The Bright and Dark Sides of Leader Traits: - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

The Bright and Dark Sides of Leader Traits:A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm

Ronald F. Piccolo

Rollins CollegeSlide2

The Galapagos FinchesSlide3

Darwin’s Finches → Fortune’s CEOs?Physical Traits have evolved over timeMutation and Adaptive Radiation select traits that are suitable for reproduction and survivalBeaks, Opposable Thumbs, Multicolored Feathers

Psychological Traits have a Genetic Source

These traits shape attitudes (job satisfaction) and behaviors (productive and deviant behaviors, life and work preferences, etc.)

Psychological Traits shape LeadershipSlide4

Leadership is UniversalSlide5

AGENDAReflectionBrief History of Leadership Trait ParadigmApplicationAntecedents of Traits

Evolutionary Psychology; Theory

Behavioral Genetics

Contradiction

Countervailing Effects of Traits

Speculation

Possible Explanations & Researchable IdeasSlide6

Historical Review of Leadership Traits1948

Intelligence

Initiative

Alertness

Persistence

Insight

Self-confidence

Sociability

Responsibility

Stogdill (1948)

ReflectionSlide7

Historical Review of Leadership Traits1959

Mann (1959)

Intelligence

Dominance

Masculinity

Extroversion

Adjustment

ConservatismSlide8

Historical Review of Leadership Traits1974

Stogdill (1974)

Achievement

Responsibility

Cooperativeness

Persistence

Insight

Tolerance

Self-Confidence

SociabilitySlide9

Historical Review of Leadership Traits

1986

Lord(1986)

Reconfirming Mann (1959)

Intelligence

Dominance

MasculinitySlide10

Historical Review of Leadership Traits1991

Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)

Drive

Confidence

Motivation

Cognitive Ability

Integrity

Task Knowledge

Self-Confidence

SociabilitySlide11

The Leader Trait Paradigm

Intelligence

Initiative

Alertness

Persistence

Insight

Self-confidence

Sociability

Responsibility

Intelligence

Dominance

Masculinity

Extroversion

Adjustment

Conservatism

Achievement

Responsibility

Cooperativeness

Persistence

Insight

Tolerance

Self-Confidence

Sociability

Intelligence

Dominance

Masculinity

Drive

Confidence

Motivation

Cognitive Ability

Integrity

Task Knowledge

Self-Confidence

SociabilitySlide12

The ‘Big Five’ Personality Trait Taxonomy

Openness

Extraversion

Neuroticism

(Emotional Stability)

Conscientiousness

AgreeablenessSlide13

Heritability of Personality

5 twin studies in 5 countries

N=24,000 (Loehlin, 1992)

Plomin and

Caspi (1999)Slide14

Human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptationsSlide15
Slide16

The ‘Big Five’ & Leadership

Big Five Trait

k

N

r



Neuroticism

74

18,740

-.14

-.20

Extraversion

66

12,581

.21

.30*

Openness

42

8,281

.17

.25*

Agreeableness

49

10,934

.07

.10

Conscientiousness

38

8,102

.19

.27*

Judge et al. (2002).

Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative

Review.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87

, 765-780.

Judge et al. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87

, 765-780.Slide17

Lower-Order Personality Traits & Leadership

Big Five Trait

k

N

r



Locus of

Control

15

2,347

.08

.13

Self

Esteem

9

7,451

.14

.19*

Sociability

19

5,827

.24

.37*

Dominance

31

7,692

.24

.37*

Achievement

16

4,625

.23

.35*

Dependability

16

5,020

.18

.30*

Judge et al. (2002).

Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative

Review.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87

, 765-780.

Judge et al. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87

, 765-780.Slide18

The ‘Big Five’ & Leadership

Emergence

Effectiveness

k

r

k

r

Neuroticism

30

-.24

18

-.22

*

Extraversion

37

.33

*

23

.24

*

Openness

20

.24

*

17

.24

*

Agreeableness

23

.05

19

.21

Conscientiousness

17

.33

*

18

.16

R (multiple r)

.53

.39

Judge et al. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87

, 765-780.Slide19

Traits & LeadershipSlide20

Intelligence & Leadership

k

N



SD

95% CI

Lower

95% CI

Upper

151

40,652

.27

.17

.24

.30

Judge et al. (2004). Intelligence and Leadership: A Quantitative Review and Test of Theoretical Propositions.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89

, 542-552.Slide21

But of course there are skeptics…“…the validity of personality inventories as predictors of job performance and other organizationally relevant criteria [are] generally low”

(Murphy &

Dziewezynski

, 2005; p. 345).

“…the relationships (measured by correlations) are low. Personality has low explanatory and predictive power”

(Andersen, 2006; p. 1088).

“…multiple correlations are inappropriate and [personality] validities remain so poor as to cast doubt on their utility”

(

Morgeson

et al., 2007).Slide22

Persistent CriticismsEmergence ≠

Effectiveness

Kaiser et al. (2008). “The Fate of Organizations”

“Not so Big” Five

Origins, Development Process, Translation

If Five is Good…

10 is Better. 15? Better Still

Sources of Trait Development? Context?

Reasonable Alternatives?

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

Behavioral Approach/Inhibition SystemSlide23

Theoretical PerspectivesUnderlying the Leader Trait Paradigm

Evolutionary Theory and Evolutionary Psychology

Behavioral Genetics

ApplicationSlide24

Leadership as Characteristic Adaptation?Leadership is a natural adaptive process to study becauseLeadership exists as collective activity existsNatural development of social structure tells us much about human universals and individual differences“The right stuff” of leader traits may well depend on the context

Members follow leaders who are most likely to insure the group’s survival.Slide25

21st Century Adaptive Radiation?Slide26

A Behavioral Genetics PrimerEnvironment vs. GenesConsider studies of monozygotic

(identical [MZ]) and

dizygotic

(fraternal [DZ]) twins reared apart and those reared together

For MZ/DZ twins reared together:

a=additive genetic effect (broad heritability)

c=common or shared environment effect, and

e=error or unique

similarity (

or non-shared) environment

effect

Note: MZ twins=100% genetically similar (identical genes); DZ twins=50% genetically similar (share 50% genes)

r

MZ

= a

2

+ c

2

{in MZ = variance in genes + environ}

rDZ

= (0.5  a2) + c2 {DZ share half as many genes}

1 = a2 + c2 + e2 {variance = shared genes + shared environ + unique} Slide27

Genes and Body Mass Index (BMI)

Heritability of Body Mass Index (BMI)

Shared

genes

Shared environment

Non-shared environment

M

F

M

F

M

F

Hjelmborg

et al. (2008)

10,556 Finn twins

80%

82%

7%

4%

13%

14%

Hur

(2007)

888 Korean twins

82%

87%

0%

0%

18%

13%

Schousbo

et al. (2004)

624 Danish twins

65%

61%

5%

8%

30%

31%Slide28

Genes and Obesity

Correlation between pairs in

terms of Body Mass Index (BMI)

Source: Grilo, C. M., & Pogue-Geile, M. F. (1991). The nature of environmental influences on weight

and obesity: A behavior genetics analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 110,

520-537.

BMI=([weight

lbs



703]/height

in

2

)Slide29

29Behavioral Genetics

Summary: Variance in Body Mass Index

Interestingly, weight

gain

also shows high heritabilities so even

change

may be genetic

Average sources of

variability in BMISlide30

Behavioral Genetics: Studies of Exercise

Sample

Genes

Environment

Unique

Australia (males)

22.9

20.6

56.6

Australia (females)

31.1

16.4

52.5

Denmark (males)

44.4

4.7

51.0

Denmark (females)

50.1

3.1

46.8

Finland (males)

55.8

6.2

38.0

Finland (females)

61.0

0.0

39.0

Netherlands (males)

68.1

2.7

29.2

Netherlands (females)

50.3

13.3

36.5

Norway (males)

33.6

31.1

35.4

Norway (females)

56.6

0.0

43.4

Sweden (males)

63.9

0.0

36.1

UK (females)

70.5

0.0

29.5

MEAN

51.4

7.5

41.1Slide31

Behavioral Genetics: Altruism

Source: Knafo & Plomin,

Developmental Psychology

, 2006.

As measured by parents’ and teachers’ rating of degree to which child:

Volunteers to help others; Is willing to help someone who has been hurt; Shares treats with friends

* When child was age 7.Slide32

Behavioral GeneticsDrug Use

Drug

Shared

genes

Shared environment

Non-shared environment

Any

77%

0%

23%

Cannabis

76%

0%

24%

Stimulants

76%

0%

24%

Psychedelics

81%

0%

19%

Opiates

44%

33%

23%

Cocaine

44%

13%

43%

Mean

66%

8%

26%

Source: Kendler et al. (2006) study of 1,386 Norwegian twin pairs.Slide33

Behavioral GeneticsSmoking

Study

Shared

genes

Shared environment

Non-shared environment

659 American male twins

64%

19%

17%

434 American female twins

77%

0%

23%

1063 Australian female twins

74%

3%

23%

851 American female twins

78%

7%

15%

1979 Australian female twins

70%

18%

12%Slide34

Behavioral GeneticsAggressive Antisocial Behavior

Aggressive antisocial behavior was rated by parents using items such as:

destroys one’s own and others’ belongings

fights with other children

attacks others

threatens others

Sample:

1,480 pairs of

Swedish twins

Source: Eley, Lichtenstein, & Moffitt,

Development & Psychopathology

, 2003.Slide35

Behavioral GeneticsGenes, the Environment, and LeadershipRelative to differences in genes, differences in environment appear to play a minor role in variability in socially desirable (weight, exercise, altruism, etc.) and undesirable (drug use, criminality, infidelity) behaviors.

“Leaders are born” to the extent that identical twins reared apart shared strike similarities in terms of leader emergence.

Across various measures of leadership, studies show significant

heritabilities

, often in the 30-60% range

(

Arvey

et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2004)Slide36

Genes & the Environment50% of Personality is heritable

But that doesn’t mean 50% is environmental

Situational variables may themselves have a genetic source

Genes interact with the Environment

Genes do not exist independent of environment

Olson et al., 2001 (pp. 845-846):

“

Asking how much a particular individual’s attitudes or traits are due to heredity versus the environment is nonsensical, just like asking whether a leaky basement is caused more by the crack in the foundation or the water outside.

”

ContradictionSlide37

Benefits

Costs

Extraversion

Greater leadership emergence; higher job and life satisfaction

More impulsive (deviant) behaviors; more accidents

Agreeableness

Higher subjective well-being; lower interpersonal conflict; lower deviance and turnover

Lower career success; less able to cope with conflict; more lenient in giving ratings

Conscientiousness

Stronger job performance; higher leadership effectiveness; lower deviance

Reduced adaptability; lower learning in initial stages of skill acquisition

Emotional stability

High job/life satisfaction; better job performance; effective leadership; retention

Poorer ability to detect risks and danger; more risky behaviors; more realism

Openness

Higher creativity; greater leadership effectiveness; greater adaptability

More accidents and counterproductive; rebelliousness; lower commitment

Sources: Judge & LePine (2007); Judge et al. (2009), “Bright and Dark Sides…”

Trait Paradoxes: The Big Five TraitsSlide38

Trait ParadoxesBeyond the Big Five Traits

Bright Side

Dark Side

Intelligence

Most “successful” trait in social and applied psychology.

Leaders with high IQs regarded as atypical; high need for cognition.

Narcissism

Authoritative component associated with emergence; seek social approval. Favor bold action.

Arrogant, self absorbed, sense of entitlement, hostile. View others as inferior to themselves.

Machiavellianism

High motivation to lead; Willing to invest social capital; Skilled at use of multiple influence tactics.

Cunning, manipulative, seek control over followers. Pursue personal benefit.

Dominance

Command the attention and respect of others; make themselves appear competent; Strong desire for achievement.

Prefer hierarchy and status; control conversation; put pressure on others. Motivate through fear.Slide39

Now what?Psychological Traits reflect Adaptive Radiation – fitness, reproduction, survivalTraits have a Genetic Source – and are meaningful predictors of behavioral patterns including those associated with leadership emergence and effectiveness

The leader-trait paradigm:

Yields ‘low’ correlations

Offers little (no) integration of context

Offers little (no) description of trait development

Ignores possibility of trait paradoxes

SpeculationSlide40

Consider Trait Interactions

Trait Predicting Service Performance

β

SE

Emotional Stability

.03

.13

Extraversion

-.03

.10

Conscientiousness

.27

**

.09

Agreeableness

-.01

.10

Emotional Stability – Extraversion (IV+/I+)

.25

*

.12

R

.38

**

.09

R

2

.15

**

---

∆R

2

(IV+/I+)

.06

*

---

Source: Judge and Erez,

Personnel Psychology

, 2007.

Sample: 122 employees of regional health and fitness center.

Performance was evaluated by two supervisors (ICC-1=.51)Slide41

Interpersonal Circumplex

Source: www.personalityresearch.org

Extraversion

AgreeablenessSlide42

Why Contradictions?Consider 2nd order estimates (i.e., variability)

(a) Effect of X on Y

(b) when variability is constant

(c) when variability increases

Source: Cavaretta et al., (working paper)Slide43

TFL x LMX → JCT

Source: Piccolo and Colquitt (2006)

However, at ‘extremely’ low values of LMX (m

x

< 1.9; 9%), relationship b/w TFL & JCT <0.Slide44

Concluding ThoughtsLeader Trait ParadigmSources of Trait DevelopmentEvolution & Behavioral GeneticsTrait ParadoxesVariabilityConstruct DriftContext

Thank You!Slide45

Objective

Effectiveness

Unit performance

Unit survival

Subjective

Effectiveness

Rated effectiveness

Follower attitudes

Leader Emergence

Perceived Leadership

Leader ascendance

Leader ascendance

Adaptive processes

Getting along

Getting ahead

Providing meaning

Characteristic Adaptations

Leadership Emergence and Effectiveness

Based on Judge et al.,

Leadership Quarterly

, 2009.

Traits

Big FiveCore self-evaluationsOther traits

Moderators

Traits

ILTsModeratorsThreatsResources

ILTs=Implicit Leadership Theories