the relationship between individual personality orientation and executive leadership behaviour

Journal of Occupational and Or^ani:(ational Psychology (1998), 71 , 99-125 Printed in Gnat Britain 9 9© 1998 The British Psychological Society

The relationship between individualpersonality orientation and executive

leadership behaviour

Allan H. Church* and Janine WaclawskiW. Warner Burke Associates, Inc., 201 Wolfs Une. Pelham. NY 10803, USA

The following study was undertaken to explore the link between individualdifferences in personality orientation and subsequent leadership behaviours in theworkplace. More specifically, relationships among two measures of personality' andone measure nf transformational-transactional leadership style were investigatedusing data collected from 253 senior executives (and their direct reports) from ahighly diversiHed global corporation. After an initial examination nf tho person-ality variables using a correlational approach, a ^-means cluster analysis was usedto generate four distinct 'groups' based on the mean personality orientation orstyle exhibited. These groups were labelled accordingly in order to reflect thedispositional characteristics amotig each cluster of executives: (1) innovators forchange or inventors; (2) analytical coordinators or managers; (3) organizedpragmatists or implementors; and (4) enthusiastic idealists or motivators. Sub-sequent AN<.iVA models using these cluster groups yielded significant differenceswith respect to the perceptions of both executives and their direct reports of theirleadership behaviour. In general, inventors and motivators were found to be moretransformational in their leadership style than managers and implementors. Theseresults are discussed in terms of the characteristics of each personality cluster andtheir respective linkages to the leadership behaviours obser\xd by self and others.

How do we describe, understand and predict the behaviour of individuals inorganizations? This fundamental C]uestion has intrigued academicians and prac-titioners of organizational science alike for decades, despite the fact that we alreadyknow the answer—that is, it depends on a certain set of conditions and interactionsamong variables. The variables in this case include such elements as the idiosyn-crasies and characteristics of the individual as well as the conditions of the overallorganizational system—including work-group climate, reward systems, culture,mission, the quality of senior management leadership, etc. (Burke & Litwin, 1992;Daniel, 1985; Nadler & Tushman, 1992; Schein, 1985; Weisbord, 1978). Given theinherent difficulty in appropriately conceptualizing and measuring some of thesemore systemic and contextual variables, however, many organizational scientistshave chosen instead to focus their attention on the manifestation and subsequenteffect of individual differences in the workplace. Thus, while situation is still

'Requests for reprints.

100 Allan H. Church and Janine Waclamki

important, personality has once again come into vogue as a research topic in theliterature as recent reviews have noted (e.g. Bass, 1990; Goldberg, 1993; Hogan,Curphy & Hogan, 1994).

The purpose of the present paper is to contribute to the field in this area byfocusing specifically on the linkages between various individual personality prefer-ences and leadership styles among a group ot senior executives. Given the impactthat strong management and executive leadership can have on organizati(ms bothin terms of financial performance (e.g. Barrick, Day & Lord, 1991; Day & Lord,1988; Waclawski, 1996) and employees' attitudes (e.g. Bennis & Nanus, 1985;Church, 1995tf; Pal & Vasudeva, 1990; Schein, 1985), it is important that we reacha better understanding of the individual level characteristics that define suchindividuals (Kuhnert & Russell, 1990). As many authors have noted (e.g. Bass,1990; Hogan ct al., 1994; Snyder & Ickes, 1985; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992),personality is one of the primary means by which to pursue this goal.

The link between personality and organisational outcomes

In general, it appears as though the trend towards using personality theory todescribe and predict individual supervisory behaviour is as popular as it was in thelate 1960s and early 70s, if not more so (Goldberg, 1993; Mischel, 1990; Snyder &Ickes, 1985). Even with a brief review of the literature, it is easy to identify anumber of significant organizational research studies in which various types ofconstructs describing individual differences are being investigated with respect totheir impact on people in work settings (e.g. Atwater &: Yammarino, 1993; Church& Waclawski, 1996; Hogan et al.., 1994; Jenkins, 1993; Spcctor & Michaels, 1986).Although there has been some debate in the field as to the validity of using any typeof personality measure for studying organizational performance-related outcomes(e.g. Hogan, Hogan & Roberts, 1996), a meta-analysis of validation studies ofpersonality measures (Schmitt, Gooding, Noe & Kirsch, 1984) has reported asomewhat modest {r= .21) but consistent relationship between such assessmentsand a variety of performance criterion ratings. More recent work has also supportedsuch linkages, thus dispelling the notion that these two sets of variables should notbe examined in consort. For example, Barrick & Mount (1993) in their researchhave explored the link between the 'Big Five' dimensions of personality—i.e.neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness—andvarious measures of job performance across several different occupational groups.Similarly, Chartrand, Rose, Elliot, Marmarosh &. Caldwell (1993) have examinedthe same dimensions in relation to problem-solving skills and career decision-making style. Unfortunately, however, conclusions from these studies are some-what shrouded in confusion due to discrepancies between major meta-analysesconducted by different sets of authors (i.e. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Ones, Mount,Barrick & Hunter, 1994; Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991) with respect tothe impact of the Big Five personality factors on organizational and indi-vidual outcomes. Nonetheless, despite these tensions in the field, the interest inlinking individual personality to various aspects of organizational behaviour andperformance continues.

Personality orientation and executive leadership 101

Research on personality and leadership style

This trend appears to be particularly evident in the study of leadership andmanagerial behaviour. Using the ever pt)pular transformational—transactionalleadership paradigm (Bass, 1981, 1990; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Burke, 1979, 1986,1990; Burns, 1978; Deluga & Souza, 1991; Tichy & Devanna, 1986; Van Seters &Field, 1990; Zaieznik, 1977), many researchers have attempted to link leadershipstyle with various indicators of individual personality. Van Eron & Burke (1992),for example, have demonstrated that differences in managers' personality prefer-ences are related to divergent leadership orientations that, along with subsequentvariation in associated behaviours, can result in very specific patterns of communi-cation with subordinates. Cither research based on this same basic framework hasyielded interesting results with respect to personality factors and transformationalleadership styles among champions of technological innovation (Howell & Higgins,1990), organization development and change practitioners (Church, Waclawski &Burke, 1996), and implicit theories of leadership in military institutions (Atwater &:Yammarino, 1993). Some authors (e.g. Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Kuhnert & Russell,1990) have gone so far as to suggest that certain critical personality differencesin leaders may actually result in the formation of either transformational ortransactional leadership styles, and that these behavioural differences observed invarious types of leaders may reflect different stages or levels of maturity in terms ofpersonal development and goal orientation.

In general, some consistent results in this area of study have begun to emerge. Ameta-analysis of the relationship between personality traits and leadership percep-tions conducted in the 1980s (Lord, DeVader & Alliger, 1986), for example, foundthat several traits including intelligence, masculinity-femininity and dominancewere in fact consistently significantly related to leadership. Further, in their reviewpublished in the Handbook of fndustrial and Organisational Psychology on leadershipstudies, Yukl & Van Fleet (1992) identified high energy, stress tolerance, integrity,emotional maturity and self-confidence as being the key individual traits related tomanagerial effectiveness and advancement.

Despite the large number of studies that have been done, however, as Bass(1990) has noted in his review of the field, much more research is needed that cantease out the differences inherent in the transformational-transactional leadershipparadigm. Thus, while the impact of personality on leadership styles was oncecriticized for not being particularly reliable or meaningful in its contribution (Mann,1959; Stogdill, 1948, 1974), given the increasing emphasis on personality andsubsequent organizational behaviour in recent years (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991;Bass, 1990; Davey, Schell & Morrison, 1993; Furnham & Stringfield, 1993;Gratzingcr, Warren & Cooke, 1990; Van Eron & Burke, 1992), it is highly likelythat this trend in leadership research will continue. Moreover, as Hogan et al. (1994)have noted in their review and critique of the literature, it seems clear then thatthere are at least some conditions under which personality constructs affect someindividual and organization leadership behaviours and outcomes such as jobperformance and turnover (e.g. Furnham, 1992). Given the lack of clarity regardingclear specific relationships between personality orientations and leadership and

H)2 Allan H. Church and Janine

managerial behaviours, however, tbe linkage among these sets of variables remainsworthy of further investigation (Bass, 1990; House & Podsakoff, 1994).

Leadership style and the Myers-Bri^s Type Indicator

One approach to understanding individual differences in personality that has beenused extensively in organizational settings, particularly in conjunction with mana-gerial performance feedback and team-building efforts, and that would appear tohave direct relevance to the study of leadership is the Myers Briggs Type Indicator{MBTI; Hirsh, 1985; Hirsh & Kummerow, 1990; Myers & McCauIley,'l985). Basedon Jungian concepts, the MBTI framework assumes that individuals differ alongfour primary dichotomous preference dimensions: extraversion-introversion (El),sensing-intuition (SN), thinking-feeling (TF) and judging-perceiving (JP). Thesefundamental preferences are thought to relate specifically to aspects of humanperception and cognition. Although some significant reservations have been raisedabout the validity of the full 16-type model (e.g. DeVito, 1985; Furnham &Stringfield, 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1989), the four primary dimensions haveproved to be quite robust in nature. Moreover, the MBTI has considerable Heldvalidity among consultants, organizational psychologists, counsellors and laypersons in helping others to improve their understanding of themselves and theimpact that these preferences in the four primary areas have on their ownbehaviour as well as their interactions with others (Hirsh, 1985; Keirsey & Bates,1978; McCaulley, 1990; Roush, 1992). Some ofthe work-related applications oftheMBTI have included the establishment of a competency model for organizationdevelopment practitioners (Bushe & Gibbs, 1990), an examination of problem-solving styles among mining personnel (Davey et al.., 1993), and the study ofleadership effectiveness across a broad range of industries and groups (e.g.Furnham & Stringfield, 1993; McCaulley, 1990; Oswald & Kroeger, 1988; Roush,1992; Roush & Atwater, 1992; Van Eron & Burke, 1992). Further, preferences onthe MBTI have also been linked to such outcomes as job satisfaction, decision-making style and the acceptance of various managerial roles (Furnham & Zachcrl,1986; Marcia, Aiuppa & Watson, 1989).

Unfortunately, even findings among this group of more focused studies continueto yield inconsistent results with respect to personality and leadership behaviours.For example, in comparison with some of the research cited above linking certaintraits to transformational leadership style, Furnham & Stringfield (1993) foundrelatively fewer significant correlations between personality as measured by theMBTI and work behaviours than would be expected in their study of Chinese andEuropean middle and senior managers. In general, more research is needed tobetter clarify the nature of these linkages.

leadership style and the Kirton Adaptation Inventory

Another personality measure that has served as an important variable in under-standing managerial behaviour, but has not as yet been widely or systematically


applied to the study of leadership behaviour, is the Kirton Adaptation Inventory(Kirton, 1991, 1992), or KAI. Also popular among organization consultants andtraining and development personnel, the KAI purports to assess the problem-solving style preference of an individual in a work environment. Based on a singlebipolar dimension score, individuals are classified according to the extent to whichthey prefer generating innovative methods and solutions versus using provenreliable methods and solutions for solving problems. Although there are relativelyfew findings linking KAI preference scores to leadership stj'les, research on theK.AI has reported some interesting findings with respect to other personalitydimensions. Clapp (1993), for example, found evidence supporting the long-termstability of the KAI with respect to its ability to assess two separate and distinctproblem-solving personality' styles. Jacobson (1993), on the other hand, found asignificant relationship between managers' scores on the KAI and their personalitypreferences as measured by the MBTI. More specifically, managers in the servicesector perceived themselves as being more innovative when compared with thegeneral population. In addition, the tendency to solve problems using a moreinnovative rather than adaptive approach, as measured by the KAI, was positivelycorrelated with MBTI preferences for extraversion, intuition, feeling and percep-tion. In other research, Kubes (1992) found significant correlations between thecognitive style of adaptors and innovators (representing the two approaches toproblem solving on the KAI) and their interpers(jnal needs. Given the importanceof the concept of innovation, creativity and thinking 'out of the box' so oftenassociated with the notion of transformational leadership (e.g. Bass, 1990; Bennis& Nanus, 1985; Burke, 1986; Burns, 1978; Tichy & Devanna, 1986), however,more work is needed that directly examines the relationships between the K/M anddifferences in leadership style.

Purpose of the present research

Clearly, the popularity of these various personality theories and their associatedinstruments among the field cannot be denied. Despite our fascination with suchconstructs, however, research results that demonstrate and describe the nature ofthe link between many of these personality measures and subsequent leadershipstyle and related behaviours in the workplace remain disparate and somewhatconfusing. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to extend our existing knowledge ofthe link between personality and leadership behaviours by examining the pattern ofrelationships between individual differences in personality orientation and leader-ship and management behaviours using a senior management population in a globalorganizational setting. More specifically, this research will contribute to the fieldby providing an analysis of the relationship among two frequently used setsof constructs and associated measures of individual differences with respect topersonality preferences or characteristics—i.e. the MBTI and the KAI—and therelationship that these variables have on the perceptions of executives and directreports of their leadership behaviours. By prtjviding a comparative analysis of therelationships present among these variables, this paper will {a) provide additionalinsights into the link between personality and leadership behaviours among a real

104 Allan H. Church and janine Waclawski

leadership population, and (̂ ) contribute to the existing knowledge base of tbe inter-relationships between these two personality measures.

Given the exploratory nature of this research, no specific hypotheses wereexamined. However, the following general propositions were proposed:

Proposition /; Relationships among combinations of personality indicators will bemore descriptive than each of the indicators alone.

Proposition 2: Certain personality combinations will serve to differentiate clearlybetween transformational and transactional styles of leadership.

Method

Sample

Data for the present study were collected from 253 executive, vice president and senior level managers(and their direct reports) from a large, highly diversified global corporation. All these individualsattended one of several executive leadership training and development programmes conducted by anexternal consulting firm over a nine-month period. Although head quartered in the United States, thisworldwide corporation has business units in Asia Pacific, Latin America and thn)ughout Europe. Itsproduct areas include containers, packaging, health care, chemicals and construction. In 1987 thecompany employed 38 000 people worldwide.

The mean age of these executive and senior level participants was 48.57 years (SD = 7.31). and themajority (over 90 per cent) were white males. Selection into the leadership developmeni programmewas based solely on management level, /\11 senior managers, including the chief executive (tificer,eventually attended i»nc of the programmes offered. Thus, the sample used in this research comprisedthe senior most executive population of this particular organization. The only individuals not includedin these analyses were those who did not fully complete the pre-work (see description below} for theprogramme but attended anyway, A post hoc analysis of the ratings these individuals received from theirdirect reports on leadership behaviours versus those received from participants with complete dataindicated no significant differences in overall behavioural tendencies {t'= .72, p< .40).

As pre-work for the programme, participants were required to complete several differentquestionnaires themselves (including measures of personality preferences, leadership behaviours, andexecutive practices) and return them directly to an independent external firm for scoring and reportgeneration. In addition, parallel forms of the leadership and executive practices questionnaires weredistributed to the liirect reports of these same individuals for completion and subsequent return forscoring. In total, responses from over 2400 direct reports (;V/- 7,42 per programme participant,SD = 1.70) were obtained describing the leadership and managerial behaviours of the executivesincluded in this study. No individual participant had corresponding data from fewer than three of hisor her direct reports.

Before completing the questionnaires, all raters, including the participants themselves, werefamiliari2ed with the developmental intent of the rating process and how the feedback would be used.Direct reports were instructed to be as candid and honest in their assessments as possible. They werealso informed that (a) no one in the organization, other than the progratnmc participant himself orherself, would receive a copy of the results of their assessments in aggregate form and that (h) theirspecific individual ratings would not be reported tn the participant unless three or more responseswere received. This was done to ensure the confidentiality of the assessments, and thus enhance ratermotivation and the subsequent validity and utility of the feedback data collected (Bracken, 1994;Church. 1995/.'; Harris. 1994; Ostroff. 1993). AU data obtained from direct reports remainedanonymous throughout the feedback process. Given that no individual respondent (other than theparticipant himself or herself) could be identified, the confidentiality and integrity of these data wereassured to the extent that such is possible. Although these conditions do not guarantee tht absenceof biases entering into the rating pr(tcess, they do provide an acceptable level of confidence in theintegrity and accuracy of the data obtained.


Measures

T'hc results described below arc based t)n three different questionnaires that were completed by eachprogramtne participant: the MBTI (Hlrsh &. Kummerow, 1990; Myers & McCauIley, 1985), the K.\I(Kirton, 1991, 1992) and the Leadership Assessment Itiveotory (LAI; Burke, 1991; Sashkin & Burke,1990; Van P>on & Burke, 1992). In addition, anywhere from 3 to 10 different direct reports providedratings for these same executives on a parallel form of the LAI. These latter ratings provided byparticipants' co-workers were used in aggregate form as tht dependent measures of leadershipbehaviour. .All these instruments have been well researched and, despite their respective shortcomings,continue to be used in organizational settings for genera! feedback and assessment purposes. They aredescribed in more detail below.

The MBTI has been a popular tool for psychologists and researchers (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1990;McCauIley, 1990) and has been applied in numerous personal and organizational settings. In terms ofmeasures, the MBTI yields four separate continuous preference scores (i.e. El, SN, TF and JP), whichdescribe both the nature and relative strength of an individual's preference for how he or she goesabout deriving energ\' (extraversion-inrroversion), focusing attention (sensing—intuition), makingdecisions (thinking-feeling) and orienting to the outside world (judging—perceiving). As with mostmeasures, the strength of one's preference is indicated by the relative size of the value from theinstrument. Thus, scores are interpreted as follows: 1—9 indicates a slight preference, 11—19 amoderate preference, 21-39 a clear preference and 40 or more a very clear preference. Because eachof the four scores represents two sides or aspects of a single construct, however, scores on the MBTI(when used for research purposes) can be negative as well as positive, with a negative value indicatinga preference for the first of the paired items describing that specific dimension—e.g. a negative scoreon TF indicates a preference for thinking, while a positive score represents a feeling orientation.Typically, based on the combination and direction of the preference scores, an individual is assigneda 'type' classification based on one of 16 possible categories (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1990; Myers &McCauIley, 1985; Roush, 1992). Since several authors (e.g. DeVito, 1985; McCrac & Costa. 1989)have challenged both the validity and reliability of these psychological 'types', however, thisframework was not used in the present research. Instead, the primary measures consisted of thefour bipolar preference scores, which are thought to be more robust in nature (McCrae & Costa,1989).

The KAI is an assessment too! that describes the problem-solving style preference of an individual(Foxall & liackett, 1992; Kirton, 1991, 1992). Respondents are provided with a list of 33 statementsdescribing a presentational image of an individual in a work setting (e.g. 'A person who enjoys thederailed work') and are asked to indicate the degree of difficulty or ease—using a non-numericcontinuous scale from 'verj' hard' to 'very easy'—that would be required for them to maintain theimage consistently for a long period of time (Kirton, 1991). These markings are then converted to avalue ranging from 1 to 5 based on a scoring template that is included with the instrument on atear-away score transfer page. Responses are scored according to the value to which they are theclosest (with ties receiving the middle most scores of the two options). By summing the scoresassociated with each response, an individual rprcives a total score that can range between 32 and 160and represents their preferred prob]em-solving style. High scorers on the KAI (or innovators as they arelabelled) tend to take significant risks and break rules in trying new solutions and generating ideas.'ITiese people tend to operate outside the paradigm. Low scorers (termed adapters), on the other hand,prefer to use proven, reliable methods in their problem-solving efforts. They tend to stay within theparadigm, using appropriate solutions that have worked in the past. The KAI has been usedextensively across a number of industries and occupational gr«jups and a variety <tf norms are available(Kirton, 1992). Because of the nature in which the instrument was scored (i.e. by programmeparticipants during the training session), reliability information for the present sample was availableonly for a subset of individuals—i.e. those who either returned their form in advance before theprogramme for scoring or who provided complete copies of all their responses. Among this subset of84 executives, however, the alpha coefficient was computed at .91.

The LAI is a self-other feedback instrument designed to measure managers' and executives'leadership style. Based on a transformationai-transactional model of leadership (Bass, 1990; Bennis &Nanus, 1985; Burke, 1979, 1986, 1990; Burns, 1978; Tichy & Devanna, 1986; Zaieznik, 1977), the

106 Allan H. Church and Janine Waclawski

LAI has been used extensively in training and development programmes (Burke, 1990; Sashkin &Burke, 1990; Van Rron & Burke, 1992) and in various research efforts as well (e.g. Burke & Church,1992; Church li at., 1996). Using a six-point scale (where 0 = completely uncharacteristic and5 = completely characteristic), respondents arc asked to respond to IS pairs of descriptive items byassigning five points between the two statements. F.ach pair of statements contains a response that iscoded as cither transtormational or transactional in nature. For example. *As a leader, this personthinks: [A] long range (what might be) or [B] short range (what is realistic)*. In this case, thinking longrange is scored as a transformational response, while thinking short range reflects a more transacdona!approach. Responses from the 18 specific transformational-transactional item pairs are then used toproduce a summary transformational score ranging from 0 to 90 (the inverse of which represents asummary transactional score) for both the self and his or her direct reports. This total score describesthe extent to which the individual being rated is perceived to be more transformational versustransactional in his or her leadership style or a balanced combination of the two. The expectedmid-point of the instrument is 45. representing a balanced orientation towards both transformationaland transactional leadership behaviours. Transformational leaders tend to consider the 'big picture'.They attempt to bring about significant change via long-range vision and by arousing the energy- oftheir followers. In comparison, transactional leaders simply want to get the job done, TTiey reward andsanction followers according to compliance with their expectations.

Aside from the total score, five additional subscores are also generated from the LAI for each ofthe dimensions pertaining lo specific elements in Burke's (1979. 1986, 1990, 1991) model ofleadership: determining direction, inHucncing followers, establishing purpose, inspiring followers andmaking things happen. In general, the LAI has been reported to have acceptable levels of reliabilityand validity (Church & Burke, 1993; Church et at., 1996; Sashkin & Burke, 1990). Among the presentsample, the alpha coefficient was .72 for self-ratings on the LAI and ,81 for direct reports' ratings. Thealphas for each of the subscales ranged from .51 to .71 for self-ratings and from ,65 to .79 for directreports' ratings. With respect to validity, for example, scores from the original 18-item instrumenthave been shown to differentiate between senior and middle level managers across several hightechnology and government firms—-with senior executives demonstrating a significantly greatertransformational orientation (Sashkin & Burke, 1990)—and have explained variance with respect tosubordinate observations of managerial behaviour and perceptions of work-group climate (Van Eron

6 Burke, 1992).

Analyses

The data were analysed using a two-tier approach. First, a correlation matrix was computed using allvariables of interest including the self-scored personality preferences dimensions (i.e. using the MBTIand KAI instruments) and self (executives) and others' (their direct reports') behavioural ratings fromthe total and subscores of the leadership instrument (LAI) to look fur general relationships in ihe data.

Next, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using standardized scores from the fiveself-rated personality indices only (i.e. the four bipolar preference scores from the MBTI and the totalscore from the KAI) to Identify discrete groups of individuals with different 'personality orientations'.These cluster groups were then used in a series of ANOVA models to identify significant differencesin perceptions of both self and direct reports of leadership behaviour by individual personalityorientation. Where differences existed, Schcffe post hoc comparisons were used to control for Type Ierrors when examining means by cluster group differences (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Thus,personality variables were used in the present study to maximize differences in personal orientationand style, which were then examined for their effect on self and others' ratings of leadershipbehaviours in the workplace.

Additional tollow-up analyses were also conducted on each set of direct reports' ratings ofleadership behaviour (i.e. by executive rated) to look for possible relationships among within-managerratings agreement and personality preferences,'

'These additional analyses were the suggestion of one <»f the anonymous reviewers.


Table 1. Correlation matrix of personality variables

Mean SDExtra version- Sensing- Thinking- Judging-

KAI introversion intuition feeling perceiving

KJ\I totalE-IS-NT-FI D

106.42-3.82

4.33-28.15- 10.17

16.125.626.818.727.0

- .25**.45***

- .25**.38***

- .10- . 0 8

.01.19**.46*** .14*

Note. Negative values on the Ibur MBTI pretcrence scwres indicait a prcftrciice tor the left most k-ltcr of the dimensionpair (e.g. extraversion vs. introversion).

Results and discussion

Personality correlates

Results of the correlational analysis and descriptive statistics for each of thepersonality variables are presented in Table 1. Based on the four MBT! preferencescore means, this group of senior managers can be described as being relativelymoderate with respect to their preferences for extraversion and intuition. Theseindividuals seem to favour decision making based on logical, rational analysis offacts and data (reflected in their preference for thinking) as opposed to usingemotions and feelings for others. Their preferred orientation as a group to theouter world, however, seems to be based primarily on judgment (focusing onstructure, planning, making decisions quickly and firmly sticking to them oncemade) rather than on perception (a preference for living a spontaneous, flexible andadaptable life). The overall KAI score of 106 is above the standard norm for theinstrument—about 96 (Kirton, 1992), indicating that these executives are slightlymore innovative rather than adaptive as a group in addressing problem-solvingsituations. Based on Kirton's (1992) norms, these executives scored in the range ofR&D managers and professionals, which is not surprising given the diversifiednature of their organization's holdings. Moreover, one would hope that seniormanagers would prefer a somewhat risky approach to problem solving, given thecurrent business environment and the fact that many of the tried and true methodsare no longer providing a competitive advantage.

Returning to the correlations between personality measures, it was interesting tonote that those individuals who tended to rate themselves more as innovators onthe KAI (i.e. achieving higher total scores) also tended to (1) focus more externallyon interactions with pet)ple and things (exhibiting a preference for extraversion) asopposed to being overly thoughtful, internally driven and/or reflective; (2) preferintuition—operating on ideas, hunches and theories—rather than sensing as theirmode of perceiving the world; (3) achieve even higher scores than the rest of theexecutives for thinking versus feeling as a means for making decisions; and yet (4)promote a flexible, open and spontaneous attitude with respect to their orientation


to the world (i.e. preferring the more ethereal perception over the controlling andplanful aspects of judgment). Taken together, these mean preferences wouldsuggest that high KAI scorers could be categorized as E-N-T-Ps (i.e. Extravert,iNtuitive, Thinking, Perceiving), which, when compared with the descriptionprovided by Hirsh & Kummerow (1990)—'innovative, individualistic, versatile,analytical, and attracted to entrepreneurial ideas' (p. 30)—seems quite appropriate.Moreover, when compared with McCaulley's (1990) norm profiles for managersin business and industry in the United States, these executives appear to besimilar overall to those ENTPs noted among the founders/co-founders of Inc.magazine's 1987 list of the 500 fastest growing firms in America. These similaritieswould suggest, then, that individuals with higher KAI scores may have greaterentrepreneurial tendencies as well.

With respect to correlations among the four MBTI preference scores, the onlyrelationship worth noting is that executives who favoured intuition as a means forperceiving the world also tended to be less controlling, planful and judgmental withrespect to their overall orientation. Although there was a moderate propensity forthose who preferred thinking as their means for making decisions to processinformation in the intuitive rather than sensing side of the idea domain, thisrelati(jnship only represented approximately 4 per cent of the shared variancebetween these two preference scores. Based on these correlations, it would appearas though the four bipolar measures are predominately independent indices, asothers have suggested (e.g. John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1989).

Leadership style

in terms of perceived (by self) and observed (by others) leadership style,participants rated themselves, overall, as being somewhat more transformational intheir orientation towards working with others (A/= 52.61 as compared with abalanced style mid-point mean score of 45). Tables 2 and 3 provide the details foreach of summary scores, subscales and intercorrelations among these leadershipvariables. In terms of the published norms for this instrument (Burke, 1990), theseexecutives scored within the same range as other senior managers who have takenthe self-assessment (e.g. Columbia University Executive programme participants,53; European-based airline top 150 executives, 53; pharmaceutical company uppermanagement, 54). Moreover, these scores are significantly above those reported formost middle managers tested.

Interestingly enough, however, while participants in the present study envisionedthemselves as being more transformational in their approach to managing others,the direct reports of these same individuals provided ratings that were significantlymore transactional {M= A'h.l?i) in their estimations (/(237) = 17.29, ;?<.001). Thissame pattern of results was reflected throughout the five subscores, with executivesrating themselves higher on the LAI (i.e. as more transformational) than did theirdirect reports. Given research on general levels self-other ratings agreement in thefield (e.g. Furnham & Stringfield, 1993; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988; London &Wohlers, 1991; Nowack, 1992), it was not surprising to note that when comparingthe self versus others' scores via a correlation coefficient in the present sample, the


Cl.

-a

•c

oU(N

Si

1^ C^ P-

c S

c•£

Q

Q

Q

Q

u0u

nal

tota

l :

o• a

,cc

•

*

*00

*

Or-

*#

**

r-i n

43.

o0 0. ^(N(N

ems)

00

lirec

tion

u

inin

g

eQ

r-o

*

***0 0

*

*#*

00

CMI—

12.

0 0

CO

ms)

V

How

ers

.o

ring

f

cudc

o

**

* •

r-

***

***Oi n

***

CO

r-00d

O00( N

i n-—•

ms)

u

L O

urpo

sc

a,

hin

s

^'rti/>

[r]

*'n

I—•

*

***

i n

**

*

•n

***

d

00—^

1

wer

s

0

gfo

l]

c

pir

u l

-X-t--I—'

*

*

oo

**#

#i n

rg

i nLTi

i nrM,_oCO

ms)

H

happ

enth

ins

11

***

**

*

***

**i n

^

CN

E

c "c "ID a% o

-5 §o -a

V S u

— i« 0

^ "̂ -5V E

no 4lian H. Church and Janine Waclawski

o .£

o •^ in o(N ^ O O

O

r - •^ 00 OO o^ ^ o o '-i

Tf in r-

o o o

* * ** * *TT i n COCN (N ^

* *o o

* * * #* * * *O 00 Q -- o

c^ 00 r- c^ T-O "—• O O C>

I I I I I

* i * * *(N -^ ^- r̂ O r<iTf "^ fn CM t-i fN

u

13 c

uc e - - ^

Iiou

c

Q k>

"' c E- P 2 ilV °


strength of the relationship—that is, the agreement in relative perceptions ofleadership behaviour between self and an averaged set of observations from directreports—was not particularly strong (r= .37). What is more, while the total scoreswere correlated only moderately, the self versus others' ratings for the last twosubscores of the model (inspiring followers and making things happen) showedalmost no relationship whatsoever. It may be, however, that these items in the lasttwo subscores represetit the least stable constructs, since they yielded the lowestcorrelations with the total score and the other subscales overall as well. Moreover,these two dimensions are based on the smallest number of items (three and two,respectively).

This observed trend ot higher self versus others' scores is anything but atypicalin this type of ratings based research (Arnold &. Davey, 1992; Church, 1997; Harris& Schaubroeck, 1988; iMabe & West, 1982; Nowack, 1992). However, sinceself-awareness as measured vis-a-vis congruence with respect to self versus others'behavioural ratings in the workplace has been shown in several studies todifferentiate between high and average performing managers (Atwater &Yammarino, 1992; Bass & Yammarino, 1991; Church, 1994, 1997; Van Velsor,Taylor & Leslie, 1993), the data may have important implications for the executivesof this organization. Although there is currently considerable debate regarding theappropriateness of using congruence in behavioural measures, which are, of course,based in large part on individual perceptions, as a means of operationalizing theconstruct of self-aware ness, recent research has begun to support this contentionthrough the use of other more accepted personality' measures of self-directedattention such as Snyder's (1974) self-monitoring scale (e.g. Church, 1997).Whether a standard measurement issue, differences in cognitive schema, or anindicator of less than superior levels of self-awareness among this group ofparticipants, however, given that their direct report ratings represent an average ofrespondents observing behaviour from the same individual, this gap in perceptualawareness on the part of these executives would suggest that, at the very least, theyhad a somewhat inBated view of the transformational nature of their ownbehaviour relative to other observers.

Identifying personality clusters

Next, in order to examine the relationships among the personality variables andleadership behaviours, a hierarchical cluster analysis (Aldenderfer & Blashfield,1984; Norusis, 1993) was performed on the normalized scores for the KAI and thefour preference indices from the MBTI. A centroid clustering method based on thesquared euclidean distances among variables (Norusis, 1993) was used in thisanalysis. After a review of the incremental jump in distance coefficients based onthe Agglomeration Schedule as well as an examination of the dendrogram results,the best solution identified was that of four conceptually distinct and stable clusters(Norusis, 1993). Subsequent extraction analysis of these four clusters using a^-means methodology further revealed that each of the personality measuresyielded significant differences at the ^<.001 level across the four groups. Figure 1provides the details of the cluster centres for each of the four groups as well as


Figure 1. Mean standardized personaUt)- response by cluster membership. Key. I = introven,N = intuitive, F = feeling, P = perceiving, E = cxtravert, S = sensing, T = thinking, J - judging.n Innovators for change-inventors (6U); A Analytical coordinators-managers (65); •OrganizedPragmatist-implementors (70); ^ Enthusiastic idealisr-motivators (58),

their assigned names based on the mean personality orientation represented. Thedefining characteristics of each group are described in more detai! below.

The first cluster consisted of 60 individuals who, according to a ranking of theirself-ratings on the personality instruments, were the highest in terms of innovationon the KAI {M~ \\8.36), moderate on their introversion and thinking preferences,relatively high on intuition and highest among the four groups with respect to theirpreferences towards perceiving {M-2A.1%). These executives have been labelledinnovators for change, and would hest be characterized as inventors. Representing themost creative individuals among this set of executives, they are the idea generatorsof the organization. They are likely to be interested in theoretical and abstractthinking with a penchant for problem solving, and they are probably moreconcerned with the world of concepts than the world of social interaction, asevidenced by their tendency towards introversion and thinking.

The second cluster identified was comprised of 65 individuals who ratedthemselves as moderate innovators, moderate extraverts and moderate sensors.They scored the highest, however, among the four groups in their thinking andjudging scores from the MBTI {M= ~ 41.97 and M= ~ 26.00, respectively).These executives would best be characterized as analytical coordinators or managers. Asindicated by a description of their MBTI profile (Ilirsh & Kummerow, 1990), theyare Ukeiy to be logical, tough minded, analytical individuals who are concerned withsolving problems in the 'here and now'. By their own admission, these executivesare more externally or people oriented than the previous group and appear to have


more of a proclivity for working with tangible issues than abstract ideas. They arelikely to engage well with others and have strong communication, facilitation andcoordination skills.

The third cluster group consisted of 70 executives who rated themselves thelowest on the KAI compared with others {M = 88.66), and therefore representedthe adaptive as opposed to the innovative approach to problem solving (Kirton,1992). These individuals, who have been labelled organi^dpragmatists or implementors.,were the most extreme scorers among the participants on three of the remainingfour personality dimensions: highest on introversion {Nl= 15.21), highest onsensing [Al- ~ 16.61), and tied for highest on judging {M- — 25.72). Moreover,they were the only group containing individuals predisposed to an adaptive ratherthan an innovative approach to working with problems and issues. Thus, in general,these individuals would appear to be extremely task oriented, routine producers,who stick to proven methods to accomplish their tasks. In essence, these are the'worker bees' of the organization—that is, they carry out the plans laid out bymanagers and based perhaps on ideas provided by the inventors.

The final cluster was made up of 58 individuals who rated themselves ascomparatively strong innovators (this cluster's ratings were a bit higher than those ofmanagers on this dimension but lower than inventors), relatively low perceivers and thehighest on cxtravcrsion {M - — 23.93) and intuition {M = 24.71). With respect tothe thin king-feeling dimension, this group achieved the lowest preference amongthe four groups for thinking {M= — 12.89), although their score still represents abias in the logical versus emotional direction. Overall, this group of executives isbest described as enthusiastic idealists or motivators. By virtue of their MBTI profilethey are likely to be very insightful, conceptual, enthusiastic and tireless in thepursuit of new possibilities (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1990). In addition, because oftheir high extraversion scores, they are probably the most c<jmfortable among thepresent set of individuals in dealing with people and their problems. In short,these executives thrive on social interaction and live in the world of concepts andlinkages.

leadership style hy personality clusters

Independent ANOVAs were conducted using these four personality orientations asthe grouping (i.e. independent) variable, and the total score and associatedsubscores of the LAI as the dependent measures. Where significant main effectswere identified, Scheffe/jftr/" f̂lf comparisons (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989) were thenexamined to determine specifically which groups differed on each measure ofleadership. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4.

Total scores. As previously mentioned, the LAI provides a total score delineatingthe extent to which an individual is perceived as more transformational ortransactional in his or her leadership style or a balanced combination of the two.In addition, dimension scores are also derived from the LAI, which pertain to thefollowing five specific elements in Burke's (1990) model of leadership: determining


Table 4. ANOVA results for leadership behaviour by cluster membership

Transformational total scoreDctfmiining directionInfluencing followersEstablishing purposeInspiring followersMaking things happen

Others'

8.22***10.30***6.13***3.89**2.270.25

ratings

a,b,d,ea,h,e

d.eh

Self-ratings

15.20***12.75***10.55***8.74***5.151.52

a,h,d.ea,b,d,e

b,d,eh,c,e

d,e

Nott. d.f,=233, 3 tor all analyses. Key. Significant Scheffc comparisons: a inventors>managt.Ts; h invfni(irs>implementors; r managers > implementors; d motivators > managers; <i motivat(»rs> implementors.

direction, influencing followers, establishing purpose, inspiring followers andmaking things happen. Examining the LAI results by cluster membership yieldedsome interesting findings.

First, with respect to the total score, members of groups 1 and 4, the inventorsand the motivators, were perceived both by themselves (f"(3, 233) = 15.20, /)< .001)and by others (/^(3, 233) = 8.23, p<.Oi)\) as being significantly more transfor-mational in their leadership style than members of groups 2 and 3, the managers andthe implementors. Thus, both groups of executives who were highly conceptualthinkers and had a strong preference for innovation as a means for problem solvingtended to demonstrate more transformational behaviours when working with others.Although in this case it is their respective preferences for extraversion versusintroversion that differentiated between the two orientations (inventors are idea-driven while motivators are people-driven), both styles appear to characterize thetype of leader who is focused on organizational change rather than stability. Thesetypes of individuals are likely to provide a clear vision of the future state and tomobilize people's energies to believe in that vision, but are less likely to haveformulated a concrete strategy to actually achieve it (Burke, 1986, 1990; Sashkin &Burke, 1990); this they apparently leave to the managers and implementors. Anexamination of the subscores of the model will provide greater clarity concerningthese differences.

Subscores—determining direction. The first dimension of the LAI, determining direc-tion, may be the central transformational-transactional distinction—that is, be-tween taking a creative approach to situations or a conservative one (Burke, 1990).Given that inventors and motivators were both rated as more transformational thanimplementors and managers, and this is perhaps the key determinant in Burke'smodel of leadership style, one would expect that the former rather than thelatter of these two groups would be rated as better at determining direction. Insupport of this contention, inventors' ratings (both for self and others) signifi-cantly exceeded those of implementors and managers on this dimension. However,while motivators' self-ratings for determining direction exceeded those of both

Personality orientation and executive leadership 11 5

implementors and managers, their direct reports' ratings did not fully corroboratethis distinction. More specifically, while motivators were rated higher thanimplementors on this dimension of leadership by their direct reports, these scoreswere not significantly different from those obtained by managers' direct reports (seeTable 3). Based on an examination of the individual items contained in thesubscale, it would appear that although these motivators do, in fact, provide asmuch long-range vision and focus on change as do inventors, they have a higherneed and concern for ensuring the clarity- of roles, tasks and responsibilities (as domanagers) in the implementation process. Thus, these motivators are a bit moreconcerned with the process as well as the novelty of the vision, while the inventors,it seems, simply believe in the vision itself.

Subscores—influencing followers. The second dimension of the LAI, influencing fol-lowers, describes whether a person concentrates on influencing others by arousingtheir hopes and enthusiasm—enthusiasm generated in part by the ability to getfollowers to link their own concerns in life with the leader's ideas (Burke, 1990).Regarding the present group, both self and others' ratings of motivators weresignificantly higher than those of managers and implementors. As might beexpected, those executives categorized in the motivator cluster were the best atengendering energy and enthusiasm in their direct reports. Inventors, on the otherhand, were not as successful in this area. While these executives rated themselvessignificantly higher on average than did implementors with respect to influencingfollowers, their direct reports' ratings did not substantiate this relationship. In fact,inventors did not differ significantly from any other group on this dimension. Thus,while motivators were clearly seen as more effective than managers and implemen-tors at mobili:;̂ ing others to follow their lead, inventors were probably too internallytocused to have much of an impact with respect to instilling enthusiasm and socialenergy. Their self-perceptions in this area were not substantiated by their directreports' observations.

Logically, one might not expect inventors to be better on influencing followers,given their strong preferences for introversion and innovation. It is possible, forexample, that these individuals are too far removed from their direct reports to beable to identify with them personally, generate enthusiasm and thereby influencethem. Most likely, these executives see themselves as communicating and interactingwith their direct reports far more than they actually do, and are probably not veryinterested in increasing the frequency of contact. This difference in self-perception,however, has serious implications for these types of leaders because if influencingothers truly is critical to the processes of leadership and management, as Burke(1990) and others (e.g. Kipnis, Schmidt & Wilkinson, 1980; Manz, 1986; Yukl &Falbe, 1990; Yukl, Falbe & Youn, 1993; Zaieznik, 1977) have suggested, theninventors by nature of their personality orientation are at a serious disadvantagewhen interacting in the business hierarchy. While they may be the idea generators ofthe organization, they are probably not as skilled at getting their ideas understood,communicated and integrated throughout the entire system. Motivators, on the otherhand, seem to know what they are doing with respect to generating enthusiasm andenergizing others through their innovative ideas and actions.


Subscores—establishing purpose. The third dimension of the LAI, establishing purpose,measures the extent to which leaders have a clear sense of personal mission and feelthey are in charge of the events around them. Transformational leaders, by takingcharge and demonstrating through their actions a powerful commitment to theirown ideals, often put very strong impHcit as well as explicit demands on theirfollowers (Burke, 1990). Among the present set of executives, however, motivators,inventors and managers all seemed to place these demands on themselves instead—i.e. by rating themselves significantly higher than implementors on this dimension.Interestingly enough, though, only inventors were observed by their direct reportsto engage in these types of leadership behaviours more frequently than members ofthe other groups. Thus, while managers and motivators may have personally feltthat they have a strong sense of mission and are in control of their environment,their direct reports did not perceive them the same way at all. It is possible, then,that these inventors may be the strongest visionaries of their organization.

This effect may, in part, be reflective of the strong preference on the part ofinventors for introversion—i.e. the inner world of ideas and impressions. Theirenergy is derived primarily from within (and is highly original and innovative andyet also cognitive in nature), and thus these executives may not be as concernedwith the evaluative component that often accompanies social scrutiny. Moreover,given their strong preference for intuition (abstract concepts and theories), theymay feel and therefore act as if they have a better understanding of the workingsof the world, even if they arc, perhaps, less engaged with it than are others. Theiraloofness and tendency towards conceptual approaches to novel situations prob-ably c(jntrihute to their direct reports' perceptions of an inherent sense of missionand mastery of their environment. Motivators, in comparison, while replete withsocial energy and full of vision at a given moment in time, may appear moremalleable with respect to others' needs and desires and thus perhaps not as deeplyand internally committed to a specific set of ideals. These types of high energyexecutives may be viewed as being more politically than internally driven in the eyesof their direct reports, even if they themselves do not feel this way.

Another interesting finding with respect to establishing purpose is the lack (jfan observed difference among direct reports' ratings between managers andimplementors. Although managers rated themselves higher in this area than didimplementors, these differences were not supported by others' observations. Ifmanagers are conceptualized as the ones who make the plans and implementors arethe 'worker bees' that carry them out, however, then these managers should bebetter at establishing purpose and taking charge. They should be in control of theirenvironment and have a clearer understanding of the vision at hand. Such was notthe case among the present set of individuals. An alternative cxplanatitin that ismore supportive of these results, however, would be that managers, while being theconsummate coordinators, do not necessarily have within them the vision or themission that is the driving force behind their implementation strategies. Perhapsthey have a weaker sense of or lack a personal mission that could be reflective oftheir lower scores with respect to determining direction and influencing followersas well. Further, while managers certainly control the process, they may not feel inci>ntrol of the content itself—i.e. the overall direction that is being set. ln either


case, it is clear that the inventors are the only ones who demonstrated significantdifferences with respect to establishing purpose.Subscores—inspiring followers. The fourth dimension of the LAI, inspirmg followers,describes the degree to which a leader focuses on change through inspiration andan appeal to higher standards of morality (Burke, 1990). This element of the modelrepresents the 'missionary' aspects of leadership (Burns, 1978). While motivatorsperceived themselves to be higher on this dimension than did implementors andmanagers, their direct reports once again did not share this observation. In fact,based on the direct reports' ratings there were no significant differences among anyof the four groups on this dimension. Thus, none of these executive personalityclusters was distinguishable with respect to representing a higher moral purpose.Although this finding may seem somewhat contradictory at first based on theresults described above, given the limited nature of the individuals under study itseems quite possible that these executives do not, in fact, represent or subscribe tomuch in the way of higher ideals. While members of the clerg}', school super-intendents and perhaps even some organizational development practitioners mightexhibit these types of morally purposeful behaviours (e.g. Church, Burke & VanKynde, 1994; Harvey, 1974; Oswald & Kroeger, 1988), executives as a group areusually more concerned with business issues and organization effectiveness thandemonstrating standards of ethical behaviour (Brenner & Molander, 1977; Morgan,1993; Piper, Gentile & Parks, 1993). Moreover, based on the pattern of resultsalready described above, the only cluster group that might be expected to achievesuch distinction would be the inventors, by nature of the potential strength of theirinner conviction. In the present data set, however, it appears as though the innerstates of these executives are primarily focused on innovations among the businessand service aspects of their organization than on the moral and ethical.

Subscores—making things happen. The final dimension of the LAI, making thingshappen, measures the extent to which a transformational leader sees himself orherself as the cause of events; one who actively teaches others the right way to goinstead of helping them go in the direction they wish (Burke, 1990). It is thedistinction between the mentor and the facilitator, the participant and the observer.Again, as with inspiring followers, there were no significant differences on thisdimension among the four personality orientations either in terms of self or others'ratings. Perhaps this outcome is due to the fact that this subscore is based on onlytwo items and is therefore constrained by issues of limited variance. However, theabsence of differences among clusters may also be reflective of the true lack of adifference in perspective among executives in this domain of leadership. Sincemaking things happen in content (if not in title) also seems to be tied somewhat tothe notion of serving or pursuing a moral purpose (as with inspiring followers), thesame reasoning described above would also apply here. Support for this interpret-ation comes from a comparison of the ratings for the present set of executives withthe norm scores for the LAI (Burke, 1990). Interestingly enough, all theseindividuals had relatively low scores, representing about the 30th percentile for theinstrument overall. Thus, taking a higher moral stance may not be relevant (or beperceived to be relevant) to this population of executives. Clearly, many leadership


scholars and organization change professionals alike would disapprove of such aposition (e.g. Bass, 1981; Burns, 1978; Geilerman, Frankel & Ladenson, 1990;Howell & Avolio, 1992; Margulies & Raia, 1990). Witness, for example, the recenttrend to try and teach ethics to Harvard Business School students (Piper et al.^1993) before they become indoctrinated into the business world.

Ratings agreement

When direct reports' individual ratings of leadership style were compared with oneanother from a within-manager perspective, some interesting results emerged.Direct report—direct report agreement on leadership behaviours of a givenparticipant were considerably more convergent than any of the individual orcombined self-direct report comparisons. More specifically, when examined froma paired comparison approach (using each unique pair of direct reports for eachparticipant as the unit of analysis), the average difference score across all pairs wasquite small (A/=0.01, SD = 0.05). In comparison, the average difference scoreacross all pairs of self-direct report ratings was significantly higher at {M - 0.51,SD = 0.03). Thus, direct reports were quite consistent in their ratings of executivesand these averages differed substantially from self-perceptions. lUoreover, whenthese same comparison methods were examined for differences by personalitypreferences, it was clear that while personality preferences did not appear to havean impact on behavioural agreement among direct reports, there were clearrelationships among self—direct reports' comparisons by cluster membership. Morespecifically, among 7 of the 10 sets of self—direct report comparisons, motivatorsyielded significantly lower levels of agreement with their direct reports' ratings thandid members of the other three groups.

This observed level of agreement among direct reports is consistent withresearch and theory on implicit theories of leadership (e.g. Bass, 1990; Lord, Foti& DcVadcr, 1984; Phillips & Lord, 1981). In other words, one possible explanationfor the high degree of similarity among direct reports' observations of theleadership style of their managers is that these individuals have developed similarimplicit theories regarding the defining characteristics of leadership in theworkplace, and that their assessments reflect these frameworks rather than actualidiosyncrasies in behaviour observed.

Summary and implications

In summary, while the self-ratings of the members of the four personality clustersgenerally reflected the ratings of their observers, several significant discrepancieswere found. Most notably, motivators often saw themselves as exhibiting certaintypes of leadership behaviours (i.e. establishing purpose and inspiring followers)more than did their direct reports. Based on this pattern, it appears as thoughmotivators are somewhat 'high on themselves'; that is to say, they have anoverinflated opinion of the transformational nature of their leadership style. Theirhigh energy, it would seem, carries into and biases their self-perceptions. In


comparison, inventors look to be more attuned to their own strengths andweaknesses. While their introverted nature may be a handicap with respect to theirability to influence others, they generally seem to be more aware of their leadershipStyle than are motivators. Finally, managers and implementors tended to be themost consistently transactional in their leadership approach. Surprisingly, therewere no real differences between these two groups, as one might expect. Based onthese results it would appear that managers and 'worker bees' do not differ withrespect to their leadership behaviours in the workplace.

These results have a number of implications for understanding and working withsenior executives in organizational settings. First and foremost, given the cleardifferences in personality orientation and leadership style among the four groups,this classification scheme could be used for identifying and subsequently matchingexecutives and/or managers to various types of projects and assignments inorganizational settings. For example, individuals who fit the motivator profile mightbe best placed in management positions that are high profile, high recognition andhighly social in nature. Inventor-type individuals, on the other hand, might bebetter suited for projects where innovative and somewhat isolated tendencieswould serve as positive forces rather than negative ones. Similarly, based on thesedata, manager and implementor types might be well placed in jobs that are high incustomer focus and administratively complex, respectively.

Another application of these results is in the area of self and other development.More specifically, this classification scheme could be effectively used in a manage-ment development setting for identifying differential needs among individuals withrespect to leadership training, individuals matching the manager and implementortypes, for example, would probably get more out of a training session devoted tocreating a mission and vision for the work-group than would either motivators orinventors. Conversely, members of these latter two groups might find a basiccourse on project management to be a useful exercise, given their strengths asleaders. With respect to other development another use of these categories wouldbe to apply them to the identification and selection of senior level individuals forpotential mentors based on their relative skill sets. If there is a need for highlyenergetic new leaders, for example, it would probably be best to assign a numberof motivators as mentors to high performing and/or high potential individuals. Ifradical thinking is the primary need, on the other hand, inventors might make thebest mentors for such an organizational need. In general, while the specificcategories identified in the present study may be open to debate, the basic premiseof using personality measures in conjunction with leadership behaviours to assignindividual managers to various tasks and work-groups is clearly a useful applicationof any type of assessment tool.

Limitations and directions for future research

Although the results described above yielded some interesting relationships withrespect to linking personality orientations to leadership behaviours in theworkplace, there are several limitations to this research that should be recognizedand addressed. First, the executives included in the present study all originated


from the same organization, which seriouisly limits the gencrallzability of boththe personality orientation clusters identified and the nature of the observedrelationships to ratings of leadership behaviour. Further research is needed tocross-validate the clusters as well as the relationships obtained in other types oforganizations. Moreover, the participant pool itself is limited with respect to level(senior managers), gender (males) and ethnicity (whites). Lower level managers, forexample, might have exhibited very different sets of personality and/or behaviouraltendencies. While one might hypothesize that the implementor profile wouldcharacterize such managers best, particularly given the developmental nature ofdifferences inherent in different management and leadership orientations (e.g.Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). Such hypotheses, however, can only be determinedthrough additional research. Similarly, given that other studies have pointed todifferential strengths and weaknesses with respect to line versus stafT functions (e.g.Church & Waclawski, 1997), there are clearly other areas in need of additionalexamination as well.

The measures used in this study (i.e. the MBTI, LAI and KAI) also represent alimitation to this research since they were chosen not specifically for their researchand psychometric properties but for their utility in management development andtraining efforts. For example, the somewhat low reliabilities of several of tbesubscores ofthe LAI may have constrained the level of significant results obtained(Nunnally, 1978). Moreover, while the LAI purports to assess behaviours relatingto leadership, in actuality, these types of assessments are based on perceptualframeworks, as are most tools used in multi-rater feedback efforts, rather than ontrue observations. These frameworks, then, are subject to a variety of factors andpotential biases including personal prejudices, past rather than present experienceswith the individual in question, and more generalized implicit theories of leadership(e.g. Lord et al., 1984; Phillips & Lord, 1981). Neither is the use of the MBTI orKAI without criticism.

Unfortunately, although the universe of assessment instruments is full ofalternative measures (e.g. those that measure the Big Five dimensions of person-ality, those that conceptualize transformational and transactional leadership as twoindependent dimensions instead of one, etc.), field research of the type presentedhere is often constrained by (a) what the client organization wants and feelscomfortable using and (h) what the practitioner/researcher prefers and feelscomfortable using. Clearly, future research should be directed at replicating andexpanding on the personality typologies identified here using additional instrumentsand constructs derived from the personality and leadership literatures.

ConclusionsWhat can be concluded from this research? Given the results described above,individual differences in personality orientation do seem to have a highly significantimpact on leadership behaviour as perceived by others (as well as by self) in theworkplace. While it may be still premature to advocate the use of personalitymeasures for selection and promotion purposes, the contribution of theseconstructs and measures to our understanding of managerial behaviour cannot bedenied.


Overall, the results of this study would suggest that executives who are similar toeither the inventors (i.e. innovators for change) or the motivators (i.e. enthusiasticidealists) in their personality orientation tend to be perceived by others as beingmore transformational, innovative, influential and/or driven in their leadershipstyle. Executives who are more like managers (i.e. analytical coordinators) orimplementors (i.e. organized pragmatists) in their approach, on the other hand,tend to be more transactional, planful and controlled in their leadership style.Given the need for both types of leaders in an organization—transformationalleaders generate the ideas and the commitment to foUowcrship while transactionalleaders carry out the tasks of the organization—it is important for professionalsand academics alike to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each perspectiveand to develop methods to accurately identify and subsequently place thesedifferent types of leaders in appropriate positions in organizational settings.

References

Akienderfer, M. S. &: BlashJicld, R, K. (1984). Cluster Analysis. Ncwbury Park, CA: Sage.Arnold, |. &c Davey, K. M. (1992), Self-ratings and supervisor ratings of graduate employees'

competencies during early career. Journal of Occupational and OTgani:^ational Psychology, 65. 235-2.S0,Arwater, L. E. & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions

moderate the validit}- of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45, 141-164.Atwater, L. E. & Yammarino, F. J. (1993). Personal attributes as predictors of superiors' and

subordinates' perceptions of military academy leadership. Human Relations, 46, 645-668.Bnrrick, M. R., Day, D. V. & Lord, R. G. (1991), Assessing the utility of executive leadership.

l.ftidmhip Quarterly, 2, 9-22.Biirrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: .'\

mcta-analysis. Personnel Psychoto^, 44, 1—26,Barrick, M, R. & Mount, M. K. (199.'?). Autonomy as a moderator ofthe relationships between the big

five personality dimensions and job };>cr'iorm&s\cc. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118.Bass, B. M. (1981), Stogdill's Handbook of leadership, rev. cd. New York: Harper & Row.Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass <& Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managtrial Appticatiom,

3rd ed. New York: Free Press.Bass, B. M. & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self and others' leadership ratings of naval

officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology: An International Rem», 40,437^54,

Bennis, W. G. & Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper & Row.Bracken, D, W, (1994). Straight talk about multiratcr feedback. Training and Devetopmeni, 48(9), 44-51,Brenner, S, & Molander, F-. (1977). Is the ethics of business changing? Harvard Business Review., 55,

57-71.Burke, W. W. (1979). Leaders and their development. Group and Organisation Studies, 4, 273-280.Burke, W. W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastva (Ed.), Ilxecutife Power,

pp. 51-77. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Burke, W, W. (1990). The leadership Report, 3rd cd, Pelham, NY: Warner Burke Associates.Burke, W. \V. (1991). The leadership Assessment Inventor)', rev. ed, Pelham, NY: W. Warner Burke

Associates.Burke. W. W. & Church, A. H. (1992). Managing change, leadership style, and intolerance to

ambiguity: A survey of organization development practitioners. Human Resource Management, 31,301-318.

Burke, W. W. & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change.Journal of Management, 18, 523-545.

Burns, J. M. (1978). I_eadership. New York: Harper & Rov/-


Bushe, G. R, & Gibbs, B, W. (1990). Predicting organization development consulting competencefrom the Mycrs-Briggs Type Indicator and stage of ego development. Journal oj Applied Behavior.Science, 26, 337-357.

Chartrand, J. M., Rose, M. L., Elliot, T, R., Marmarosh, C. & Caldwell, S, (1993). Peeling back theonion: Personality, problem solving, and career decision-making style correlates of careermdccision. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 66-82.

Church, A. H. (1994). Managerial self-awareness in high performance individuals in organizations.Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1994, Dissertation Abstracts International, 55-OSB, 2028(University Microfilms No, AA19427924).

Church, A. H. (1995^), Managerial behaviors and work group climate as predictors of employeeoutcomes. Human Resource Dert-lopment Quarterly, 6. 173-205.

Church, A. H. (1995/̂ ). First-rate multirater feedback. Training and Development, 49(8), 42-43.Church, A. H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high performing individuals in organizatii>ns.

Journal of Applied P.<ychology, 82, 281-292.Church, A. H. & Burke, W. W, (1993). Exploring practitioner differences in consulting style and

knowledge of change management by professional association membership. Consulting Psychologyloumal: Practice and Research, 45(3), 7-24.

Church, A. H., Burke, W. W. & Van Eynde, D. F. (1994). Values, motives, and interventions oforganization development practitioners. Cmup and Organisation Management, 19, 5-50.

Church, A. H. & Waclawski, J. (1996). The effects of personality orientation and executive behavioron subordinate perceptions of workgroup enablement. International Journal of Organisational Analysis,4, 20-51.

Church, A. H. & Waclawski, J. (1997). Leading and managing in a service organization: Anexamination of line vs. staff effectiveness. Research paper presented at the 4th Annual (Conferenceof the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD), 6-9 March, Atlanta, Georgia,

Church, A. H,, Waciawski, J. & Burke, W. W. (1996). OD practitioners as facilitators of change: Aanalysis of survey results. Cmup and Organisation Management, 21(1), 22-66.

Clapp, R. G. (1993). Stability of cognitive style in adults and some implications: A longitudinal studyofthe Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory. Psychological Reports, 73, 1235—1245.

Daniel, T. L, (1985), Managerial behaviors: Their relationship to perceived organizational climate ina high-technolog)' company. Group and Organisation Studies, 10, 413—428.

Davey, J. A., Schdl. B. II. & Morrison, K, (1993). Tlie Myers-Briggs Personality indicator and itsusefulness for problem solving by mining industry personnel. Group and Organization Miiruigement,18(1), 50-65.

Day, D. V. & Lord, R, G, (1988). Executive leadership and organizational performance: Suggestionsfor a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, 14, 453—464.

Deluga, R. j , & Souza, J. (1991). The effects of transf«irmational and transactional leadership styles onthe influencing behaviour of subordinate police officers,. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 49-55.

DeVito, A. J. (1985), Review ofthe Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, l n j . V. Mitchell, Jr (Ed.), NinthMental Measurements Yearbook, vol, 2, pp. 1()3()—1032. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Foxall, G. R. & Hackett, P. M. (1992). The factor structure and construct validity of the KirtonAdaption-Innovation Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 967-975.

Furnham, A, (1992). Personality at Work: The Role of Individual Differences in the Work Place. London:Routledge.

Furnham, A. & Stringfield, P, (1993). Personality and work performance: Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator correlates of manageriaJ performance in two cultures. Personality and Individual Differences,14, 145-153,

Furnham, .^. & Zacherl, M. (1986). Personality and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences,7, 453-459,

Gellerman, W., Frankel, M. S. & Ladenson, R. (1990). Values and Ethics in Organisation and HumanSystems Development: Responding to Dilemmas in Professional Ijfe. San Francisco: jossey-Bass.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993), The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.Gratzinger, P. D., Warren, R, A. & Cooke, R, A. (1990). Psychological orientations and leadership:

Thinking styles that differentiate between effective and ineffective managers. In K. F̂ . Clark &


M. B. Clatk (Eds), Measures of Leadership, pp. 239-247. Greensboro, NC: Center for CreativeLeadership.

Harris, M. M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical framework.foumtil of Managmifnl., 20, 737-756.

Harris, M. M. & Schaubrotck, J. (1988). A meta-ana!ysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, andpeer-supervisory ratings. Personnel Psycholo^., 41, 43—62,

Harvey, J. B. (1974). Organization developtnent as a religious movement, iraitiing and Developmentfoimmh 28 (March), 24-27.

1 lirsh, S. K. (1985). Using the Myers—Bri^s Type ftidica/or iti Organisations: A Resource Book. Palo Alto, CA:(^onsultinjr Psychologists Press.

liirsh, S, K. & Kummcrow, J. M. (1990). Introduction to T^ype in Organi^tions, 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hogan, R,, Curphy, G. J. & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness andpersonality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality' measurement and employment decisions..Knierican Psychologist, 51, 469-477.

House, R. J. & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and futuredirections for research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organit^ational Behavior The .State of the Science. Series inApplied Psychology, pp. 45-82. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Howell, J. M. & Avoli(], B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation.Academy of Alanagement H.\eci/tii:e, 6(2), 43—54.

Howcll, J. M. & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 35, 317-341.

Jacobson, C. M. (1993). Cognitive styles of creativity: Relations of scores on the Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory and the Mycrs-Briggs Type Indicator among managers in USA. PsychologicalReports, 12, \\2,\-\n%.

Jenkins, J. M. (1993). Self-monitoring and turnover: The impact of personality on intent to leave.foiimal of Organi^tional Behavior, 14, 83—91.

Jiihn, O. P. (1990). The 'big five' factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural languageand in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, pp. 66-100.New \'ork: Ciuilford.

Kcirscy, D. & Bates, M. (1978). Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types. Del Mar, CA:Priimethfus Nemesis.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M. & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorationsin getting one's •^•a.s. foumai of .Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

Kirton, M. J. (1991). IC41 Re.fpanse .Sheet. Highlands, UK: Occupational Research Centre.Kirton, M. J. (1992). KAI Feedback Summary. Highlands, UK: Occupational Research Centre.Kubes, M. (1992). Cognitive style and interpersonal behaviour: The Kirton Adaptation-Innovation

and Schutz's FIRO-B inventories, Psychology: A fourtial of Human Beharior, 29(2), 33-38.Kuhnert, K. W, & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactionai and transformational leadership: A constructive/

developmental analysis. .Academy of Management Review, 12, 648-657.Kuhnert, K. W. & Russell, C. J. (1990). Using constructive developmeniai theory and biodata to

bridge the gap between personnel selection and \ezdcrship. Journal of Management, 16, 595-607,London, M. & Wohlers, A. J. (1991). Agreement between subordinate and self-ratings in upward

feedback. Personnel Psychology, 44, 375—390.Lord. R, G., DeVadcr, C. L. & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between

personalit}' traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures.Jounidl of .Applied Psycholrigy, 71, 402-410.

Lord. R. G., Foti, R. J. & DeVader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorizatit)n theory: Internalstructure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organisational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 34, 343-378.

Mabe, P. A. Ill & West, S. G. (1982). Validity- of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta analysis.founial of Applied Psychology, 67, 280-296.

McCaulley. M. H. (1990). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and leadership. In K. E. Clark & M. B.(Hark (F'̂ ds), Measures of Leadership, pp, 381-418. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

124 Allan H. Church and janine Waclawski

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from theperspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality, foumat of Personality, 57, 17—40.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in smallgroups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.

Manx, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory <jf self influence processes inorganizations. Academy of Management Reviea; 11, 585-^00.

Marcia, D., Aiuppa, T. & Watson, J. (1989). Personality type, organizational norms and self-esteem.Psychological Reports, 65, 915-919.

Margulies, N. & Raia, A. (1990). The significance of core values on the theory and practice oforganization development. In P. Massarik (F.d.), .4dvances in Organisation Development, vol. 1,pp. 27-41. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,

Mischel, W. (t990). Personality dispositions revisited and revised: A view after three decades. In L. A.Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, pp. 111-134. New York: Guilford.

Morgan, R. B. (1993). Self- and co-worker perceptions of ethics and their relationships to leadershipand salary. Academy of Management, 36, 200-214.

Myers, I. B. & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: .A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Bri^sType Indicator. Palo ,\lto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nadler, D. A. & Tushman, M, L. (1992). Designing organizations that have good fit: A framework forunderstanding new architectures. In D. A. Nadler, M. S. Gerstein, R, B, Shaw & Associates (Eds),Organi^tional Architecture: Designs for Changing Organisations, pp. 39-59. San Francisco, CA;jossey-Bass.

NoruJis, M. J. (1993). SPSS for Windows: Base System User's Gmde. Release 6.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Nowack, K. M. (1992). Self-assessment and rater-assessment as a dimension of management

development. Human Resotirce Development Quarterly, 3, 141-155.Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theoty, 2nd ed. New York: Mctiraw-Hill.Ones, D. S., Mount. M. K,, Barrick, M, R. & Hunter, J. E. (1994), Personality and job performance:

A critique of the Tett, Jackson & Rothstein (1991) meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 47, 147-156,Ostroff, C. (1993). Rater perceptions, satisfaction and performance r.\ungs. Journal of Occupational and

Organisational Psychology, 66, 345-356.Oswald, R. M. & Kroegcr, O. (1988). Personality Type and Religious Leadership. Washington. DC: Alban

Institute.Pal, M, & Vasudeva, P. (1990). Supervisory style and types of industry as related to workers' morale.

Psychological Studies, ^S, M'-i-Xil.Phillips, J. S. & Ixjrd, R. G. (1981). Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership. Organisational

Behavioral and Human Performance, 28, 143-163.Piper, T. R., Gentile, M. C. & Parks, S. D. (1993). Can Ethics he Taught^ Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.Roush, P. E. (1992), The Myers-Bri^s Type Indicator, subordinate feedback, and perceptions of

leadership effectiveness. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark & D, P. Campbell (Eds), Impact of leadership,pp, 529-544. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Roush, P. E, & Atwater. L. (1992). Using the MBTI to understand transformational leadership andself-perception accuracy. Military Psychology, 4(1), 17-33.

Sashkin, M. & Burke, W. W. (1990). Understanding and assessing organizational leadership. In K. F,.Clark & M, B, Clark (Hds), Measures of I ̂ adership, pp. 297-325. Greensboro, NC: Center for CreativeLeadership.

Schein, E. H. (1985), Organisational Culture and leadership. A DynamU Vtew. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Schmitt, N., Ciooding, R., Noe, R. Sc Kirsch. M. (1984). Meta-analysis of validity studies publishedbetween 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study charactexisrics. Personality Psychotiigy, 37,407-422.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and .Social Psychology, 30,526-537.

Snyder. M, & Ickes. VC\ (1985), Personality and social behavior. In G, Lindzey & I'̂ , Aronson (Eds),The Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed., vol. 2, pp. 883-947. New York: Random House.


Spector, P. E, & Michaels, C. E. (1986). Personality and employee withdrawal: Effects of locus ofcontrol on turnover. Psychological Reports, 39, 1005-1016.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey ofthe literature, yoffma/oj Personality, 25, 35-71.

Srogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: I-ree Press.Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (1989). UsingiXfuttivariate .Statistics, 2r\A ed. New York: Harper & Row.Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N. & Rothstein, M. (1991), Personality measures as predictors of job

performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.Tichy, N. M. & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The Transfortnational Jeader. New York: Wiley,Van Eron, A, M. & Burke, W. W. (1992). The transformation/transactkina! leadership model: A study

of critical components. In K. Fi. Clark, M. B. Clark & D, P. Campbell (Eds), Impact of Leadership,pp, 149-167. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Van Seters, D. A. & Field, R. H. G. (1990). The evolution of leadership K^eors. Journal of OrganisationalChange Management, 3, 29-45.

Van Veisor, E., Taylor, S. & Leslie, j . B. (1993). An examination of the relationships amongself-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness. Human Resource Manage-ment, 32(2&3), 249-263.

Waclawski, J. (1996). Large-scale organizational change and organizational performance. DoctoralDissertation, Columbia University, 1996. Dissertation .Abstracts International, 57-05B, 3443 (UniversityMicrofilms No. AAG9631797).

\Xeisbord, M, R, (1978), Organisational Diagnosis: A Workbook of Theory and Practice. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley,

" '̂ukl, G, & Falbe, C. M. (1990), Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateralinfluence Atxempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132—140,

'I'ukl, G., Falbe, C. M. & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group andOrganisation Management, 18, 5-28.

Yukl, G. & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992), Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D.Dunnctte & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology', vol. 3, 2nd ed.,pp. 147-197. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Zaieznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harr'ard Business Review, 55(3), 67-78.

Received 29 hehruaiy t996; revised version received 27 January 1997

the relationship between individual personality orientation and executive leadership behaviour

Documents

various individual personality

personality theory

typeof personality measure

curphy hogan

hogan robert

church waclawski

leadership styles

executive leadership