It used to be, before modern psychoanalytical studies on personality were done, that leadership and the ability to lead was pretty much a matter of the old adage, “leaders are born not made.” Great leaders it was assumed possessed certain unique traits. They were natural born leaders with characteristics apart from the common man. The idea stemmed from a socio-analytical perspective that placed those in the upper echelons of society automatically in the category of leaders, awarding them in a similarly automatic and autocratic way leadership roles. Peons, as it were, were peons. They simply did not have the traits necessary to be leaders. Those traits included the ability or willingness to exhibit initiative, the integrity, intelligence, or for that matter, perception to be a true leader of men. (Leadership: Traits and Process Approaches, para. 1)
To dispute this, Krames (2004) in his introduction to the U.S. Army Leadership Field Manual, writes, “ The United States Army has created scores of exceptional leaders from every rank and file” (v). As time went on research conducted on more scientific and empirical level cast serious doubt on these most unscientific and biased conclusions.
Trait theory as defined is the measurement of traits, which can be defined as habitual patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion. According to this perspective, traits are relatively stable over time. However, it is not only traits that define a person’s ability to be a leader. Some leaders surprise even the experts. Studies do indicate the near necessity for certain leadership traits when it comes to the success or failure of given activities. As might be assumed, individuals with leadership personality and tendencies would exhibit an extroverted personality. Assumptions, however, can be deceiving. We can often find present some interesting and