The Bright and Dark Sides of Leader Traits:

A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm

Ronald F. PiccoloRollins College

The Galapagos Finches

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

Leadership is Universal

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

1959 Mann (1959)

Intelligence

Dominance

Masculinity

Extroversion

Adjustment

Conservatism

1974 Stogdill (1974)

Achievement

Responsibility

Cooperativeness

Persistence

Insight

Tolerance

Self-Confidence

Sociability

1986 Lord(1986)Reconfirming Mann (1959)

Intelligence

Dominance

Masculinity

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)

Human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary

psychological adaptations

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.

Traits & Leadership

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.

21st Century Adaptive Radiation?

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)

Interpersonal Circumplex

Source: www.personalityresearch.org

ExtraversionAgreeableness

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