Relationship of Big Five Traits to Organizational Leadership

Below we consider possible linkages between personality and leadership. We organize this discussion according to each of the Big Five traits. We then consider overall relationships between the Big Five traits and leadership and the issue of the relationship of lower order personality constructs to leadership.

1. Conscientiousness

Bass (1990) commented, “Task competence results in attempts to lead that are more likely to result in success for the leader,    effectiveness for the group, and reinforcement of the tendencies”.[1] We know that Conscientiousness is related to overall job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and this suggests that Conscientiousness will be related to leader effectiveness.[2] Furthermore, initiative and persistence are related to leadership. As Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) noted, “leaders must be tirelessly persistent in their activities and follow through with their programs”.[3] Because conscientious individuals have more tenacity and persistence (Goldberg, 1990), we expect that conscientious individuals will be more effective leaders.[4]

2. Agreeableness

Conceptually, the link between Agreeableness and leadership is ambiguous. On the one hand, cooperativeness tends to be related to leadership (Bass, 1990),[5] and Zaccaro et al. (1991) found that interpersonal sensitivity was related to leadership.[6] That altruism, tact, and sensitivity are hallmarks of an agreeable personality would suggest that leaders should be more agreeable. On the other hand, agreeable individuals are likely to be modest (Goldberg, 1990),[7] and leaders tend not to be excessively modest.[8] Furthermore, although it often is considered to be part of Extraversion (Watson & Clark, 1997),[9] many scholars consider affiliation to be an indicator of Agreeableness (Piedmont, McCrae, & Costa, 1991).[10] Need for affiliation appears to be negatively related to leadership (Yukl, 1998).[11] These factors suggest that Agreeableness would be negatively related to leadership. In light of these conflicting justifications, the possible relationship between Agreeableness and leadership is ambiguous.

3. Neuroticism

Lord et al.’s (1986) meta-analysis revealed a corrected correlation of .24 between measures of adjustment and leadership perceptions on the basis of a relatively small number of studies cumulated in their analysis.[12] This estimate, however, could not be distinguished from zero. Bass (1990), in his review, indicated that almost all studies on the relationship of self-confidence—indicating low Neuroticism—to leadership “were uniform in the positive direction of their findings” .[13] Hill and Ritchie (1977) suggested that self-esteem—another indicator of low Neuroticismis predictive of leadership: “It appears that there is convincing evidence for the inclusion of self-esteem as an important trait of both superior and subordinate in analyzing leadership effectiveness”.[14] Evidence also indicates that neurotic individuals are less likely to be perceived as leaders (R. Hogan et al., 1994).[15] In light of this evidence and these arguments, we would expect that Neuroticism is negatively related to leader emergence and leadership effectiveness.

4. Openness

When Bass (1990) listed the traits that were the best correlates of leadership, originality—a clear hallmark of Openness—topped the list.[16] Openness correlates with divergent thinking (McCrae, 1987)[17] and is strongly related to both personality-based and behavioral measures of creativity (Feist, 1998; McCrae & Costa, 1997)[18]. Creativity appears to be an important skill of effective leaders. Creativity was one of the skills contained in Yukl’s (1998) summary of the skills of leaders, which was based on Stogdill’s (1974) earlier review. Research indicates that creativity is linked to effective leadership (see Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1998), suggesting that open individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders and be effective leaders.[19]

5. Extraversion

In Bass’s (1990) review, results linking Extraversion to leadership were inconsistent. In early studies (those completed between 1904 and 1947), Extraversion was positively related to leadership in five studies and negatively related in three, and there was no relation in four. Other reviews, however, suggest that extraverts should be more likely to emerge as leaders in groups.[20] Extraversion is strongly related to social leadership (Costa & McCrae, 1988)[21] and, according to Watson and Clark (1997), to leader emergence in groups. R. Hogan et al. (1994) noted that Extraversion is related to being perceived as leaderlike.[22] Extraverts tend to be energetic, lively people. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) commented, “Leaders are more likely than nonleaders to have a high level of energy and stamina and to be generally active, lively, and often restless”[23]. Adjectives used to describe individuals who emerged as leaders in leaderless group discussions included active, assertive, energetic, and not silent or withdrawn (Gough, 1988)[24]. These are the characteristics of extraverts. Indeed, Gough (1990) found that both of the major facets of Extraversion—dominance and sociability— were related to self and peer ratings of leadership.[25] Considering this evidence, Extraversion should be positively related to both leader emergence and leadership effectiveness, although somewhat more strongly to leader emergence.

---

[1] Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press. p.109.

[2] Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

[3] Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5, 51.

[4] Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

[5] Bass, B. M., op. cit.,

[6] Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 308–315.

[7] Goldberg, L. R, op. cit.

[8] Bass, B. M., op. cit.,p.70.

[9] Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

[10] Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adjective check list scales and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630–637.

[11] Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 147–197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

[12] Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410.

[13] Bass, B. M., op. cit., p.69.

[14] Hill, N. C., & Ritchie, J. B. (1977). The effect of self-esteem on leadership and achievement: A paradigm and a review. Group and Organization Studies, 2, 491–503.

[15] Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, op. cit.

[16] Bass, B. M., op. cit.,

[17] McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258– 1265.

[18] Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 290–309.

[19] Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 111–121.

[20] Bass, B. M., op. cit.,

[21] Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863.

[22] Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, op. cit.

[23] Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. op. cit., p.50

[24] Gough, H. G. (1988). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

[25] Gough, H. G. (1990). Testing for leadership with the California Psychological Inventory. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 355–379). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CANOE

 ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CANOE

A. Organization

            According to Stern and Barley in Mc Shane and Von Glinow, “Organizations are groups of people who work interdependently toward some purpose”. Organizations are not buildings or other physical structures. Rather, they consist of people who interact with each other to achieve a set of goals. Employees have structured patterns of interaction, meaning that they expect each other to complete certain tasks in coordinated way in organized way.[1]

B. Leadership

According to House et al in Mc Shane and Von Glinow, “leadership is the ability to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute to the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members.”[2] As R. Hogan et al. (1994) noted, leadership can be conceptualized and measured in different ways.[3] It is possible to separate leadership into two broad categories: leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness (Lord et al., 1986).[4] According to R. Hogan et al. (1994), “research on leadership emergence identifies the factors associated with someone being perceived as leaderlike”.[5] Thus, leader emergence refers to whether (or to what degree) an individual is viewed as a leader by others, who typically have only limited information about that individual’s performance.

In contrast to being perceived as a leader, leadership effectiveness refers to a leader’s performance in influencing and guiding the activities of his or her unit toward achievement of its goals (see Stogdill, 1950). R. Hogan et al. (1994) suggested that leadership effectiveness should be measured in terms of team, group, or organizational effectiveness.[6] In practice, however, assessments of leadership effectiveness most commonly consist of ratings made by the leader’s supervisor, peer, or subordinate (or some combination of these three). Such ratings, although they represent the predominant method of assessing leadership effectiveness, can be criticized as potentially contaminated. Because such ratings represent individuals’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness rather than objectively measured performance outcomes (e.g., team performance), they may be influenced by raters’ implicit leadership theories (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984). [7] However, whether ratings of leadership effectiveness are biased by implicit leadership theories or selective recall, or even halo, there is evidence that ratings of leadership effectiveness converge with objective measures of work group performance (R. Hogan et al., 1994), providing support for the use of supervisor and subordinate ratings as measures of leadership effectiveness.[8]

Conceptually, leadership effectiveness and emergence represent two levels of analysis. Leadership emergence is a within-group phenomenon, as evidenced by many early studies of leadership that were conducted in groups with no formal leader[9]—that is, a leader emerged from within a group. In contrast, leadership effectiveness, as defined above, represents a between-groups phenomenon. Effectiveness refers to a leader’s ability to influence his or her subordinates. Therefore, the individual being evaluated must first be a leader. Subsequent evaluation of that leader’s effectiveness implies a comparison to the performance of other leaders, generally (by necessity) in different groups. Although leader emergence and leadership effectiveness are distinct in concept, in practice the criteria sometimes become blurred, particularly when measured perceptually (House & Podsakoff, 1994). Nonetheless, in the development of our hypotheses, we distinguish ratings of a leader’s effectiveness from perceptions of leader emergence.

C. The Big Five Traits (CANOE)

            In psychology, the "Big Five" personality traits are five broad factors or dimensions of personality developed through lexical analysis. This is the rational and statistical analysis of words related to personality as found in natural-language dictionaries.[10] The traits are also referred to as the "Five Factor Model" (FFM).

The model is considered to be the most comprehensive empirical or data-driven enquiry into personality. The first public mention of the model was in 1933, by L. L. Thurstone in his presidential address to the American Psychological Association. Thurstone's comments were published in Psychological Review the next year.[11]

The five factors are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (OCEAN, or CANOE if rearranged). The Neuroticism factor is sometimes referred to as Emotional Stability. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret the Openness factor, which is sometimes called "Intellect". Each factor consists of a cluster of more specific traits that correlate together. For example, extraversion includes such related qualities as sociability, excitement seeking, impulsiveness, and positive emotions.

The Big Five factors and their constituent traits can be summarized as follows:

Openness - appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience.

Conscientiousness - a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behavior.

Extraversion - energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.

Agreeableness - a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.

Neuroticism - a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.

When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousness rating in the 80th percentile indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an Extraversion rating in the 5th percentile indicates an exceptional need for solitude and quiet.

Although these trait clusters are statistical aggregates, exceptions may exist on individual personality profiles. On average, people who register high in Openness are intellectually curious, open to emotion, interested in art, and willing to try new things. A particular individual, however, may have a high overall Openness score and be interested in learning and exploring new cultures. Yet he or she might have no great interest in art or poetry. Situational influences also exist, as even extraverts may occasionally need time away from people.

The most frequently used measures of the Big Five comprise either items that are self-descriptive sentences[12] or, in the case of lexical measures, items that are single adjectives.[13] Due to the length of sentence-based and some lexical measures, short forms have been developed and validated for use in applied research settings where questionnaire space and respondent time are limited, such as the 40-item balanced International English Big-Five Mini-Markers.[14]

Openness to Experience

Openness is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. The trait distinguishes imaginative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people, more creative and more aware of their feelings. They are more likely to hold unconventional beliefs.

People with low scores on openness tend to have more conventional, traditional interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavors as abstruse or of no practical use. Closed people prefer familiarity over novelty. They are conservative and resistant to change.

Sample Openness items

o   I am full of ideas.

o   I am quick to understand things.

o   I have a rich vocabulary.

o   I have a vivid imagination.

o   I have excellent ideas.

o   I spend time reflecting on things.

o   I use difficult words.

o   I am not interested in abstract . (reversed)

o   I do not have a good imagination. (reversed)

o   I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (reversed)

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness is a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement. The trait shows a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behavior. It influences the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. Conscientiousness includes the factor known as Need for Achievement (NAch).

The benefits of high conscientiousness are obvious. Conscientious individuals avoid trouble and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. They are also positively regarded by others as intelligent and reliable. On the negative side, they can be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics.

Sample Conscientiousness items

o   I am always prepared.

o   I am exacting in my work.

o   I follow a schedule.

o   I get chores done right away.

o   I like order.

o   I pay attention to details.

o   I leave my belongings around. (reversed)

o   I make a mess of things. (reversed)

o   I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (reversed)

o   I shirk my duties. (reversed)

Extraversion

Extraversion, also spelled "extroversion," is characterized by positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek out stimulation and the company of others. The trait is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people, and are often perceived as full of energy. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals who are likely to say "Yes!" or "Let's go!" to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw attention to themselves.

Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less involved in the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression. Introverts simply need less stimulation than extraverts and more time alone.

Sample Extraversion items

o   I am the life of the party.

o   I don't mind being the center of attention.

o   I feel comfortable around people.

o   I start conversations.

o   I talk to a lot of different people at parties.

o   I am quiet around strangers. (reversed)

o   I don't like to draw attention to myself. (reversed)

o   I don't talk a lot. (reversed)

o   I have little to say. (reversed)

Agreeableness

Agreeableness is a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. The trait reflects individual differences in concern for social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe people are basically honest, decent, and trustworthy.

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others’ well-being, and are less likely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others’ motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative.

Sample Agreeableness items

o   I am interested in people.

o   I feel others’ emotions.

o   I have a soft heart.

o   I make people feel at ease.

o   I sympathize with others’ feelings.

o   I take time out for others.

o   I am not interested in other people’s problems. (reversed)

o   I am not really interested in others. (reversed)

o   I feel little concern for others. (reversed)

o   I insult people. (reversed)

Neuroticism

Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression. It is sometimes called emotional instability. Those who score high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in a bad mood. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish a neurotic's ability to think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress.

At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings. Frequency of positive emotions is a component of the Extraversion domain.

Sample Neuroticism items

o   I am easily disturbed.

o   I change my mood a lot.

o   I get irritated easily.

o   I get stressed out easily.

o   I get upset easily.

o   I have frequent mood swings.

o   I often feel blue.

o   I worry about things.

o   I am relaxed most of the time. (reversed

o   I seldom feel blue.(reversed)

---

[1] Steven L. McShane & Marry Ann Von Glinow. (2005). Organizational Behaviour 3^rd e. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.p.6

[2] Ibid p.416

[3] Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, p.493.

[4] Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,p. 402.

[5] Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, op. cit., 496.

[6] Ibid

[7] Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,34, p.343.

[8] Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, op. cit.

[9] Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, p. 241.

[10] Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, p. 26.

[11] Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of the mind. Psychological Review, 41, p.1.

[12]De Fruyt, F., McCrae, R. R., Szirmák, Z., & Nagy, J. (2004). The Five-Factor personality inventory as a measure of the Five-Factor Model: Belgian, American, and Hungarian comparisons with the NEO-PI-R. Assessment, 11, p. 207.

[13] Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), pp. 1216-1229

[14] Thompson, E.R. 2008. Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-markers, Personality and Individual Differences. 45(6): pp.542 – 548