 3.2. Environmental influences represent factors that lie outside the leader's competencies, characteristics, and experiences. These environmental influences can be internal and external. Internal environmental influences include such factors as technology, facilities, expertise of followers, and communication. For example, an aging factory lacking in high-speed technology could have a major impact on the nature of problem-solving activities. Another example might be the skill levels of followers: If a leader's followers are highly competent, they will definitely improve the group's problem solving and performance. Similarly, if a task is particularly complex or a group's communication poor, the leader's performance will be affected. External environmental influences, including economic, political, and social issues, as well as natural disasters, can provide unique challenges to leaders. How U.S. public schools responded to the COVID-19 pandemic is a good recent example of this. As stay-at-home restrictions were enacted, most public schools closed months before the school year would have ended. A majority of these schools were unprepared to switch to online learning. Many districts faced an additional barrier in delivery of online learning due to access: 17% of U.S. students did not have computers in the home, and 18% of students lacked access to high-speed internet (Melia, Amy, & Fenn, 2019). School leaders across the country scrambled to come up with solutions, including working with local governments and nonprofits to find ways to establish internet hotspots in neighborhoods and to secure and distribute devices to students so they could access online learning. In addition, because most teachers had never actually engaged in online teaching, they were untrained and struggled and underperformed. Others, however, found that having to teach online serendipitously improved their teaching performance. School leaders nationwide had to respond to the very unique challenges posed by an external force completely beyond their control and did so with varying degrees of success. The skills model does not provide an inventory of specific environmental influences. Instead, it acknowledges the existence of these factors and recognizes that they are indeed influences that can affect a leader's performance, but not usually under the control of the leader.

What is the fundamental question about a leader answered by Trait theory?

Despite its shortcomings, the trait approach provides valuable information about leadership. It can be applied by individuals at all levels and in all types of organizations. Although the trait approach does not provide a definitive set of traits, it does provide direction regarding which traits are good to have if one aspires to a leadership position. By taking trait assessments and other similar questionnaires, people can gain insight into whether they have certain traits deemed important for leadership, and they can pinpoint their strengths and weaknesses with regard to leadership. As we discussed previously, managers can use information from the trait approach to assess where they stand in their organization and what they need to do to strengthen their position. Trait information can suggest areas in which their personal characteristics are very beneficial to the company and areas in which they may want to get more training to enhance their overall approach. Using trait information, managers can develop a deeper understanding of who they are and how they will affect others in the organization.

How does Northouse define leadership?

It is much like the words democracy, love, and peace. Although each of us intuitively knows what we mean by such words, the words can have different meanings for different people. Leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in groups, and (d) leadership involves common goals. Based on these components, the following definition of leadership is used in this text: Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.Defining leadership as a process means that it is not a trait or characteristic that resides in the leader, but rather a transactional event that occurs between the leader and the followers. Process implies that a leader affects and is affected by followers. It emphasizes that leadership is not a linear, one-way event, but rather an interactive event. When leadership is defined in this manner, it becomes available to everyone. It is not restricted to the formally designated leader in a group. Leadership involves influence. Influence is the sine qua non of leadership. Without influence, leadership does not exist. Leadership occurs in groups. Groups are the context in which leadership takes place. Leadership involves influencing a group of individuals who have a common purpose. This can be a small task group, a community group, or a large group encompassing an entire organization. Leadership is about one individual influencing a group of others to accomplish common goals. Others (a group) are required for leadership to occur. Leadership training programs that teach people to lead themselves are not considered a part of leadership within the definition that is set forth in this discussion. Leadership includes attention to common goals. Leaders direct their energies toward individuals who are trying to achieve something together. By common, we mean that the leaders and followers have a mutual purpose. Attention to common goals gives leadership an ethical overtone because it stresses the need for leaders to work with followers to achieve selected goals. Stressing mutuality lessens the possibility that leaders might act toward followers in ways that are forced or unethical. It also increases the possibility that leaders and followers will work together toward a common good (Rost, 1991).

Be able to identify and apply the "Great Man Theory" of leadership

Of interest to scholars throughout the 20th century, the trait approach was one of the first systematic attempts to study leadership. In the early 20th century, leadership traits were studied to determine what made certain people great leaders. The theories that were developed were called "great man" theories because they focused on identifying the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders (e.g., Catherine the Great, Mohandas Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Joan of Arc, and Napoleon Bonaparte). It was believed that people were born with these traits, and that only the "great" people possessed them. During this time, research concentrated on determining the specific traits that clearly differentiated leaders from followers (Bass, 2008; Jago, 1982). In the mid-20th century, the trait approach was challenged by research that questioned the universality of leadership traits. In a major review, Stogdill (1948) suggested that no consistent set of traits differentiated leaders from nonleaders across a variety of situations. An individual with leadership traits who was a leader in one situation might not be a leader in another situation. Rather than being a quality that individuals possess, leadership was reconceptualized as a relationship between people in a social situation. Personal factors related to leadership continued to be important, but researchers contended that these factors were to be considered as relative to the requirements of the situation. The trait approach has generated much interest among researchers for its explanation of how traits influence leadership (Bryman, 1992). For example, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) went so far as to claim that effective leaders are actually distinct types of people. Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) found that traits were strongly associated with individuals' perceptions of leadership. More recently, Dinh and Lord (2012) examined the relationship between leadership effectiveness and followers' perception of leadership traits. The trait approach has earned new interest through the current emphasis given by many researchers to visionary and charismatic leadership (see Bass, 2008; Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015; Nadler & Tushman, 2012; Zaccaro, 2007; Zaleznik, 1977). Charismatic leadership catapulted to the forefront of public attention with the 2008 election of the United States' first African American president, Barack Obama, who is perceived by many to be charismatic, among many other attributes. In a study to determine what distinguishes charismatic leaders from others, Jung and Sosik (2006) found that charismatic leaders consistently possess traits of self-monitoring, engagement in impression management, motivation to attain social power, and motivation to attain self-actualization. In short, the trait approach is alive and well. It began with an emphasis on identifying the qualities of great persons, shifted to include the impact of situations on leadership, and, currently, has shifted back to reemphasize the critical role of traits in effective leadership. When discussing the trait approach, it is important to define what is meant by traits. Traits refer to a set of distinctive characteristics, qualities, or attributes that describe a person. They are inherent and relatively unchanging over time. Taken together, traits are the internal factors that comprise our personality and make us unique. Because traits are derived from our personality and are fundamentally fixed, this chapter will not emphasize how people can use this approach to develop or change their leadership. Instead, the focus of the chapter will be on identifying leaders' traits and overall role of traits in leadership. While research on traits spanned the entire 20th century, a good overview of the approach is found in two surveys completed by Stogdill (1948, 1974). In his first survey, Stogdill analyzed and synthesized more than 124 trait studies conducted between 1904 and 1947. In his second study, he analyzed another 163 studies completed between 1948 and 1970. By taking a closer look at each of these reviews, we can obtain a clearer picture of how individuals' traits contribute to the leadership process. Stogdill's first survey identified a group of important leadership traits that were related to how individuals in various groups became leaders. His results showed that an average individual in a leadership role is different from an average group member with regard to the following eight traits: intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-confidence, and sociability. The findings of Stogdill's first survey also indicated that an individual does not become a leader solely because that individual possesses certain traits. Rather, the traits that leaders possess must be relevant to situations in which the leader is functioning. As stated earlier, leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in another situation. Findings showed that leadership was not a passive state but resulted from a working relationship between the leader and other group members. This research marked the beginning of a new approach to leadership research that focused on leadership behaviors and leadership situations. Stogdill's second survey, published in 1974, analyzed 163 new studies and compared the findings of these studies to the findings he had reported in his first survey. The second survey was more balanced in its description of the role of traits and leadership. Whereas the first survey implied that leadership is determined principally by situational factors and not traits, the second survey argued more moderately that both traits and situational factors were determinants of leadership. In essence, the second survey validated the original trait idea that a leader's characteristics are indeed a part of leadership. Similar to the first survey, Stogdill's second survey identified traits that were positively associated with leadership. The list included the following 10 characteristics: Drive for responsibility and task completion Vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals Risk-taking and originality in problem solving Drive to exercise initiative in social situations Self-confidence and sense of personal identity Willingness to accept consequences of decision and action Readiness to absorb interpersonal stress Willingness to tolerate frustration and delay Ability to influence other people's behavior Capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand Mann (1959) conducted a similar study that examined more than 1,400 findings regarding traits and leadership in small groups, but he placed less emphasis on how situational factors influenced leadership. Although tentative in his conclusions, Mann suggested that certain traits could be used to distinguish leaders from nonleaders. His results identified leaders as strong in the following six traits: intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance, extraversion, and conservatism. Lord et al. (1986) reassessed Mann's (1959) findings using a more sophisticated procedure called meta-analysis and found that intelligence, masculinity, and dominance were significantly related to how individuals perceived leaders. From their findings, the authors argued strongly that traits could be used to make discriminations consistently across situations between leaders and nonleaders. Both of these studies were conducted during periods in American history where male leadership was prevalent in most aspects of business and society. In Chapter 15, we explore more contemporary research regarding the role of gender in leadership, and we look at whether traits such as masculinity and dominance still bear out as important factors in distinguishing between leaders and nonleaders. Yet another review argued for the importance of leadership traits: Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991, p. 59) contended that "it is unequivocally clear that leaders are not like other people." From a qualitative synthesis of earlier research, Kirkpatrick and Locke postulated that leaders differ from nonleaders on six traits: drive, motivation, integrity, confidence, cognitive ability, and task knowledge. According to these writers, individuals can be born with these traits, they can learn them, or both. It is these six traits that make up the "right stuff" for leaders. Kirkpatrick and Locke asserted that leadership traits make some people different from others, and this difference should be recognized as an important part of the leadership process. In the 1990s, researchers began to investigate the leadership traits associated with "social intelligence," which is characterized as the ability to understand one's own and others' feelings, behaviors, and thoughts and act appropriately (Marlowe, 1986). Zaccaro (2002) defined social intelligence as having such capacities as social awareness, social acumen, self-monitoring, and the ability to select and enact the best response given the contingencies of the situation and social environment. A number of empirical studies showed these capacities to be a key trait for effective leaders. Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2017) included such social abilities in the categories of leadership traits they outlined as important leadership attributes (Table 2.1).

Be able to identify, explain, and apply the 5 factors of the Big 5 Personality Model

Over the past 25 years, a consensus has emerged among researchers regarding the basic factors that make up what we call personality (Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987). These factors, commonly called the Big Five, are neuroticism, extraversion (surgency), openness (intellect), agreeableness, and conscientiousness (dependability) (Table 2.3). Neuroticism The tendency to be depressed, anxious, insecure, vulnerable, and hostile Extraversion The tendency to be sociable and assertive and to have positive energy Openness The tendency to be informed, creative, insightful, and curious Agreeableness The tendency to be accepting, conforming, trusting, and nurturing Conscientiousness The tendency to be thorough, organized, controlled, dependable, and decisive

Know the differences between assigned and emergent leadership

Some people are leaders because of their formal position in an organization, whereas others are leaders because of the way other group members respond to them. These two common forms of leadership are called assigned leadership and emergent leadership. Leadership that is based on occupying a position in an organization is assigned leadership.leadership. Team leaders, plant managers, department heads, directors, and administrators are all examples of assigned leaders. Yet the person assigned to a leadership position does not always become the real leader in a particular setting. When others perceive an individual as the most influential member of a group or an organization, regardless of the individual's title, the person is exhibiting emergent leadership. The individual acquires emergent leadership through other people in the organization who support and accept that individual's behavior. This type of leadership is not assigned by position; rather, it emerges over a period through communication. Some of the positive communication behaviors that account for successful leader emergence include being verbally involved, being informed, seeking others' opinions, initiating new ideas, and being firm but not rigid (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Researchers have found that, in addition to communication behaviors, personality plays a role in leadership emergence. For example, Smith and Foti (1998) found that certain personality traits were related to leadershipemergence in a sample of 160 male college students. The individuals who were more dominant, more intelligent, and more confident about their own performance (general self-efficacy) were more likely to be identified as leaders by other members of their task group. Although it is uncertain whether these findings apply to women as well, Smith and Foti suggested that these three traits could be used to identify individuals perceived to be emergent leaders. Leadership emergence may also be affected by gender-biased perceptions. In a study of 40 mixed-sex college groups, Watson and Hoffman (2004) found that women who were urged to persuade their task groups to adopt high-quality decisions succeeded with the same frequency as men with identical instructions. Although women were equally influential leaders in their groups, they were rated significantly lower than comparable men were on leadership. Furthermore, these influential women were also rated as significantly less likable than comparably influential men were. Another study found that men who spoke up to promote new ideasin teams were granted higher status compared to women who did so (McClean, Martin, Emich, & Woodruff, 2018). These results suggest that there continue to be barriers to women's emergence as leaders in some settings. A unique perspective on leadership emergence is provided by social identity theory (Hogg, 2001). From this perspective, leadership emergence is the degree to which a person fits with the identity of the group as a whole. As groups develop over time, a group prototype also develops. Individuals emerge as leaders in the group when they become most like the group prototype. Being similar to the prototype makes leaders attractive to the group and gives them influence with the group. The leadership approaches we discuss in the subsequent chapters of this book apply equally to assigned leadership and emergent leadership. When a person is engaged in leadership, that person is a leader, whether leadership was assigned or emerged. This book focuses on the leadership process that occurs when any individual is engaged in influencing other group members in their efforts to reach a common goal.

o Which factor is most strongly associated with leadership

Specifically, in their study, extraversion was the factor most strongly associated with leadership. It is the most important trait of effective leaders. Extraversion was followed, in order, by conscientiousness, openness, and low neuroticism.

Be able to explain significance of Table 2.1 from your book

Table 2.1 provides a summary of the traits and characteristics that were identified by researchers from the trait approach. It illustrates clearly the breadth of traits related to leadership. Table 2.1 also shows how difficult it is to select certain traits as definitive leadership traits; some of the traits appear in several of the survey studies, whereas others appear in only one or two studies. Regardless of the lack of precision in Table 2.1, however, it represents a general convergence of research regarding which traits are leadership traits. Be able to identify, explain, and apply the 5 trait categories Northouse discusses, which influence leadership effectiveness Intelligence Intelligence or intellectual ability is positively related to leadership (Sternberg, 2004). Based on their analysis of a series of recent studies on intelligence and various indices of leadership, Zaccaro et al. (2017) found support for the finding that leaders tend to have higher intelligence than nonleaders. Having strong verbal, perceptual, and reasoning abilities appears to make one a better leader (Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015). Although it is good to be bright, if the leader's IQ is very different from that of the followers, it can have a counterproductive impact on leadership. Leaders with higher abilities may have difficulty communicating with followers because they are preoccupied or because their ideas are too advanced for their followers to accept. In a study of the relationship between intelligence and perceived leadership in midlevel leaders from multinational companies, Antonakis, House, and Simonton (2017) found that the optimal IQ for perceived leadership appeared to be just over one standard deviation above the mean IQ of the group membership. Their study found a curvilinear relationship between IQ and perceived leadership—that is, as IQ increased, so did perceived leadership to a point, and then the IQ had a negative impact on leadership. Stated another way, it is good for leaders to be intelligent, but if their intelligence scores become too high, the benefits appear to taper off and can become negative. An example of a leader for whom intelligence was a key trait was Steve Jobs, founder and CEO of Apple, who died in 2011. Jobs once said, "I have this really incredible product inside me and I have to get it out" (Sculley, 2011, p. 27). Those visionary products, first the Apple II and Macintosh computers and then the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, revolutionized the personal computer and electronic device industry, changing the way people play and work. In the next chapter of this text, which addresses leadership from a skills perspective, intelligence is identified as a trait that significantly contributes to a leader's acquisition of complex problem-solving skills and social judgment skills. Intelligence is described as having a positive impact on an individual's capacity for effective leadership. Self-Confidence Self-confidence is another trait that helps one to be a leader. Self-confidence is the ability to be certain about one's competencies and skills. It includes a sense of self-esteem and self-assurance and the belief that one can make a difference. Leadership involves influencing others, and self-confidence allows leaders to feel assured that their attempts to influence others are appropriate and right. Again, Steve Jobs is a good example of a self-confident leader. When Jobs described the devices he wanted to create, many people said they weren't possible. But Jobs never doubted his products would change the world, and despite resistance, he did things the way he thought best. "Jobs was one of those CEOs who ran the company like he wanted to. He believed he knew more about it than anyone else, and he probably did," said a colleague (Stone, 2011, p. 40). Determination Many leaders also exhibit determination. Determination is the desire to get the job done and includes characteristics such as initiative, persistence, dominance, and drive. People with determination are willing to assert themselves, are proactive, and have the capacity to persevere in the face of obstacles. Being determined includes showing dominance at times and in situations where followers need to be directed. Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly (2007) expanded the concept of determination and conducted research on "grit," which measures the degree of perseverance toward goal attainment. Leaders with grit recover quickly from setbacks, not letting obstacles impede their success (Duckworth et al., 2007). Dr. Paul Farmer has shown determination in his efforts to secure health care and eradicate tuberculosis for the very poor of Haiti and other third world countries. He began his efforts as a recent college graduate, traveling and working in Cange, Haiti. While there, he was accepted to Harvard Medical School. Knowing that his work in Haiti was invaluable to his training, he managed to do both: spending months traveling back and forth between Haiti and Cambridge, Massachusetts, for school. His first effort in Cange was to establish a one-room clinic where he treated "all comers" and trained local health care workers. Farmer found that there was more to providing health care than just dispensing medicine: He secured donations to build schools, houses, and communal sanitation and water facilities in the region. He spearheaded vaccinations of all the children in the area, dramatically reducing malnutrition and infant mortality. To keep working in Haiti, he returned to America and founded Partners In Health, a charitable foundation that raises money to fund these efforts. Since its founding, PIH not only has succeeded in improving the health of many communities in Haiti but now has projects in Haiti, Lesotho, Malawi, Peru, Russia, Rwanda, and the United States, and supports other projects in Mexico and Guatemala (Kidder, 2004; Partners In Health, 2017; see also Case 10.1, page 272). Integrity Integrity, another of the important leadership traits, is the quality of honesty and trustworthiness. People who adhere to a strong set of principles and take responsibility for their actions are exhibiting integrity. Leaders with integrity inspire confidence in others because they can be trusted to do what they say they are going to do. They are loyal, dependable, and not deceptive. Basically, integrity makes a leader believable and worthy of our trust. In our society, integrity has received a great deal of attention in recent years. For example, as a result of two situations—the position taken by President George W. Bush regarding Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and the impeachment proceedings during the Bill Clinton presidency—people are demanding more honesty of their public officials. Similarly, scandals in the corporate world (e.g., Enron and WorldCom) have led people to become skeptical of leaders who are not highly ethical. In the educational arena, new K-12 curricula are being developed to teach character, values, and ethical leadership. (For instance, see the Character Counts! program developed by the Josephson Institute of Ethics in California at www.charactercounts.org, and the Pillars of Leadership program taught at the J. W. Fanning Institute for Leadership Development in Georgia at www.fanning.uga.edu.) In short, society is demanding greater integrity of character in its leaders. Sociability A final trait that is important for leaders is sociability. Sociability is a leader's inclination to seek out pleasant social relationships. Leaders who show sociability are friendly, outgoing, courteous, tactful, and diplomatic. They are sensitive to others' needs and show concern for others' well-being. Social leaders have good interpersonal skills and create cooperative relationships with their followers. An example of a leader with great sociability skills is Michael Hughes, a university president. Hughes prefers to walk to all his meetings because it gets him out on campus where he greets students, staff, and faculty. He has lunch in the dorm cafeterias or student union and will often ask a table of strangers if he can sit with them. Students rate him as very approachable, while faculty say he has an open-door policy. In addition, he takes time to write personal notes to faculty, staff, and students to congratulate them on their successes. Although our discussion of leadership traits has focused on five major traits (i.e., intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability), this list is not all-inclusive. While other traits indicated in Table 2.1 are associated with effective leadership, the five traits we have identified contribute substantially to one's capacity to be a leader. Until recently, most reviews of leadership traits have been qualitative. In addition, they have lacked a common organizing framework. However, the research described in the following section provides a quantitative assessment of leadership traits that is conceptually framed around the five-factor model of personality. It describes how five major personality traits are related to leadership.

o Which factor is least strongly associated with leadership

The last factor, agreeableness, was found to be only weakly associated with leadership.

Trait vs process

The trait approach has its roots in leadership theory that suggested that certain people were born with special traits that made them great leaders. Description Of interest to scholars throughout the 20th century, the trait approach was one of the first systematic attempts to study leadership. In the early 20th century, leadership traits were studied to determine what made certain people great leaders. What, then, can be said about trait research? What has a century of research on the trait approach given us that is useful? We have all heard statements such as "He is born to be a leader" or "She is a natural leader." These statements are commonly expressed by people who take a trait perspective toward leadership. The trait perspective suggests that certain individuals have special innate or inborn characteristics or qualities that make them leaders, and that it is these qualities that differentiate them from nonleaders. Some of the personal qualities used to identify leaders include unique physical factors (e.g., height), personality features (e.g., extraversion), and other characteristics (e.g., intelligence and fluency; Bryman, 1992). In Chapter 2, we will discuss a large body of research that has examined these personal qualities. To describe leadership as a trait is quite different from describing it as a process (Figure 1.1). The trait viewpoint conceptualizes leadership as a property or set of properties possessed in varying degrees by different people (Jago, 1982). This suggests that it resides in select people and restricts leadership to those who are believed to have special, usually inborn, talents. Description Figure 1.1 The Different Views of Leadership Source: Adapted from A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management (pp. 3-8), by J. P. Kotter, 1990, New York, NY: Free Press. The process viewpoint suggests that leadership is a phenomenon that resides in the context of the interactions between leaders and followers and makes leadership available to everyone. As a process, leadership can be observed in leader behaviors (Jago, 1982) and can be learned. The process definition of leadership is consistent with the definition of leadership that we have set forth in this chapter.The answer is an extended list of traits that individuals might hope to possess or wish to cultivate if they want to be perceived by others as leaders. Some of the traits that are central to this list include intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability (Table 2.2). Table 2.2 Major Leadership Traits Intelligence Self-confidence Determination Integrity Sociability

What are the strengths of Trait theory?

The trait approach has several identifiable strengths. First, the trait approach is intuitively appealing. It fits clearly with our notion that leaders are the individuals who are out front and leading the way in our society. The image in the popular press and community at large is that leaders are a special kind of people—people with gifts who can do extraordinary things. The trait approach is consistent with this perception because it is built on the premise that leaders are different, and their difference resides in the special traits they possess. People have a need to see their leaders as gifted people, and the trait approach fulfills this need. A second strength of the trait approach is that it has a century of research to back it up. No other theory can boast of the breadth and depth of studies conducted on the trait approach. The strength and longevity of this line of research give the trait approach a measure of credibility that other approaches lack. Out of this abundance of research has emerged a body of data that points to the important role of various traits in the leadership process. Another strength, more conceptual in nature, results from the way the trait approach highlights the leader component in the leadership process. Leadership is composed of leaders, followers, and situations, but the trait approach is devoted to only the first of these—leaders. Although this is also a potential weakness, by focusing exclusively on the role of the leader in leadership the trait approach has been able to provide us with a deeper and more intricate understanding of how the leader and the leader's traits are related to the leadership process. The trait approach has given us some benchmarks for what we need to look for if we want to be leaders. It identifies what traits we should have and whether the traits we do have are the best traits for leadership. Based on the findings of this approach, trait assessment procedures can be used to offer invaluable information to supervisors and managers about their strengths and weaknesses and ways to improve their overall leadership effectiveness. Last, the trait approach helps organizations identify leaders and select individuals for leadership training programs. Organizations often use a battery of personality tests when selecting and placing people within their organizations. For example, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to experience are effective traits for sales positions (Frieder, Wang, & Oh, 2018). Personality traits can be used to screen employees, once hired, who will benefit most from leadership training. For example, one study found that extraversion, agreeableness, intellectual curiosity, and emotional stability were positively related to both self-ratings and director ratings of leader development in a training program (Blair, Palmieri, & Paz-Aparicio, 2018). Thus, traits offer a way to predict who will succeed in certain positions and who is best suited to leadership development.

Know the foundational components central to being a leader and practicing leadership as

Throughout this text, the people who engage in leadership will be called leaders, and those toward whom leadership is directed will be called followers. Both leaders and followers are involved together in the leadership process. Leaders need followers, and followers Throughout this text, the people who engage in leadership will be called leaders, and those toward whom leadership is directed will be called followers. Both leaders and followers are involved together in the leadership process. Leaders need followers, and followers Leaders have an ethical responsibility to attend to the needs and concerns of followers. As Burns (1978) pointed out, discussions of leadership sometimes are viewed as elitist because of the implied power and importance often ascribed to leaders in the leader-follower relationship. Leaders are not above or better than followers. Leaders and followers must be understood in relation to each other (Hollander, 1992) and collectively (Burns, 1978). They are in the leadership relationship together—and are two sides of the same coin (Rost, 1991).

What is the fundamental question about a leader answered by Skills approach? What are Katz's 3 skills?

​​3 Skills Approach The skills approach is a leader-centered perspective that emphasizes the competencies of leaders. Description Like the trait approach discussed in Chapter 2, the skills approach takes a leader-centered perspective on leadership. However, in the skills approach we shift our thinking from focusing exclusively on traits to an emphasis on skills and abilities that can be learned and developed. Although personality and behavior certainly play a role in leadership, the skills approach emphasizes the capabilities, knowledge, and skills that are needed for effective leadership. Researchers have studied leadership skills directly or indirectly for a number of years (see Bass, 2008, pp. 97-109). However, the impetus for research on skills was a classic article published by Katz in the Harvard Business Business Review in 1955, titled "Skills of an Effective Administrator." Katz's article appeared at a time when researchers were trying to identify a definitive set of leadership traits. Katz's approach was an attempt to transcend the trait problem by addressing leadership as a set of developable skills. More recently, a revitalized interest in the skills approach has emerged. Beginning in the early 1990s, a multitude of studies have been published that contend that a leader's effectiveness depends on the leader's ability to solve complex organizational problems. This research has resulted in a comprehensive skill-based model of leadership that was advanced by M. Mumford and his colleagues (M. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000; Yammarino, 2000). In this chapter, our discussion of the skills approach is divided into two parts. First, we discuss the general ideas set forth by Katz regarding three basic administrative skills: technical, human, and conceptual. Second, we discuss the recent work of Mumford and colleagues that has resulted in a skills-based model of organizational leadership. Three-Skill Approach Based on field research in administration and his own firsthand observations of executives in the workplace, Katz (1955, p. 34) suggested that effective administration (i.e., leadership) depends on three basic personal skills: technical, human, and conceptual. Katz argued that these skills are quite different from traits or qualities of leaders. Skills are what leaders can accomplish, whereas traits are who leaders are (i.e., their innate characteristics). Leadership skills are defined in this chapter as the ability to use one's knowledge and competencies to accomplish a set of goals or objectives. This chapter shows that these leadership skills can be acquired and leaders can be trained to develop them. Technical Skills Technical skills are knowledge about and proficiency in a specific type of work or activity. They include competencies in a specialized area, analytical ability, and the ability to use appropriate tools and techniques (Katz, 1955). For example, in a computer software company, technical skills might include knowing software language and programming, the company's software products, and how to make these products function for clients. Similarly, in an accounting firm, technical skills might include understanding and having the ability to apply generally accepted accounting principles to a client's audit. In both of these examples, technical skills involve a hands-on activity with a basic product or process within an organization. Technical skills play an essential role in producing the actual products a company is designed to produce. As illustrated in Figure 3.1, technical skills are most important at lower and middle levels of management and less important in upper management. For leaders at the highest level, such as CEOs, presidents, and senior officers, technical competencies are not as essential. Individuals at the top level depend on skilled followers to handle technical issues of the physical operation. Human Skills Human skills are knowledge about and ability to work with people. They are quite different from technical skills, which have to do with working with things (Katz, 1955). Human skills are "people skills." They are the abilities that help a leader to work effectively with followers, peers, and superiors to accomplish the organization's goals. Human skills allow a leader to assist group members in working cooperatively as a group to achieve common goals. For Katz, it means being aware of one's own perspective on issues and, at the same time, being aware of the perspective of others. Leaders with human skills adapt their own ideas to those of others. Furthermore, they create an atmosphere of trust where followers can feel comfortable and secure and where they can feel encouraged to become involved in the planning of things that will affect them. Being a leader with human skills means being sensitive to the needs and motivations of others and considering others' needs in one's decision making. In short, human skills are the capacity to get along with others as you go about your work. Description Figure 3.1 Management Skills Necessary at Various Levels of an Organization Source: Adapted from "Skills of an Effective Administrator," by R. L. Katz, 1955, Harvard Business Review, 33(1), pp. 33-42. Figure 3.1 shows that human skills are important in all three levels of management. Although managers at lower levels may communicate with a far greater number of followers, human skills are equally important at middle and upper levels. Conceptual Skills Broadly speaking, conceptual skills are the ability to work with ideas and concepts. Whereas technical skills deal with things and human skills deal with people, conceptual skills involve the ability to work with ideas. A leader with conceptual skills is comfortable talking about the ideas that shape an organization and the intricacies involved. They are good at putting the organization's goals into words and can understand and express the economic principles that affect the organization. A leader with conceptual skills works easily with abstractions and hypothetical notions. Conceptual skills are central to creating a vision and strategic plan for an organization. For example, it would take conceptual skills for a CEO in a struggling manufacturing company to articulate a vision for a line of new products that would steer the company into profitability. Similarly, it would take conceptual skills for the director of a nonprofit health organization to create a strategic plan to compete successfully with for-profit health organizations in a market with scarce resources. The point of these examples is that conceptual skills have to do with the mental work of shaping the meaning of organizational or policy issues—understanding what an organization stands for and where it is or should be going. As shown in Figure 3.1, conceptual skills are most important at the top management levels. In fact, when upper-level managers do not have strong conceptual skills, they can jeopardize the whole organization. Conceptual skills are also important in middle management; as we move down to lower management levels, conceptual skills become less important. Summary of the Three-Skill Approach To summarize, the three-skill approach includes technical, human, and conceptual skills. It is important for leaders to have all three skills; depending on where they are in the management structure, however, some skills are more important than others. Katz's work in the mid-1950s set the stage for conceptualizing leadership in terms of skills, but it was not until the mid-1990s that an empirically based skills approach received recognition in leadership research. In the next section, the comprehensive skill-based model of leadership is presented.