Leader

What makes an effective leader?

Andy Weeger

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

February 13, 2026

Introduction

Today’s session

• Activation & check-in 15 min
• Evolution of leadership 25 min
• Big Five & paradoxes 35 min
• Break
• LTEE model 20 min
• Emotional intelligence 20 min
• Reflection & closing 10 min

135 minutes total.

The session is designed as a flipped classroom — students have pre-read Judge et al. (2002) and answered three guiding questions.

• Front-load the pre-reading payoff in Block 3 so students immediately see value in having prepared.
• The jigsaw in Block 5 covers Goleman’s EI skills as new content discovery.
• Keep transitions brisk and time-box group work strictly.

Learning objectives

After completing this unit, you will be able to:

1. Trace the evolution of leadership thought from Great Man theory to complexity leadership.
2. Analyse how the Big Five personality traits relate to leadership emergence and effectiveness.
3. Explain the LTEE model and the interplay of genetics, traits, and context in leader emergence.
4. Assess both the bright and dark sides of personality traits in leadership contexts.
5. Reflect on your own trait profile and emotional intelligence as a foundation for leadership development.

Activation

Latticework check-in

What mental models from Unit 1 might help us think about leader traits?

05:00

Plenary warm-up (5 min).

Let 2–3 students respond briefly. Land on the map vs. territory connection: trait models are useful simplifications, not the full picture.

Traits are a map of personality, not the full person. Any trait model simplifies a rich, complex human being into measurable dimensions. Useful, but incomplete.

Alternatives: circle of competence, second-order thinking, VUCA.

Individual reflection

Write down your findings.

1. One key finding from Judge et al. (2002) that confirmed something you expected.
2. One finding that surprised you.

04:00

Individual writing (5 min).

Hand out index cards or have students use a sheet of paper. This activates the pre-reading and gives you a quick diagnostic of engagement.

Do not discuss yet — that comes in the pair share.

Pair share

Turn to your neighbor
and compare your findings.

04:00

Where do you agree? Where did your surprises differ?

Pair share (5 min).

This lowers the barrier before plenary discussion and surfaces the diversity of takeaways. Walk around the room and listen in — note interesting threads you can pick up later in Block 3. No plenary report-out here; the energy flows directly into Block 2.

Evolution of leadership thought

A brief history

Before we examine what specific traits matter, it helps to understand how our thinking about leadership has evolved.

Each era emphasized different aspects
— and each left useful mental models behind.

Mini-lecture (10 min). Walk through the six paradigms briskly.

Great Man Theory (1840s)

Great leaders are born, not made.

Carlyle (1841) argued that history is shaped by exceptional individuals with innate heroic qualities. Leadership was seen as a gift bestowed on a select few — typically male, aristocratic, and military.

The Great Man Theory reflects the 19th-century belief that leadership capacity is inherent and cannot be developed. While largely discredited, it planted the seed for trait-based research: if great leaders are “different,” what exactly makes them different? This question drove decades of subsequent research.

Trait approaches (1930s–1940s)

Leadership depends on the
personal qualities of the leader.

Early researchers sought universal traits that distinguish leaders from non-leaders. Initial reviews (e.g., Stogdill, 1948) found inconsistent results, leading many to abandon the trait approach — until meta-analyses revived it decades later.

The trait approach represents a more scientific evolution of the Great Man idea. Rather than assuming leaders are “born great,” researchers tried to measure what traits correlate with leadership. The approach fell out of favor mid-century because no single trait seemed universally predictive. It was later revived with more sophisticated methods — notably the Big Five framework and the meta-analysis the students read.

Behavioral theories (1950s–1960s)

If traits alone don’t explain leadership, perhaps what leaders do matters more than who they are.

• Ohio State Studies identified initiating structure (task-oriented) and consideration (relationship-oriented) as key leadership behaviors (Fleishman, 1953).
• Michigan Studies distinguished production-oriented and employee-oriented leadership (Katz et al., 1950).

The behavioral approach shifted the focus from traits to observable actions. Its key insight: leadership can be learned through developing the right behaviors. This opened the door to leadership development programs. However, the approach struggled to account for the fact that the same behaviors work well in some situations but not others — which led to contingency theories.

Contingency & situational theories (1960s–1970s)

There is no single best way to lead.
Effectiveness depends on the situation.

• Fiedler’s Contingency Model (Fiedler, 1967) — leader effectiveness depends on the match between leadership style and situational favorability.
• Hersey & Blanchard’s Situational Leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977) — leaders should adapt their style based on follower readiness.

Contingency theories reject the idea of universally effective leadership and argue that context matters. Fiedler proposed that leaders have relatively fixed styles and should be matched to appropriate situations. Hersey and Blanchard took a more flexible view, arguing leaders can and should adapt. We will revisit situational and adaptive leadership in depth in Unit 3.

Transformational leadership (1980s–1990s)

Leaders transform followers by inspiring them to transcend self-interest for the sake of the organization.

• Burns (1978) distinguished transactional (exchange-based) from transformational (purpose-based) leadership.
• Bass (1985) operationalized it: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration.

Transformational leadership brought emotion, vision, and meaning back into the conversation. It explained why some leaders inspire extraordinary commitment while others — equally competent — do not. Strong empirical support. Connects directly to storytelling in Unit 9.

Complexity & adaptive leadership (2000s+)

In complex adaptive systems, leadership is distributed, emergent, and contextual.

• Uhl-Bien et al. (2007) introduced Complexity Leadership Theory conceptualizing leadership as enabling adaptability in complex systems
• Heifetz (1994) introduced Adaptive Leadership distinguishing technical problems (known solutions) from adaptive challenges (require learning and changed behavior)

These theories reflect the VUCA world from Unit 1. The “heroic leader” model is insufficient in highly complex environments. Leadership must be understood as a system-level phenomenon that emerges through interactions. We explore adaptive leadership in depth in Unit 3.

Paradigm pitch

Prepare a 60-second pitch for one paradigm.

1. Why is your paradigm’s mental model still useful today?
2. Give a concrete example from the digital era.

05:00

Group task (10 min, groups of 3–4).

• Assign paradigms by table or draw randomly (prepare cards labeled: Trait, Behavioral, Contingency, Transformational, Complexity — skip Great Man).
• Give exactly 5 minutes for preparation, then 60-second pitches.
• After each pitch, add one sentence of commentary connecting it to the broader arc.
• End by showing the synthesis table on the next slide.

The map of leadership theory

Each paradigm offers a mental model — and each remains partially useful:

Era	Core mental model	Still useful for…
Traits	Individual differences matter	Self-awareness, selection
Behavioral	Actions can be learned	Leadership development
Contingency	Context determines effectiveness	Situational judgment
Transformational	Vision inspires commitment	Organizational change
Complexity	Systems produce emergence	Digital transformation

Plenary synthesis (5 min). Show this table as the capstone. Emphasize: no single paradigm “won.” This is precisely the latticework idea — effective leadership thinking requires multiple models. In this unit, we focus on the trait lens with the understanding that it is one map among many. Transition to Block 3: “So let’s look more closely at the trait map you explored in your pre-reading.”

The Big Five & leadership

What distinguishes leaders?

What traits distinguish leaders
from other people?

10:00

Plenary discussion (10 min).

• Open the floor — collect answers on the board.
• Then reveal the regression figure on the next slide.
• Probe the findings students found surprising (reference their index cards from Block 1).
• Push on these questions:
  • Why is extraversion dominant for emergence but less so for effectiveness?
  • Why is agreeableness nearly irrelevant — is that a problem?
  • What does this mean for introverted leaders?

Big Fixe x leadership

Figure 1: Regression of Leadership on Big Five Traits according to the meta study of Judge et al. (2002)

Key findings to highlight:

• Extraversion is the most important trait for leadership overall, but more strongly related to emergence than effectiveness.
• Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience were the strongest and most consistent correlates alongside extraversion.
• Agreeableness was the least relevant trait.
• Neuroticism failed to emerge as a significant predictor.
• Traits are better predictors when observers have limited opportunity to observe behavior (student samples). This may reflect stereotypical conceptions of leaders rather than actual effectiveness.

Probe: “Does this mean we should select leaders based on extraversion?” Push students toward nuance.

Trait paradoxes

Analyze a Big Five trait

Work through these questions:

1. Summarize the bright side and dark side of your trait.
2. Create a concrete leadership scenario where the trait helps — and one where it backfires.
3. Is this trait more or less important in the digital era? Why?

15:00

Group work (15 min, groups of 4–5).

• Assign one trait per group (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Openness).
• Encourage groups to think beyond the table — create vivid, specific scenarios (e.g., “An extraverted leader dominates a Zoom call and misses quiet dissent from remote team members”).
• Walk around and push groups that finish early to deepen their digital-era argument.

Trait paradoxes

Present your two scenarios
and your digital-era verdict.

Plenary report-out (10 min). Max 2 minutes per group. Build the full paradox table on the board collaboratively as groups present — this is more engaging than showing a pre-made table. After all groups have presented, highlight the overarching pattern: every strength has a shadow. This is itself a mental model worth adding to the latticework: trait paradoxes.

Trait	Bright Side	Dark Side
Extraversion	Greater leadership emergence; higher satisfaction	More impulsive behaviors; dominates airtime
Agreeableness	Higher well-being; lower conflict	Lower career success; avoids necessary conflict
Conscientiousness	Stronger performance; lower deviance	Reduced adaptability; slower early learning
Emotional stability	Better performance; effective leadership	Poorer risk detection; complacency
Openness	Higher creativity; greater adaptability	More counterproductive behaviors; lower commitment

Transition: “So traits matter, but they have paradoxes. Where do traits actually come from? And how do they translate into leadership? That’s the LTEE model.”

From traits to process

Born leaders?

We know which traits matter — but where do they come from?

Leaders are born.

Really?

Traits have a genetic source and are the result of adaptive processes (Judge et al., 2009).

The statement oversimplifies a complex phenomenon that involves an interplay between genetic factors, developmental experiences, learning, and situational contexts.

Mini-lecture start (8 min total).

Acknowledge the grain of truth — twin studies show 30–60% heritability for leadership tendencies. But heritability is never 100%, and expression depends on environment. Use the quote:

Asking how much a particular individual’s attitudes or traits are due to heredity versus the environment is nonsensical, just like asking whether a leaky basement is caused more by the crack in the foundation or the water outside Olson et al. (2001, pp. 845–846)

The LTEE model

The Leader Trait Emergence Effectiveness (LTEE) model (Judge et al., 2009)

 

 

 

 

1. Genetics — foundational biological basis. Genetic predispositions influence personality, cognition, emotional regulation.

2. Selection processes — evolutionary and organizational mechanisms that select certain traits in or out.

3. Traits — individual characteristics. The Big Five we just discussed.

4. Mediators — the bridge between traits and emergence. Based on Socioanalytic Theory: conscientious/extraverted/stable individuals are motivated to get ahead (agency); extraverted/agreeable individuals go along (communion); intelligent/charismatic individuals provide meaning.

5. Emergence –> Effectiveness — emergence is context-dependent (as adaptive challenges increase, leadership becomes more important). Effectiveness splits into subjective (reputation, follower satisfaction) and objective (productivity, goal achievement).

6. Genetics set a range; mediators and context determine where in that range you land. This is where development happens.

Think-Pair-Share

If traits have a genetic source,
can leadership really be developed?

Where in the LTEE model do you see room for development?

2 minutes individual thinking
3 minutes pair discussion.

05:00

Think-Pair-Share (7 min). Individual thinking (2 min) — pair discussion (3 min) — collect 3–4 responses in plenary (2 min). Expected answers: mediators (motives and skills can be trained), context (you can seek the right situations), selection processes (organizations can design better pipelines). If students focus only on traits, redirect: “The model shows traits are just one input — what about the arrows between boxes?”

Plenary synthesis (5 min). Land the key insight: the LTEE model shows that trait-based determinism is too simple. Development happens at the mediator level — and one of the most researched mediator frameworks is emotional intelligence. Bridge: “Goleman argues that EI is precisely what can be learned. Let’s explore that.”

Emotional intelligence

What sets great leaders apart?

Intelligence is the most “successful” trait
in social and applied psychology (Judge et al., 2009).

Goleman (1998) argues that it is not IQ, but emotional intelligence that makes great leaders.

Emotional intelligence is a group of five skills that enable the best leaders to maximize their own and their followers’ performance.

• Self-awareness — knowing one’s strengths, weaknesses, drives, values, and impact on others.
• Self-regulation — controlling or redirecting disruptive impulses and moods.
• Motivation — relishing achievement for its own sake.
• Empathy — understanding other people’s emotional makeup and treating them accordingly.
• Social skill — building rapport with others to move them in desired directions.

Brief framing (2 min) before the jigsaw.

• Connect EI to the LTEE model: emotional intelligence operates at the mediator level — it translates traits into effective leadership behaviors.
• Goleman’s central claim is that EI can be learned, which makes it the actionable lever in the model.
• Introduce the five skills very briefly, then move directly into the jigsaw.

EQ skills — research

In your group (one EI skill per group), do this:

1. Research the core characteristics of your skill.
2. Find or construct a concrete leadership example.
3. Identify one pathway to strengthen this skill.
4. Is this skill gaining or losing importance in digital/hybrid work? Why?

05:00

• Form five groups, one per EI skill.
• Provide a 1-page excerpt from Goleman (1998) per skill (prepare handouts in advance) or direct students to the relevant section.
• Walk around and ensure groups are producing concrete examples, not just paraphrasing definitions.
• Push groups that finish early on the digital-era question — this is where the richest discussion happens.

EQ skills — share

Regroup into mixed teams — one expert per skill.

Each expert: teach your skill to the group in 2 minutes.

10:00

EQ skills — development

Which EI skill is the hardest to develop?

Which would have the most impact for digital leaders?

Open discussion.

Expected patterns: - students often identify self-regulation as hardest (requires sustained effort against ingrained patterns) and empathy as most impactful for digital contexts (harder to read people through screens). - Push back if consensus forms too quickly — “Is empathy really harder digitally, or do we just need different signals?”

Land on Goleman’s foundational argument:

Self-awareness is the prerequisite for all other EI skills. A leader who doesn’t understand their own emotional patterns cannot regulate them, cannot authentically motivate, cannot accurately read others.

This connects to the cognitive biases discussion from Unit 1 — our self-image is another map that may not match the territory.

Reflection & closing

Self-awareness as foundation

Self-awareness — the first component of emotional intelligence — is arguably the foundation of all leadership development.

Leaders who understand their own strengths, weaknesses, values, and emotional patterns can better manage themselves, relate to others, and adapt to different situations.

Connect self-awareness to the full arc of the session: - we started with traits (the map), - saw that they have paradoxes (the territory is more complex), - learned that development happens through mediators like EI, - and now arrive at the starting point of all development — knowing yourself.

Personal reflection

Based on what you have learned about the Big Five and emotional intelligence:

1. Where do you see your strengths?
   Which traits and EI skills come naturally to you?
2. Where are your potential dark sides?
   Every strength has a shadow. Where might your strengths become liabilities?
3. What is your development edge?
   Which EI skill, if strengthened, would have the greatest impact on your leadership?

05:00

Individual reflection (5 min).

This is private writing — not shared with the group. Emphasize that this is not about labeling yourself but about building the habit of reflective self-assessment that characterizes effective leaders. Suggest the IPIP Big Five short form as an optional follow-up tool for students who want empirical data to supplement their self-reflection.

Remember: as Goleman (1998) notes, emotional intelligence can be learned. The first step is honest self-assessment — and the willingness to act on what you find.

Latticework update

Which new models have you added to your latticework?

• Cognitive biases in self-perception and other-perception
• Nature–nurture interaction as a thinking framework
• Trait paradoxes — every strength has a shadow

Plenary closing (5 min). Collect these on the board alongside the Unit 1 models.

Ask: “How do these new models connect to the ones we already had?” Expected connection: map vs. territory applies to self-perception (our self-image is a map); second-order thinking applies to trait paradoxes (the second-order effect of a strength is often a weakness).

Preview the homework: Lavine (2014) on paradoxical leadership and the CVF. Connect it explicitly to today’s trait paradoxes — “If every trait has a bright and dark side, how do leaders manage both simultaneously? That’s what Lavine calls behavioral complexity.”

Closing quote

It is fortunate, then, that emotional intelligence can be learned.
Goleman (1998)

Homework

Read Lavine (2014) and answer following questions:

• What is ambidexterity, what is behavioral complexity?
• Why does a complex world require behavioral complexity?
• Which leadership paradoxes are identified by the CVF?
  Can you give specific examples for each?
• How do the paradoxes relate to the specifics of the digital era?

Q&A

Literature

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.

Carlyle, T. (1841). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. James Fraser.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056314

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 93–103.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.

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.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855–875.

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. C. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale in an office situation. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Lavine, M. (2014). Paradoxical leadership and the competing values framework. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 189–205.

Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: A study of twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 845.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35–71.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.