The traditional models of leadership have a great deal to offer the modern-day manager. High levels of simplicity and ease of use help the lessons of trait and behavior based theories to be practical, even when compared against more developed modern systems. Likewise, the simple common sense of any of the situational based approaches might help a manager to re-cage their eyes on difficult problems. Being the foundation of modern theories, the traditional methods had less existing material to draw on, so their differences are often extreme—but their similarities are equally visible when considering how they differ from the modern systems.
The two oldest schools of traditional leadership theory are trait based and behavior based. Outlined below, the differences between these two styles lie in their focus, either on behaviors or “the personal traits that [differentiate] leaders” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2013, p.464). Admittedly, many of the more complex traditional frameworks “[go] beyond traits and behaviors” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2013, p.474), but we can still see a delineation in complexity arising from the number of variables each framework takes into account. Ultimately, the newest of the traditional theories attempts to either unify or reject the conflicting elements of the previous two systems through the idea that there are no true best practices in leadership, adopting a situational orientation instead.
Before going further, it’s worth elaborating on the idea that trait theory centers upon “physical or personality characteristics that can be used to differentiate leaders from followers” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2013, p. 465), but behavior-oriented theories focus on patterns of action. The obvious difference here is a dichotomy between action and identity. Under one system, a leader’s effectiveness is based upon actions, while under the other, it’s based upon the