Filetype PDF | Posted on 23 Jan 2023 | 2 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
104x Filetype PDF File size 0.15 MB Source: www.timothy-judge.com
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2002, Vol. 87, No. 4, 765–780 0021-9010/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.765
Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review
Timothy A. Judge Joyce E. Bono
University of Florida University of Minnesota
Remus Ilies Megan W. Gerhardt
University of Florida University of Iowa
This article provides a qualitative review of the trait perspective in leadership research, followed by a
meta-analysis. The authors used the five-factor model as an organizing framework and meta-analyzed
222 correlations from 73 samples. Overall, the correlations with leadership were Neuroticism .24,
Extraversion .31, Openness to Experience .24, Agreeableness .08, and Conscientiousness .28.
Results indicated that the relations of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Consci-
entiousness with leadership generalized in that more than 90% of the individual correlations were greater
than 0. Extraversion was the most consistent correlate of leadership across study settings and leadership
criteria (leader emergence and leadership effectiveness). Overall, the five-factor model had a multiple
correlation of .48 with leadership, indicating strong support for the leader trait perspective when traits are
organized according to the five-factor model.
The great Victorian era historian Thomas Carlyle commented combination of traits” (Stogdill, 1948, p. 66). As Bass (1990)
that “the history of the world was the biography of great men” noted, after Stogdill’s (1948) review, “situation-specific analyses
(Carlyle, 1907, p. 18). This “great man” hypothesis—that history took over, in fact, dominating the field” (p. 59). Indeed, Hughes,
is shaped by the forces of extraordinary leadership—gave rise to Ginnett, and Curphy (1996) and Yukl and Van Fleet (1992) com-
the trait theory of leadership. Like the great man theory, trait mented that any trait’s effect on leadership behavior will depend
theory assumed that leadership depended on the personal qualities on the situation. Even today, with the renewed interest in dispo-
of the leader, but unlike the great man theory, it did not necessarily sitional explanations of attitudes and behaviors, there remains
assume that leadership resided solely within the grasp of a few pessimism about the relationship of personality variables to lead-
heroic men. Terman’s (1904) study is perhaps the earliest on trait ership. Conger and Kanungo (1998) described the trait approach as
theory in applied psychology; other discussions of the trait ap- “too simplistic” (p. 38). House and Aditya (1997) concluded, “It
proachappearedinappliedpsychologyinthe1920s(e.g.,Bowden, appeared...that there were few, if any, universal traits associated
1926; Kohs & Irle, 1920). Cowley (1931) summarized well the with effective leadership. Consequently, there developed among
view of trait theorists in commenting that “the approach to the the community of leadership scholars near consensus that the
study of leadership has usually been and perhaps must always be search for universal traits was futile” (p. 410).
through the study of traits” (p. 144). Notwithstanding these stark assessments, all of the aforemen-
Despite this venerable tradition, results of investigations relating tioned reviews uncovered some traits that appeared to be related to
personality traits to leadership have been inconsistent and often leadership emergence or effectiveness. Table 1 provides the results
disappointing. Most reviews of the literature have concluded that of previous qualitative reviews of the leader trait perspective. In
the trait approach has fallen out of favor among leadership re- preparing this table, we took several steps to reduce it to a
searchers. As Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny (1991) noted, “trait expla- manageable level. First, several reviews were excluded from pre-
nations of leader emergence are generally regarded with little sentation in Table 1 (e.g., House & Howell, 1992, was excluded
esteem by leadership theorists” (p. 308). The original source of because it focused on charismatic leadership; Stogdill, 1974, was
skepticism with the trait approach is often attributed to Stogdill’s excluded because it was quite similar to reviews completed before
(1948) influential review. Although Stogdill did find some consis- [Stogdill, 1948] and since [Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1998]). Second,
tent relations, he concluded, “The findings suggest that leadership characteristics that were identified as not being personality traits
is not a matter of passive status or of the mere possession of some (motivation, knowledge, intelligence—see below) were excluded.
Finally, Bass’s (1990) comprehensive list was shortened to include
only those traits that were supported in 10 or more studies in his
Timothy A. Judge and Remus Ilies, Department of Management, Uni- review.
versity of Florida; Joyce E. Bono, Department of Psychology, University of Several aspects of the results in Table 1 are noteworthy. It is
Minnesota; Megan W. Gerhardt, Department of Management, University clear there is some overlap in the traits identified by the reviews.
of Iowa. For example, self-confidence appears in all but two of the reviews,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy and other traits (adjustment, sociability, integrity) appear in mul-
A. Judge, Department of Management, Warrington College of Business, tiple reviews. On the other hand, despite some agreement, the
University of Florida, 211 D Stuzin Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7165. reviews are not overly consistent. C. R. Anderson and Schneier
E-mail: tjudge@ufl.edu (1978) commented, “These searches seemed to result in a myriad
765
766 JUDGE, BONO, ILIES, AND GERHARDT
Table 1
Past Qualitative Reviews of the Traits of Effective or Emergent Leaders
Daft (1999) Stogdill (1948) R. Hogan et al. (1994) House & Aditya (1997) Mann (1959)
Alertness Dependability Surgency Achievement motivation Adjustment
Originality, creativity Sociability Agreeableness Prosocial influence motivation Extroversion
Personal integrity Initiative Conscientiousness Adjustment Dominance
Self-confidence Persistence Emotional stability Self-confidence Masculinity
Self-confidence Conservatism
Alertness
Cooperativeness
Adaptability
Northouse (1997) Bass (1990) Yukl (1998) Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) Yukl & Van Fleet (1992)
Self-confidence Adjustment Energy level and stress Drive (achievement, ambition, Emotional maturity
Determination Adaptability tolerance energy, tenacity, initiative) Integrity
Integrity Aggressiveness Self-confidence Honesty/integrity Self-confidence
Sociability Alertness Internal locus of control Self-confidence (emotional High energy level
Ascendance, dominance Emotional maturity stability) Stress tolerance
Emotional balance, control Personality integrity
Independence, nonconformity Socialized power motivation
Originality, creativity Achievement orientation
Integrity Low need for affiliation
Self-confidence
of characteristics, few of which recurred consistently across stud- analyzed were limited to those included in Mann’s review. As a
ies” (p. 690). For example, (a) masculinity emerged in two reviews result of these limitations, the results have not been fully integrated
(Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948) and is absent in all others, (b) into subsequent reviews of the literature. For example, except for
dominance emerged as an important leadership trait in some re- intelligence, several more recent reviews of trait theory include
views (e.g., Mann, 1959) but was absent in others, (c) four traits none of the traits specifically identified in the Lord et al. review
(persistence, initiative, responsibility, and insight) surfaced in (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991, Exhibit 1; Northouse, 1997, Ta-
Stogdill’s (1948, 1974) reviews but were absent in all others, and ble 2.2; Yukl, 1998, Table 10-3). Thus, despite the contributions of
(d) some traits appeared in only one review (e.g., alertness [Stog- the Lord et al. meta-analysis, if one were to ask five leadership
dill, 1948]; drive [Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991]). researchers, in general, whether trait theory was valid and, if so,
It is telling that, except for self-confidence, no trait emerged as specifically which traits were valid, one would likely get five
related to leadership in a majority of these reviews. different answers.
Even when the same traits are included in these reviews, they The purpose of the remainder of this article is to provide a
are often assumed to be distinct and thus are labeled differently. quantitative review of the relationship between personality and
For example, adjustment and self-confidence are indicators of the leadership. One possible reason for the inconsistent and disap-
same construct—emotional stability (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, pointing results from previous reviews is that, until recently, we
1994)—yet were reviewed as distinct traits in two reviews (Mann, have lacked a taxonomic structure for classifying and organizing
1959; Stogdill, 1948). Similarly, persistence and determination are traits. Accordingly, in this study we use the five-factor model of
indicators of Conscientiousness (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991) yet personality as an organizing framework to estimate relations
were studied separately as well (Northouse, 1997; Stogdill, 1948). between personality and leadership. Furthermore, we estimate
Oneofthebiggestproblemsinpastresearchrelating personality to relations involving multiple criteria. Lord et al. (1986) made a
leadership is the lack of a structure in describing personality, distinction between leadership emergence and leadership effec-
leading to a wide range of traits being investigated under different tiveness. Accordingly, we estimate personality–leadership rela-
labels. As Hughes et al. (1996) noted, “the labeling dilemma made tions according to two criteria—leadership emergence and leader
it almost impossible to find consistent relationships between per- effectiveness. Finally, because there is much concern in personal-
sonality and leadership even when they really existed” (p. 179). ity research about whether broad or specific personality traits best
House and Aditya (1997) commented, “One problem with early predict criteria (Block, 1995; Hough, 1992), we also investigate
trait research was that there was little empirically substantiated the relative predictive power of broad versus specific measures of
personality theory to guide the search for leadership traits” (p. the Big Five traits. Before exploring relations between personality
410). traits and leadership, we provide a brief review of the five-factor
In the only meta-analysis on the subject, Lord, De Vader, and model and of the dimensionality of leadership.
Alliger (1986) found two traits—dominance and masculinity–
femininity—that had statistically significant (nonzero) relations Five-Factor Model of Personality
with leadership emergence. Thus, the Lord et al. (1986) review did
provide some important support for trait theory. However, we Consensus is emerging that a five-factor model of personality
limited our analysis to the traits identified in Mann’s (1959) review (often termed the Big Five) can be used to describe the most salient
of small groups leadership, and most of the studies Lord et al. aspects of personality (Goldberg, 1990). The first researchers to
PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP 767
replicate the five-factor structure were Norman (1963) and Tupes In contrast to being perceived as a leader, leadership effectiveness
and Christal (1961), who are generally credited with founding the refers to a leader’s performance in influencing and guiding the
five-factor model. The five-factor structure has been recaptured activities of his or her unit toward achievement of its goals (see
through analyses of trait adjectives in various languages, factor Stogdill, 1950). R. Hogan et al. (1994) suggested that leadership
analytic studies of existing personality inventories, and decisions effectiveness should be measured in terms of team, group, or
regarding the dimensionality of existing measures made by expert organizational effectiveness. In practice, however, assessments of
judges (McCrae & John, 1992). The cross-cultural generalizability leadership effectiveness most commonly consist of ratings made
of the five-factor structure has been established through research in by the leader’s supervisor, peer, or subordinate (or some combi-
many countries (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Evidence indicates that nation of these three). Such ratings, although they represent the
the Big Five are heritable and stable over time (Costa & McCrae, predominant method of assessing leadership effectiveness, can be
1988; Digman, 1989). criticized as potentially contaminated. Because such ratings rep-
The dimensions comprising the five-factor model are Neuroti- resent individuals’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness rather
cism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and than objectively measured performance outcomes (e.g., team per-
Conscientiousness. Neuroticism represents the tendency to exhibit formance), they may be influenced by raters’ implicit leadership
poor emotional adjustment and experience negative affects, such theories (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984). However, whether ratings
as anxiety, insecurity, and hostility. Extraversion represents the of leadership effectiveness are biased by implicit leadership theo-
tendency to be sociable, assertive, active, and to experience posi- ries or selective recall, or even halo, there is evidence that ratings
tive affects, such as energy and zeal. Openness to Experience is the of leadership effectiveness converge with objective measures of
disposition to be imaginative, nonconforming, unconventional, work group performance (R. Hogan et al., 1994), providing sup-
and autonomous. Agreeableness is the tendency to be trusting, port for the use of supervisor and subordinate ratings as measures
compliant, caring, and gentle. Conscientiousness is comprised of of leadership effectiveness.
two related facets: achievement and dependability. Conceptually, leadership effectiveness and emergence represent
The Big Five traits have been found to be relevant to many two levels of analysis. Leadership emergence is a within-group
aspects of life, such as subjective well-being (e.g., DeNeve & phenomenon, as evidenced by many early studies of leadership
Cooper, 1998) and even longevity (Friedman et al., 1995). One of that were conducted in groups with no formal leader (see Mann’s
the most popular applications of the five-factor model has been to [1959] review)—that is, a leader emerged from within a group. In
the area of job performance, in which eight meta-analyses have contrast, leadership effectiveness, as defined above, represents a
been conducted (G. Anderson & Viswesvaran, 1998; Barrick & between-groups phenomenon. Effectiveness refers to a leader’s
Mount, 1991; Hough, Ones, & Viswesvaran, 1998; Hurtz & Don- ability to influence his or her subordinates. Therefore, the individ-
ovan, 2000; Robertson & Kinder, 1993; Salgado, 1997, 1998; Tett, ual being evaluated must first be a leader. Subsequent evaluation
Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). The most often cited of these meta- of that leader’s effectiveness implies a comparison to the perfor-
analyses is Barrick and Mount (1991). In reviewing the literature mance of other leaders, generally (by necessity) in different
ontherelationship between personality and job performance, these groups. Although leader emergence and leadership effectiveness
authors noted (pp. 1–2): are distinct in concept, in practice the criteria sometimes become
The overall conclusion from these studies is that the validity of blurred, particularly when measured perceptually (House & Pod-
personality as a predictor of job performance is quite low.... How- sakoff, 1994). Nonetheless, in the development of our hypotheses,
ever, at the time these studies were conducted, no well-accepted wedistinguish ratings of a leader’s effectiveness from perceptions
taxonomy existed for classifying personality traits. Consequently, it of leader emergence.
was not possible to determine whether there were consistent, mean-
ingful relationships between particular personality constructs and per- Relationship of Big Five Traits to Leadership
formance criteria in different occupations.
Below we consider possible linkages between personality and
One could easily substitute “leadership” for “job performance” in leadership. We organize this discussion according to each of the
the above quotation. Thus, just as the five-factor model has pro- Big Five traits. We then consider overall relationships between the
vided a valuable taxonomy for the study of job performance, so it Big Five traits and leadership and the issue of the relationship of
might for the study of leadership. Having defined the traits com- lower order personality constructs to leadership.
prising the five-factor model of personality, in the next section we
seek to define leadership and its components. Neuroticism
Leadership Criteria Lord et al.’s (1986) meta-analysis revealed a corrected correla-
tion of .24 between measures of adjustment and leadership per-
As R. Hogan et al. (1994) noted, leadership can be conceptual- ceptions on the basis of a relatively small number of studies
ized and measured in different ways. It is possible to separate cumulated in their analysis. This estimate, however, could not be
leadership into two broad categories: leadership emergence and distinguished from zero. Bass (1990), in his review, indicated that
leadership effectiveness (Lord et al., 1986). According to R. almost all studies on the relationship of self-confidence—indicat-
Hogan et al. (1994), “research on leadership emergence identifies ing low Neuroticism—to leadership “were uniform in the positive
the factors associated with someone being perceived as leaderlike” direction of their findings” (p. 69). Hill and Ritchie (1977) sug-
(p. 496). Thus, leader emergence refers to whether (or to what gested that self-esteem—another indicator of low Neuroticism
degree) an individual is viewed as a leader by others, who typically (Eysenck, 1990)—is predictive of leadership: “It appears that there
haveonlylimited information about that individual’s performance. is convincing evidence for the inclusion of self-esteem as an
768 JUDGE, BONO, ILIES, AND GERHARDT
important trait of both superior and subordinate in analyzing & Costa, 1991). Need for affiliation appears to be negatively
leadership effectiveness” (Hill & Ritchie, 1977, p. 499). Evidence related to leadership (Yukl, 1998). These factors suggest that
also indicates that neurotic individuals are less likely to be per- Agreeableness would be negatively related to leadership. In light
ceived as leaders (R. Hogan et al., 1994). In light of this evidence of these conflicting justifications, the possible relationship be-
and these arguments, we would expect that Neuroticism is nega- tween Agreeableness and leadership is ambiguous.
tively related to leader emergence and leadership effectiveness.
Conscientiousness
Extraversion Bass (1990) commented, “Task competence results in attempts
In Bass’s (1990) review, results linking Extraversion to leader- to lead that are more likely to result in success for the leader,
ship were inconsistent. In early studies (those completed between effectiveness for the group, and reinforcement of the tendencies”
1904 and 1947), Extraversion was positively related to leadership (p. 109). We know that Conscientiousness is related to overall job
in five studies and negatively related in three, and there was no performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and this suggests that
relation in four. Other reviews, however, suggest that extraverts Conscientiousness will be related to leader effectiveness. Further-
should be more likely to emerge as leaders in groups. Extraversion more, initiative and persistence are related to leadership. As Kirk-
is strongly related to social leadership (Costa & McCrae, 1988) patrick and Locke (1991) noted, “leaders must be tirelessly per-
and, according to Watson and Clark (1997), to leader emergence in sistent in their activities and follow through with their programs”
groups. R. Hogan et al. (1994) noted that Extraversion is related to (p. 51). Because conscientious individuals have more tenacity and
being perceived as leaderlike. Extraverts tend to be energetic, persistence (Goldberg, 1990), we expect that conscientious indi-
lively people. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) commented, “Leaders viduals will be more effective leaders.
are more likely than nonleaders to have a high level of energy and
stamina and to be generally active, lively, and often restless” (p. Overall Relationships
50). Adjectives used to describe individuals who emerged as
leaders in leaderless group discussions included active, assertive, Similar to meta-analyses involving job performance in which
energetic, and not silent or withdrawn (Gough, 1988). These are various aspects of performance are combined into an overall
the characteristics of extraverts. Indeed, Gough (1990) found that estimate (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991), we investigated the rela-
both of the major facets of Extraversion—dominance and socia- tionship of the Big Five traits to leadership pooling across the
bility—were related to self and peer ratings of leadership. Consid- leadership criteria (effectiveness and emergence). As noted earlier,
ering this evidence, Extraversion should be positively related to conceptually, leadership effectiveness and emergence are distinct
both leader emergence and leadership effectiveness, although constructs. However, operationally, both are generally measured
somewhat more strongly to leader emergence. via ratings or observations of others, which means that both criteria
represent individuals’ perceptions of leadership. Because there is
Openness good reason to believe that Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Open-
ness will be related to multiple leadership criteria, we believe that
When Bass (1990) listed the traits that were the best correlates these traits will display significant (nonzero) relationships with
of leadership, originality—a clear hallmark of Openness—topped leadership in the combined analysis.
the list. Openness correlates with divergent thinking (McCrae,
1987) and is strongly related to both personality-based and behav- Relevance of Facets
ioral measures of creativity (Feist, 1998; McCrae & Costa, 1997).
Creativity appears to be an important skill of effective leaders. Oneofthemostprominentcriticisms of the five-factor model is
Creativity was one of the skills contained in Yukl’s (1998) sum- that it provides too coarse a description of personality (Block,
maryoftheskills of leaders, which was based on Stogdill’s (1974) 1995; Hough, 1992). Although some researchers have argued for
earlier review. Research indicates that creativity is linked to ef- fewer than five traits (e.g., Eysenck, 1992), most personality
fective leadership (see Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1998), suggesting psychologists who criticize the number of factors do so on the
that open individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders and be basis of too few factors. As Block (1995) noted, “for an adequate
effective leaders. understanding of personality, it is necessary to think and measure
more specifically than at this global level if behaviors and their
Agreeableness mediating variables are to be sufficiently, incisively represented”
(p. 208). In industrial–organizational psychology, the relative mer-
Conceptually, the link between Agreeableness and leadership is its of broad versus specific traits (framed in terms of the
ambiguous.Ontheonehand,cooperativenesstendstoberelatedto bandwidth–fidelity issue) also have been debated with respect to
leadership (Bass, 1990), and Zaccaro et al. (1991) found that the Big Five traits. Some researchers have argued in favor of traits
interpersonal sensitivity was related to leadership. That altruism, morenumerousorspecificthantheBigFive.Hough(1992)argued
tact, and sensitivity are hallmarks of an agreeable personality that the Big Five obscures important relations between traits and
would suggest that leaders should be more agreeable. On the other criteria. She concluded, “If prediction of life outcomes or criteria
hand, agreeable individuals are likely to be modest (Goldberg, is important in evaluating personality taxonomies, the Big Five is
1990), and leaders tend not to be excessively modest (Bass, 1990, an inadequate taxonomy of personality constructs” (Hough, 1992,
p. 70). Furthermore, although it often is considered to be part of p. 153). Conversely, Ones and Viswesvaran (1996) argued that
Extraversion (Watson & Clark, 1997), many scholars consider “broader and richer personality traits will have higher predictive
affiliation to be an indicator of Agreeableness (Piedmont, McCrae, validity than narrower traits” (p. 622).
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
