PSY 365 Module 2 Trait and Behavioral Leadership Analysis example

Traits, Behaviors and One Depot Manager: Applying Early Leadership Theories to Marcus Hale

[Student Name]

Southern New Hampshire University

PSY 365: Leadership and Motivation in the Workplace

Module Two Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.

Traits, Behaviors and One Depot Manager: Applying Early Leadership Theories to Marcus Hale

The Manager

Marcus Hale, a composite manager, runs a parcel depot in central Pennsylvania whose staff of about 80 breaks down into 52 drivers, 22 sort and load workers and 6 dispatchers. He was the depot's top driver for six years before his promotion eight months ago. The depot's operational measures have improved under him, but three experienced drivers have resigned and drivers describe him as distant. This paper applies two of the earliest approaches to leadership, the trait approach and the behavioral approach, to understand why. The analysis draws on a Big Five personality inventory Marcus completed as part of a regional leadership program, interviews with ten drivers and two dispatchers, and two days of observation.

The Trait Approach

The trait approach asks whether certain personal characteristics distinguish leaders. Early reviews were discouraging, but organizing traits around the Big Five model revived the approach. Pooling studies of the Big Five, Judge et al. (2002) reported that the five traits together had a multiple correlation of .48 with leadership. Extraversion was the most consistent correlate, followed by conscientiousness and openness to experience; emotional stability was also related, while agreeableness showed the weakest relationship.

Marcus's profile is instructive. He scores very high on conscientiousness, which fits his reputation for organized routes and exact scan compliance, and high on emotional stability; drivers say he never loses his temper on a bad day. He scores low on extraversion and moderate on openness and agreeableness. In other words, he has two of the traits associated with effective leadership in strong measure, and is low on the trait most consistently associated with it. His low extraversion helps explain why drivers see little of him: he prefers to solve problems at his desk than on the dock at 6 a.m. when drivers load. His traits made him an excellent driver and give him a solid foundation as a manager; they do not, on their own, make drivers want to follow him.

The Behavioral Approach

Behavioral researchers stopped asking what a leader is like and started listing the things a leader does day to day. The Ohio State studies identified two broad dimensions: initiating structure, which involves defining roles, setting standards and organizing work, and consideration, which involves showing concern, respect and support for followers. Table 1 summarizes what drivers and dispatchers described.

Table 1

Marcus Hale's Leader Behaviors by Ohio State Dimension

Note. Composite summary of interviews with ten drivers and two dispatchers and two days of observation.

What the Behavior Pattern Means

Marcus is high on initiating structure and low on consideration. In a meta-analysis pooling decades of studies on the two Ohio State dimensions, Judge et al. (2004) found that each mattered, but for different results. Consideration showed its biggest payoff in the attitudes of the people being led, their contentment with the job and the boss and their drive, while initiating structure had a small edge where the output of the leader and the work group was concerned. That pattern fits the depot closely. Its operational performance, the outcome most tied to structure, has improved. Driver satisfaction and retention, the outcomes most tied to consideration, have declined. Drivers do not describe Marcus as unfair; the posted scan data are seen as accurate, and the rules are applied evenly. They describe him as someone who does not seem to notice them.

Why Structure Came First

Marcus's pattern is common among people promoted from within for technical excellence. As a driver, his success depended on planning routes, following procedures and finishing on time, all forms of structure applied to his own work. When he became manager, he applied the same habits to the depot, and they worked: the depot's measurable results improved within months. Consideration was never part of the driver role, and nothing in the depot's reporting measures it, so there was no signal telling him it was missing until experienced drivers began to resign. The regional office compounded the problem by praising the depot's scan compliance in every monthly review while never asking about retention. In behavioral terms, Marcus has been reinforced for structure and never prompted to show consideration, which suggests that part of the solution lies with how the region evaluates its depot managers, not only with Marcus himself.

Integrating Traits and Behaviors

Traits and behaviors are connected: Marcus's low extraversion makes consideration behaviors feel less natural, while his conscientiousness makes structuring behaviors easy. DeRue et al. (2011) tested traits and behaviors together and found that leader behaviors tended to explain more variance in leadership effectiveness than traits, and that behaviors partly carried the effects of traits. This matters practically. Marcus is unlikely to become an extravert, but he can adopt specific considerate behaviors, and the research suggests those behaviors, not his personality, are what drivers respond to.

Behaviors Marcus Can Change

Three changes would raise consideration without asking Marcus to become someone else. First, attend morning load-out three days a week and use it to ask two or three drivers about their routes, a structured routine that suits a conscientious, introverted manager better than open-ended socializing. Second, replace recognition by email with brief in-person recognition at load-out, tied to specific actions such as helping a colleague finish a route. Third, when he changes routes or rules, explain the reason to drivers before posting the change. Each behavior can be scheduled and tracked, which plays to his strengths. A short driver survey in three months, using the same consideration items, would show whether drivers notice the difference.

Limits of These Approaches

Neither approach accounts for the situation. The upcoming move to weekend deliveries will create anxiety and conflict that may call for more than added consideration, and contingency theories, covered later in the course, address how the right leader behavior depends on circumstances. Trait and behavioral theories remain useful here because they identify a clear gap in Marcus's leadership and a practical way to close it.

References

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36