特质是在更广泛的活动视角下定义领导模式的东西，比如领导者的一些特质可能在特定的环境中有用，而且当特质被识别和实现时，过程会更容易。人格特质被用作区分领导者和定义领导者的因素。正直、胜任、结果导向的领导者被称为具有各自领导特质的特质型领导者。对这一理论最大的批评是他们没有考虑其他因素的影响正在考虑(Antonakis, Cianciolo和Sternberg, 2004)。特质理论视野有限，考虑到它对活动的关注是狭隘的。由于由一个具体特征所界定的具体行动的影响可能并非在所有情况下都有用，因此更有必要开阔眼界。因此，特质型领导者并不是最好的，他们只是在有限的活动区域内玩得很安全，如果他们处在更困难的时期，他们可能会失败。然而，Zaccaro(2007)认为基于特质的领导模式在科学革命时期是最有用的，之后由于缺乏广泛的考虑而被鄙视，但在一些特定的领域又重新上升。作者认为，尽管它们再次崛起，但由于它们是特定于组织或行业的，它们的范围有限。这类似于多项研究，即特质和权变理论并不总是对领导者最好的理论，但要跳出既定的领导模式，探索未知对领导者来说是一个更有趣、更进步的挑战。
一个特质型领导者只有在其主导特质的范围内，能够影响他人并改变组织，才能发挥作用，而且他对组织的推动作用有限。例如，一个特质型领导者在某种情况下，把人际关系作为他的最佳特质，会有更多的行动和决策对组织的财务产生影响。他将无法证明在这种情况下使用他的优势和最佳特性是合理的。同样，如果一个领导者以结果为导向，并将其视为自己最好的品质，那么当他所考虑的关系处于危险之中，并且从长远来看比结果更受重视时，他也会失败。因此，当组织需要单一的行动流，而不需要更多的领导多样性时，特质型领导者是成功的，也是更重要的(Derue et al.， 2011)。但是当组织,主要是21世纪的领导人与地平线上是可靠的和拥有的能力来管理大量的任务和挑战与智能决策和灵活的动作,特质的领导者并不是有用的和更多功能和动态领导者需要使组织更成功。
Traits are something that defines the leadership patterns against a broader view of activity, such that some traits of a leader may be useful in specific settings and that it makes the process easier when the trait is identified and implemented. Personality traits are used as differentiating factors of leadership and defining leaders. Leaders with integrity, competence, and result oriented, are termed as trait leaders having the respective leadership traits. The biggest criticism of such a theory is that they do not consider other factors of influence under consideration (Antonakis, Cianciolo and Sternberg, 2004). The trait theory has a limited horizon outlook and considering the narrowness with which it focuses on activity. It becomes more essential to broaden the horizon as the impacts of a specific action defined by a specific trait may not be useful in all situations. Thus, trait leaders are not the best ones and are only playing safe under a limited activity zone and may fail the test if they are exposed to more difficult times. However, Zaccaro (2007) maintains that the trait based leadership models were the most useful during scientific revolution, and then were disdained for their lack of broad considerations but have risen again in some specific sectors. The author maintains that though they have risen again, they have limited scope as they are organisation specific or sector specific. This resembles multiple researches that trait and contingency theories are not always the best one for a leader but being out of the box of defined leadership, and exploring the unexplored is a more intriguing and progressive challenge for the leader.
A trait leader will only be useful and have limited scope of driving the organisation as much as he is able to influence others and change the organisation within the boundaries of his dominant trait. For example, a trait leader having relationship as his best trait when presented in a situation, there is more action and decision making that will impact the organisation financially. He will not be able to justify the use of his dominant and best trait in such scenarios. Similarly, a leader with results oriented approach and treating that as his best trait will also fail when the relationship under consideration is at stake and is valued more in the long term than the results. Thus, a trait leader is successful and more essential when the organisation needs a singular stream of actions and does not need more variety in leadership (Derue et al., 2011). But when organisations, mostly of the 21st century, are dependable on leaders with a broad horizon and possessing the ability to manage multitude of tasks and challenges with smart decision and flexible actions, a trait leader is not useful and a more versatile and dynamic leader will be required so as to make the organisation more successful.
Traits are developed over time and their usage may not have a distinctive approach and requirement, but they may be used as per the need in specific situations. They are always useful in specific situation but not in all the situations. They are to be considered as a by-product in the development of a larger goal of leadership, so that the growing leader grows his abilities which are most beneficial and in the process attains the traits and contingency requirements. The leader with the most versatile and flexible approach is the most successful, especially in difficult situations, and the 21st century is the most rapid, sporadic, and unpredictable for which a versatile, flexible, and adaptable leader is the prime need.