Trait Theory suggest effective leaders possess certain inherent qualities or traits – such as emotional intelligence, drive, self-confidence, and integrity – which make them naturally effective in leadership roles (Stogdill, as cited in Northouse, 2022, p. 28). This theory is based on the notion leaders are born, not made, and these traits are relatively unchanging over time.

Trait Theory would be beneficial in identifying individuals possessing the innate qualities to take on leadership roles within the Security Operation Management Team (SOMT), especially in the context of those who are currently not completing their daily responsibilities. Identifying and promoting leaders who naturally possess such traits as accountability, integrity, and time-management skills could help alleviate the issue. However, this action may not fully address the specific problems of underperformance, as it does not account for the situational factors influencing managers’ current behavior (e.g. unclear priorities or lack of accountability).

Focusing on selecting or developing individuals with strong traits (conscientiousness, emotional intelligence, etc.) could enhance the effectiveness of SOMT leaders. For example, those who naturally take full responsibility for their tasks and inspire others through their actions would be a good fit for roles requiring high levels of accountability and task completion, However, this approach does not directly solve the systemic issue of unclear expectations or lack of accountability.

Strengths: Trait Theory provides a foundational approach for identifying individuals who are naturally inclined toward leadership, offering a straightforward method for initial leader selection. Its emphasis on inherent qualities such as emotional intelligence and integrity resonates with the need for accountable and self-motivated leaders in the SOMT. This approach can serve as a valuable screening tool in recruitment or promotion decisions.

Limitations: However, it fails to offer guidance on how to develop leadership in those who may not initially demonstrate these traits. Additionally, it does not account for environmental, organizational, or situational challenges that may be contributing to underperformance, which limits its practical application in dynamic workplace settings like the SOMT.

The Style Approach focuses on leaders’ behavior, categorizing it as either task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Task oriented leaders focus on goal achievement and efficiencies whereas relationship-oriented leaders prioritize supporting and motivating their team (Yukl, 2013).

Given that issue in the SOMT relates to task completion and accountability, a task-oriented leadership style would be a good fit. Managers need to focus on organizing, structuring, and efficiently completing their daily tasks, However, incorporating a balance with relationship-oriented behaviors could ensure managers maintain morale and employee engagement while pushing for higher task completion rates.

Leadership members could be trained to adopt a more task-oriented approach, setting clear goals, establishing deadlines, and tracking progress. Simultaneously, relationship-oriented behaviors could help maintain team morale through managerial engagement with their teams – through ongoing engagement, providing support, and maintaining positive relationships. A balance of both leadership styles could improve both task efficiency and employee satisfaction.

Strengths: The Style Approach allows leaders to consciously reflect on their behaviors and make informed adjustments to better suit the team and task at hand. This can help SOMT leaders adopt a more structured, task-oriented style while still maintaining morale through supportive relationships. It promotes adaptability in managerial behavior, which is beneficial in balancing workload and people management.

Limitations: Yet, it can be difficult to implement effectively without ongoing coaching or feedback, as finding the optimal balance between task and relationship focus is complex. The theory also lacks consideration of external or organizational constraints that may hinder task completion, such as excessive workload or poor systems.

Path-Goal Theory suggests leaders can motivate followers by clearing obstacles and providing direction. The theory identifies four leadership styles – Directive, Supportive, Participative, and Achievement-Oriented – each suited to different tasks and follower needs.

The SOMT issue could benefit from Directive Leadership. The clear direction and structure of this style would give managers struggling with unclear tasks or lack of prioritization the structure they may require. Additionally, Supportive Leadership would address morale and motivation, especially for managers overwhelmed by task load. Combining these styles could help ensure both task completion and team morale are addressed.

Leaders could set clear expectations and offer guidance (Directive Leadership) while also providing motivation and support during challenging times (Supportive Leadership). The amalgamation would address both operational inefficiencies and low morale, helping managers feel more capable of completing their tasks.

Strengths: Path-Goal Theory is comprehensive in that it combines motivation, support, and structure, aligning well with the complex demands of SOMT managers. It allows leaders to remove task-related obstacles while simultaneously boosting morale, an essential dual focus for improving performance and engagement. The diversity of leadership styles within the theory gives leaders several tools to choose from based on the context.

Limitations: Despite its benefits, it can be cumbersome to implement due to its complexity and the need to assess follower needs regularly. Additionally, the theory assumes leaders are skilled in switching styles and diagnosing problems accurately—an assumption that may not hold true in less experienced or overwhelmed leadership teams.