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.