Since 1934 quite a lot of leaders, observers of leaders, and trainers of leaders have been prepared to list the qualities that they believe constitute born leadership. The difficulty is that the lists vary considerably, even allowing for the fact that the compilers are often using rough synonyms for the same trait. Also they become rather long. In fact there is a bewildering number of trait names from which the student of leadership could make up his portfolio. Two researchers have compiled a list of some 17,000 words that can be used for describing personality. 

A study by Professor C. Bird of the University of Minnesota in 1940 looked at 20 experimental investigations into leadership and found that only 5 per cent of the traits appear in three or more of the lists. 

A questionnaire-survey of 75 top executives, carried out by the American business journal, Fortune, listed fifteen executive qualities: judgement, initiative, integrity, foresight, energy, drive, human relations skill, decisiveness, dependability, emotional stability, fairness, ambition, dedication, objectivity and co-operation. Nearly a third of the 75 said that they thought all these qualities have no generally-accepted meaning. For instance, the definitions of dependability included 147 different concepts. Some executives even gave as many as eight or nine. 

Apart from this apparent confusion, there is a second drawback to the qualities or traits approach. It does not form a good basis for leadership development. 'Smith is not a born leader yet', wrote one manager about his subordinate. What can the manager do about it? What can Smith do? The assumption that leaders are born and not made favours an emphasis upon selection rather than training for leadership. It tends to favour early identification of those with the silver spoon of innate leadership in their mouths. 

It would be wrong, however, to dismiss the qualities approach altogether. It has been the custom to do so among academic social scientists studying leadership for two broad reasons. First, they could not invent the necessary instruments for scientifically identifying such intangibles as qualities of character, nor is it likely that they will do so. That is why the historian will always have as much to teach us about leadership as the behavioural scientist. Secondly, value judgements or hidden assumptions crept into the story. Social scientists tend to be strongly egalitarian. They dislike any idea that a person might have an 'inbred superiority' over another. Therefore, they are apt to discountenance the whole notion of leadership exercised by one person.