Leadership and personality

Lee, Koenigsberg, Davidson, & Beto (2010) note that in leadership literature there are two main trends: the trait approach and the situational approach. The trait approach tried, without significant success, to define which personality traits of a leader make them an effective leader. In contrast, the situational approach examines which behaviors of the leader make them effective, emphasizing behaviors related to role, work tasks, and responsibility that the leader takes, as well as their relationship with subordinates. An example of such an approach is Bass's (1985) transformational leadership. However, in recent years, several studies have been presented that found relationships between personality traits and effective leadership style, and therefore the trait approach has gained renewed life. Among various measures, the Big Five model yielded significant correlations with effective leadership, with studies demonstrating positive relationships between each of the personality traits and leadership effectiveness (for example - Silverthorne, 2001). Studies focused on transformational leadership found relationships between extraversion and agreeableness and transformational leadership (for example - Judge & Bono, 2000), and in a meta-analysis by Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt (2002), relationships were found between all Big Five (except agreeableness) and leadership activity (the ability to motivate subordinates), although emotional stability was found to be a weaker predictor of the criteria.

The Relationship Between Perceptions and Attitudes About Leadership and Personality Characteristics

Hautala (2006) refers to the trend of personality research in leadership, noting that the trend dominated in the 90s and returned to the forefront in recent years. Transformational leadership was found to be linked to many positive outcomes, so the researcher found interest in examining the personality characteristics of such leaders. The researcher argues that transformational leadership will increasingly become the most effective leadership pattern in the future work world, where the workforce is more professional, hierarchies are flatter, and teamwork is the key to success.

In previous studies, diverse findings emerged regarding the relationships between leadership and personality. In the context of Big Five theory, the researcher cites several studies that found relationships between transformational leadership and traits of extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience. A handful of studies dealt with the relationship between transformational leadership and the 16PF questionnaire, which examines traits slightly different from the Big Five, and found a relationship to warmth and tension (negative relationship to the latter), as well as openness to change. The researcher used the Myers-Briggs personality questionnaire, which examines 8 personality preferences, based on Jung's theory: introvert-extravert, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, perception-judgment. The preferences are combined to build a 4-dimensional pattern, so there are 16 possible patterns. In the context of Jung's personality characteristics, the findings cited by the researcher were not uniform.

The researcher found that most managers in the sample evaluated themselves as extraverted, using sensing to perceive the world, relying on thinking and judgment. The managers evaluated their level of transformational leadership higher than the level evaluated by their subordinates, especially managers who were extraverted. These gaps require managers to be more aware of their behaviors and their associated meanings, especially managers who perceive themselves as extraverted, intuitive and/or thinking.

Bono & Judge (2004) present a meta-analysis of studies on personality and leadership. They note that the eight dimensions of transactional and transformational leadership (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, contingent reward, management by exception–active, management by exception–passive, laissez-faire, where the first four dimensions belong to transformational leadership and the rest to transactional leadership) were found to be valid predictors of subordinate behaviors in work performance and job satisfaction. However, the researchers note that Avolio and colleagues, in a study published in 1999, found that 6 dimensions are needed to describe transformational and transactional leadership (influence and motivation were combined into one factor, and passive management by exception was combined with laissez-faire), but transformational leadership consists of one general factor.

Bono and Judge describe the expected relationships between the eight dimensions and Big Five traits. They hypothesize that: extraverted people will be high in inspirational leadership and intellectual stimulation dimensions and transformational leadership in general; people open to experience are expected to show high levels of intellectual stimulation and inspirational leadership and transformational leadership in general; modesty and kindness are not characteristics of the charismatic leader, but nevertheless, agreeable leaders may be high in charisma (combination of idealized influence and inspirational leadership) and serve as role models as well as in individual consideration and low in passive management (management by exception–passive + laissez-faire), due to their high availability to subordinates; conscientious leaders are expected to be particularly strong in contingent reward and active management by exception dimensions and low in passive management; people with low emotional stability will have a low tendency for charismatic leadership, intellectual stimulation, transformational leadership in general, but a high tendency for passive leadership.

The researchers conducted a meta-analysis on studies on personality and leadership published until 2002, and found the following findings:

Charisma, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration:

-Extraversion is positively and consistently related.

-Neuroticism (its opposite is now called: emotional stability) is negatively and consistently related.

-For agreeableness and openness to experience, the findings are not consistent across different studies, sometimes there is a positive relationship and sometimes negative.

Overall transformational leadership:

- Extraversion is positively and consistently related.

-Neuroticism (emotional stability) is negatively and consistently related.

-For agreeableness and openness to experience, the findings are not consistent across different studies, sometimes there is a positive relationship and sometimes negative.

The relationships for transactional leadership were weaker in strength, but here too extraversion and neuroticism were consistently related to contingent reward, while the other traits did not yield consistent findings. The other dimensions did not yield practically significant findings, except for a negative relationship between agreeableness and other transactional leadership dimensions (except contingent reward).

Generally, charisma is a dimension most strongly related to personality among the dimensions, while management by exception is most weakly related to personality. The researchers conclude that the relationships between personality and transformational-transactional leadership dimensions are too weak to be of significant benefit in the real world, but qualify their conclusions: it's possible that the dimensions don't predict manager effectiveness well; it's possible that the Big Five model is not a good model for such research needs; it's possible that there is a gap between rating behaviors in the work world and laboratory research, which yielded stronger findings about relationships between personality and leadership.

The Relationship Between Leadership Effectiveness and Personality Characteristics

Bradley, Nicol, Charbonneau & Meyer (2002) studied the relationships between personality and leadership within the Canadian military. At the beginning of their article, the researchers note that Northouse presents in his book Leadership Theory and Practice (second edition) 5 factors related to effective leadership: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability. They also note that other researchers, who reviewed other studies, presented other traits: conscientiousness and emotional stability (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan 1994). Furthermore, the researchers also bring findings from Barrick & Mount (1991) who found predictive validity for traits of extraversion and agreeableness for success in management training and work as a manager, and from Bass (1998) who found that effective leadership is associated with self-acceptance, superiority, sociability, and internal locus of control. In other words – the researchers bring diverse, sometimes even contradictory findings from the research literature in the years preceding their study.

Bradley et. al. present findings regarding relationships between personality traits measured before the start of command training in the Canadian army and success in training and success in the command position 3-4 years after the course. Internal locus of control was found to be weakly related (strength of 0.16) to the final training score and somewhat more strongly (0.20) to the leadership rating given to the trainee by the instructors in the course. Other traits such as dominance, self-esteem, energy level, and achievement were found to be related to peer evaluations of the trainee's leadership ability. These levels are low even in relation to existing findings in the research literature, where personality questionnaires don't reach correlation levels higher than 0.30. It's possible that criteria based on subjective evaluations of instructors and peers are not reliable; it's possible that personality predicts typical performance (in routine work) better than maximum performance, required in a course and at the beginning of the position (when adaptation pressures lead the employee to work at the maximum level they are capable of); it's possible that despite the attempt to address narrow personality characteristics and clear criteria, there was still too broad an approach (for example: leadership is a very broad concept); it's possible that the training characteristics themselves influenced the end-of-course ratings more than the individual's personality traits, because the trainees were motivated to behave in similar ways, which don't necessarily reflect their personality; and it's possible that range restriction caused particularly low correlations. Personality assessments of the same personality traits, given based on personal interviews, were not found to be related to course completion criteria (grade, instructor evaluation, peer evaluation).

Regarding performance in the actual command work, dominance, energy level, and internal locus of control predicted well criteria after 3-4 years in the position. Dominance was related to physical fitness score (0.39), overall military score (0.28), transformational leadership score in self-report (0.48) and peer evaluation (0.31), self-score of contingent reward (0.42) and peer evaluation of passive management by exception (0.34-). Energy level was found to be significantly related to self-score in transformational leadership (0.40); and internal locus of control was related to peer evaluation of passive management by exception (0.30-).

Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt (2002) in a meta-analysis describe the state of research regarding the relationship between personality traits and leadership. They present many researchers, from the mid-20th century to the beginning of the 21st century, who concluded that the relationship between personality and leadership is too weak to have real value, that there are few (if any) traits related to leadership universally, and that the relationships are always situation-dependent. Nevertheless, in the course of studies, certain traits were found to be related to leadership, and the researchers present a comprehensive table of such traits, noting that traits like self-confidence, adaptability, sociability, and integrity appear in many studies, but there are many traits that are not common to different studies. One of the central problems is the lack of a unified personality structure in the research. For example, self-confidence and adaptability are two aspects of "emotional stability" in the Big Five personality model, but were examined separately in different studies. Therefore, the researchers re-examine past research through the lens of the "Big Five" in order to examine personality characteristics that emerged as significant for leadership in different studies. They examine which personality characteristics (Big Five and the small traits found in each major factor) are related to perceived leadership (the extent to which a person is perceived as a leader, leadership emergence) and effective leadership (as measured by evaluations from managers, peers, and subordinates).

In examining both criteria (perception and effectiveness) together, it was found that extraversion is well related (0.31) to both together, conscientiousness (0.28), neuroticism (0.24-) and openness to experience (0.24) show good levels of relationship to the combined criterion, and agreeableness was weakly related (0.08) to the combined leadership criterion. The "small" traits showed lower correlations (for example - self-confidence 0.14) compared to the major traits, and in most cases the correlations were not uniform across different studies (meaning - in some positive correlations were found and in others negative correlations). An exception was extraversion, where the small traits of dominance and sociability predicted leadership better than the super-trait extraversion.

For each of the criteria separately, positive and significant correlations were found for the traits of extraversion and openness to experience; conscientiousness was found to be related to perception as a leader, but not to leader effectiveness; while neuroticism was found to be negatively related to leadership effectiveness, but not consistently related to perception of the manager as a leader; agreeableness was not found to be uniformly related to either criterion.

The researchers examined to what extent the findings are consistent across different research populations: in the business world, in the military and public sector (teachers, politicians), and among students. Extraversion was the only trait that emerged as related to leadership criteria across situations. Neuroticism and openness to experience were common to the business and academic worlds, while conscientiousness was common to the public-military sector and students.

In an attempt to examine which personality traits predict leadership criteria, the researchers found that extraversion and openness to experience predicted all three criteria well, but conscientiousness was most prominent for the criterion of perception as a leader and the combined criterion. Neuroticism did not predict leadership in any form, while agreeableness negatively predicted perception as a leader.

The researchers conclude that the significant relationships between leadership criteria and the Big Five model justify using these personality traits to predict leadership effectiveness and perception as a leader. Extraversion is the most relevant trait for good leadership, but it is more strongly related to leadership perception than to leader effectiveness. After this trait, openness to experience and conscientiousness were also good predictors, with conscientiousness also found to be more related to a person's perception as a leader than to their leadership effectiveness. Openness to experience is a controversial trait in the Big Five model, but it seems to have a significant contribution to predicting leadership in the business world, especially in the criterion of leadership effectiveness. Of all traits, agreeableness showed weak relationships to leadership, and this makes sense due to the nature of the trait: the tendency to adapt yourself to others and their wishes.

Summary

Research on the personality of leaders is returning to the forefront in the last decade. Despite many attempts to examine which personality characteristics distinguish between good leaders and non-leaders, there is noticeable difficulty in reaching agreement among different researchers, even when examining studies referring to one central personality model (Big Five).

One central reason is the difficulty in defining what quality leadership is. Another reason is the great diversity existing between quality leadership in different environments, even within the business work world (in the private sector), let alone when trying to reach generalizations across sectors, and include the public sector (security organizations, education system, other government organizations) which is a multi-dimensional and very diverse organization in itself.

Despite all these, in the meta-analysis studies of Bono & Judge (2004) and Judge et.al. (2002) central trends can be found: extraversion and emotional stability are associated with transformational leadership characteristics, while agreeableness is inversely related to most transactional leadership characteristics; leaders are perceived as leaders by others and as effective leaders when they have high levels of extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, but here too agreeableness was negatively associated with leadership.

References:

Bono, J.E., & Judge, T.A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 (5), pg. 901-910.

Bradley, J.P.; Nicol, A.A.M.; Charbonneau, D. & Meyer, J.P. (2002). Personality correlates of leadership development in Canadian forces officer candidates. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Vol. 34 (2), pg. 92-103.

Hautala, T.M. (2006). The relationship between personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25 (8), pg. 777-794.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87(4), pg. 763-780.

Lee, W.J.; Koenigsberg, M.R.; Davidson, C. & Beto, D.R. (2010). A Pilot Survey Linking Personality, Leadership Style, and Leadership Success among Probation Directors in the U.S. Federal Probation, Vol. 74 (3), pg. 34-56.

Wielkiewicz, R.M. (2002). Validity of the Leadership Attitudes and Beliefs Scale: Relationships With Personality, Communal Orientation and Social Desirability. Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 43 (1), pg. 108-118.

Dr. Merav Hami, a psychologist, graduate of an occupational track, serves as the professional director and heads the development team of the system since its establishment. Merav's doctorate researches how intelligence is expressed in everyday life. During its writing, she developed a unique questionnaire that examines how our intelligence is expressed in practice.

5 4 3 2 1

Interested in reading more?

LogiPass has dozens of additional interesting articles dealing
with issues of screening tests and career guidance.