The Bright and Dark Sides of Leader Traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
3
Transcript of The Bright and Dark Sides of Leader Traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait...
The Bright and Dark Sides of Leader Traits:
A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm
Ronald F. PiccoloRollins College
Darwin’s Finches → Fortune’s CEOs?
• Physical Traits have evolved over time– Mutation and Adaptive Radiation select
traits that are suitable for reproduction and survival
• Beaks, 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 Leadership
AGENDA• Reflection
– Brief History of Leadership Trait Paradigm
• Application– Antecedents of Traits
• Evolutionary Psychology; Theory• Behavioral Genetics
• Contradiction– Countervailing Effects of Traits
• Speculation– Possible Explanations & Researchable Ideas
1948Intelligence
Initiative
Alertness
Persistence
Insight
Self-confidence
Sociability
Responsibility
Stogdill (1948)
Reflection
1974 Stogdill (1974)
Achievement
Responsibility
Cooperativeness
Persistence
Insight
Tolerance
Self-Confidence
Sociability
1991Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)
Drive
Confidence
Motivation
Cognitive Ability
Integrity
Task Knowledge
Self-Confidence
Sociability
The Leader Trait ParadigmIntelligence
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
Sociability
The ‘Big Five’ Personality Trait Taxonomy
Openness
Extraversion
Neuroticism(Emotional Stability)
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Heritability of Personality
.46.51
.45
.20 .18 .20
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Neuroticism Extraversion Big Five Ave.
Identical
Fraternal
5 twin studies in 5 countriesN=24,000 (Loehlin, 1992)
Plomin andCaspi (1999)
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.
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.
The ‘Big Five’ & LeadershipEmergence Effectivenessk 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.
Intelligence & Leadership
k N SD95% CI
Lower
95% CI
Upper
15140,65
2.27 .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.
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).
Persistent Criticisms• Emergence ≠ 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 System
Theoretical PerspectivesUnderlying the Leader Trait Paradigm
Evolutionary Theory and Evolutionary
Psychology
Behavioral Genetics
Application
Leadership as Characteristic Adaptation?
• Leadership is a natural adaptive process to study because– Leadership exists as collective activity
exists– Natural 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.
A Behavioral Genetics PrimerEnvironment vs. Genes
• Consider 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, ande=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)
rMZ = a2 + c2 {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}
Genes and Body Mass Index (BMI)
Heritability of Body Mass Index (BMI)
Sharedgenes
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 twins82% 87% 0% 0% 18% 13%
Schousbo et al. (2004)624 Danish twins 65% 61% 5% 8% 30% 31%
Genes and Obesity
.16
.13
.74
.62
.14
0 0.5 1
Biological siblings reared together
Adoptive siblings reared together
Identical twins reared together
Identical twins reared apart
Spouses
Correlation between pairs interms of Body Mass Index (BMI)
Source: Grilo, C. M., & Pogue-Geile, M. F. (1991). The nature of environmental influences on weightand obesity: A behavior genetics analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 520-537.
BMI=([weightlbs703]/heightin2)
29
Behavioral GeneticsSummary: Variance in Body Mass Index
Interestingly, weight gain also shows high heritabilities so even change may be genetic
Average sources ofvariability in BMI
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 41.1
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.
Behavioral GeneticsDrug Use
Drug Sharedgenes
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.
Behavioral GeneticsSmoking
StudySharedgenes
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%
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 ofSwedish twins
Source: Eley, Lichtenstein, & Moffitt, Development & Psychopathology, 2003.
Behavioral GeneticsGenes, the Environment, and Leadership
• Relative 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)
Genes & the Environment• 50% 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.”
Contradiction
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 Traits
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.
Now what?• Psychological Traits reflect Adaptive
Radiation – fitness, reproduction, survival• Traits 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 paradoxesSpeculation
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
R2 .15** ---
∆R2 (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)
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)
TFL x LMX → JCT
Source: Piccolo and Colquitt (2006)
However, at ‘extremely’ low values of LMX (mx< 1.9; 9%),
relationship b/w TFL & JCT <0.
Concluding Thoughts
• Leader Trait Paradigm– Sources of Trait Development
• Evolution & Behavioral Genetics
– Trait Paradoxes• Variability• Construct Drift
– Context
THANK YOU!
ObjectiveEffectivenessUnit performanceUnit survival
SubjectiveEffectivenessRated effectivenessFollower attitudes
Leader EmergencePerceived LeadershipLeader ascendance
Leader ascendance
Adaptive processesGetting alongGetting aheadProviding meaning
Characteristic AdaptationsLeadership Emergence and Effectiveness
Based on Judge et al., Leadership Quarterly, 2009.
TraitsBig FiveCore self-evaluationsOther traits
ModeratorsTraitsILTs
ModeratorsThreatsResources
ILTs=Implicit Leadership Theories