A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm Ronald F Piccolo Rollins College The Galapagos Finches Darwins Finches Fortunes CEOs Physical Traits have evolved over time ID: 529357
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "The Bright and Dark Sides of Leader Trai..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
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 adaptationsSlide15Slide16
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