Personal Attributes as Predictors of Military Leadership

7/28/2019 Personal Attributes as Predictors of Military Leadership

1/63

for~

Personal Attributes asPredictors of Military Leadership:A Study of Midshipmen Leaders at USNA

Leanne Atwater and Francis J. YammarinoONR-TR-7

Report SeriesK:ON2,8,

Aproved to: pufr, r;-~ee(

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

',89,31II9I


2/63

Center for Leadership StudiesDirector: Advisory CouncilBernard M. Bass Juanita Crabb

Distinguished Professor of Management Mayor, City of BinghamtonDavid_FischellDirector of Personnel, Maine-Endwell Schools

Fellows John FormanBruce J. Avolio Senior Engineer, IBM (retired)Associate Professor of Management

Michael HastrichJames F. Petras Manager, Coming Glass

Professor of Sociology Peter McGinnW. Donald Spangler Vice President of Human Resources,Assistant Professor of Management United Health Services

Donald B. Trow John PomeroyProfessor of Sociology Chairman of the Board, Dover TechnologiesDavid A. Waldman George Ray~nondAssistant Professor of Management Chairman of the Board, Raymond CorporationFrancis J. Yammarino John SpencerAssistant Professor of Management Executive Director, United WayEduard Ziegenhagen Sister Margaret TuleyAssociate Professor of Political Science President, Lourdes Hospital


3/63

Personal Attributes asPredictors of Military Leadership:A Study of Midshipmen Leaders at USNALeanne Atwater and Francis J. Yaimnarino

ONR-TR- 7

Ai

August 1, 1989


4/63

SECLRITY CLASSIF CA ON Ot P7HS PAGEi FormApproved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE T M No 0704%0188a REPORT SECURITY CLASSiF'CATION Ib RESTRICTIVE MARKINGSUnclassified N. A.

2a SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3 DISTRIBUTION AVAILABIL*TY OF REPORTN A2b DECLASSIFICATION, DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Approved for public release;N. A. distribution unlimited.

4 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)0NR-TR-7 SameEa NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION r6b OFFICE SYMBOL 7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATIONCenter for Leadership Studiesj (If applicable) Office of Naval ResearchSUNY at Binghamton I6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)Binghamton, NY 13901 800 N. Quincy StreetArlington, VA 22217-50008a NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b OFFICE SYMBOL 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION I (if applicable)Office of Naval Technology Code 222 N00014-87-K-0434

Bc. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS800 N. Quincy Street PROGRAM PROJECT ITASK IWORK JNiTArlington, VA 22217-5000 ELEMENT NO NO NO ACCESSION NO__________________________________62233N $33M20I I TITLE (Include Security Classification)(U) Personal attributes as predictors of military leadership: A study of midshipmenleaders at USNA12 PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)A wat e,~P.. ,mao F J.13a TYPE OF REPORT |13b TIME COVERED |14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) I15 PAGE COUNTTprhnir,l I FROM 87/04/0o8920311 August 1, 1989I 6116 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATIONSupported by the Office of the Chief of Naval Research Manpower, Personnel, and TrainingR & D Program17 COSATI CODES 18 SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Personal attrib, tes; Personality; Thinking styles;Psychological types; Interests; Life experiences-(continued on baci)

19 ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)- " A set of variables assessing personal .attributes (e.g., personality, thinking style,

psychological type [MBTI], interests, and life experiences) were investigated aspredictors of transformational and transactional leadership in a sample of 107midshipmen (focal) leaders at the U.S. Naval Academy. The midshipmen leaders providedself-report information on the personal attributes. Their 1235 plebe subordinatesand the midshipmen's superiors provided ratings of the focal midshipmen'stransformational and transactional leadership. Results from correlational andregression analyses indicated that (1) different categories of personal attributeswere generally independent of one another; (2) various individual interests,thinkiLg styles, personality traits, and experiences were predictive of transforma-tional and transactional leadership as rated by subordinates and superiors; and(3) when combined, thinking style (two measures), personality traits (three measures), )(continued on back)

20 DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONX]UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED [] SAME AS RPT 0 DTIC USERS Unclassified

22a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) I22c OFFICE SYMBOLJohn J. O'Hare (202) o96-4502 Code 1142PSDO Form 1473, JUN 86 Previouseditionsare obsolete SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAL6E

S/N 0102-LF-014-6603


5/63

3ECURITy CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

18. (continued)Transformational and transactional leadership, USNA midshipmen, 16PF,MBTI, SCII, Varsity sports, Plebe Summer

19. psychological type (two measures), and experience (one measure) werepredictive of transformational and transactional leadership of focalmidshipmen as rated by their superiors and subordinates (Multiple Rs .447to .572 for four equations).

Accesion ForNTIS CRA&IOTIC TAB 0Unannounced 0Jostification.._

C0istribution IAvailability Codes

Avail and IorDist Special

00 Form 1473, JUN 86 (Reverse) SECURITY CLASbiFICATiON OF I HIS PAGEDD~orm473 JU SIeer) ___I__I__I__III___II_


6/63

August 1, 1989

PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AS PREDICTORS OF MILITARY LEADERSHIP:A STUDY OF MIDSHIPMEN LEADERS AT USNA

Leanne Atwater Francis J. YammarinoDepartment of Leadership and Law Center for Leadership StudiesUnited States Naval Academy School of Management

State University of New York at Binghamton

This report was prepared under the Navy Manpower, Personnel, and TrainingR & D Program of the Office of the Chief of Naval Research under ContractN0001487K0434 to B.M. Bass and F.J. Yammarino, Co-Principal Investigators.The views expressed are those of the authors. We thank Jose Florendo andScott Myers for their assistance on this project and David Atwater for hishelpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.


7/63

2Abstract

A set of variables assessing personal attributes (e.g., personality,thinking style, psychological type (MBTI], interests, and life experiences)were investigated as predictors of transformational and transactionalleadership in a sample of 107 midshipmen (focal) leaders at the U.S. NavalAcademy. The midshipmen leaders provided self-report information on thepersonal attributes. Their 1235 plebe subordinates and the midshipmen'ssuperiors provided ratings of the focal midshipmen's transformational andtransactional leadership. Results fror correlational and regressionanalyses indicated that (i) different categories of personal attributes weregenerally independent of one another; (2) various individual interests,thinking styles, personality traits, and experiences were predictive oftransformational and transactional leadership as rated by subordinates andsuperiors; and (3) when combined, thinking style (two measures), personalitytraits (three measures), psychological type (two measures), and experience(one measure) were predictive of transformational and transactionalleadership of focal midshipmen as rated by their superiors and subordinates(Multiple Rs = .447 to .572 for four equations).


8/63

3PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AS PREDICTORS OF MILITARY LEADERSHIP:

A STUDY OF MIDSHIPMEN LEADERS AT USNA

BackgroundThe challenges facing the U. S. armed forces in terms of the shrinking

personnel pool, increasing training pipelines, and new warfare methods makethe need for effective military leadership more important than ever. Theincreasing technology, uncertainty of future battlefields, threats ofterrorism, and nuclear and chemical warfare require military leaders toadapt, think, and act in ways to meet the demands of highly stressful,rapidly changing circumstances (Hunt & Blair, 1985).

Efforts to maximize effective leadership can take one of two basicavenues: selection or training. Historically, training has received thegreatest amount of attention. Leaders have been trained to behave in moreeffective ways as a function of the task or characteristics of theirsubordinates. Fiedler and his colleagues have had some success trainingleaders to alter situations to fit their leadership style (Fiedler & Mahar,1979). Before the introduction of assessment centers, leader selectionreceived surprisingly little attention (see Bass, 1981). Assessment centershave achieved some success in predicting managerial success, but the timeand energy involved in using this method prohibits its use for more than asmall number of job applicants.

Although leadership training has been available for years, many believethat no amount of training will produce "good leaders" if the individualbeing trained lacks basic leadership potential. Segal (1985) contends thatit is likely that a large part of an individual's leadership potentialrefers to innate attributes which are brought out by the group process and


9/63

4which are not uniformly distributed in the population. Segal (1985)believes that persons with basic interpersonal skills that compriseleadership potential can be taught to sharpen those skills and to better

understand group processes. He also asserts that people who lack thepotential will not become effective leaders no matter how smart they are,how much training they receive, or how supportive the groups are that theylead.

Why aren't methods available to select individuals with leadershippotential to become future military officers? There are two probablereasons to explain why selection has received little attention in militaryor industrial leadership research (see Bass, 1981). The first stems fromthe research done in the 1950s and 1960s trying to relate personal traits toleadership. In general, the conclusions reached were that isolating traitsthat could distinguish effective leaders from non-leaders, or effectiveleaders from poor leaders was not a very fruitful endeavor. Consequently,leadership research moved into other areas such as identifying leadership

behaviors best suited for various jobs and/or types of subordinates. Thesecond reason is the lack of agreement about exactly what constitutes "goodleadership" and the difficulties encountered in operationalizing leadership.Before predicting who will become leaders, the definition and measurement ofleadership must be enhanced.

Recent reviews (House & Baetz, 1979; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986)have suggested that perhaps "the baby was thrown out with the bath water"when leader traits were abandoned. Weiss and Adler (1984) argue thatapplied research in the area of personality has suffered from inadequateconceptual development as well as poor methodology. They suggest that thestudy of personality in organizational research was dropped prematurely.


10/63

5Instead of looking for consistent effects, attention focused too heavily onlooking for large effects. For instance, Bass (1981), in his review of muchof the leadership trait research, concluded that intelligence,dependability, aggressiveness, and adaptability were repeatedly associatedwith leader style and effectiveness. Similarly, Lord et al. (1986) usingvalidity generalization, summarized the data from two earlier reviews andconcluded that intelligence, masculinity, and dominance were consistentlyrelated to leadership perceptions. House and Baetz (1979) suggested thatthe correlations between traits and leadership were quite high and theyencouraged another look at the relationships between leader traits andleader criteria.

The re-introduction of traits or other individual level variables ascorrelates of leadership has appeal for those interested in selection,particularly for those selecting future leaders for the U.S. military. Atthe present time, the real test of leadership potential is, in essence,"trial by fire." An individual must have some of the basic ingredients of aleader to function in the leadership roles to which all officers areassigned. But no formal mechanisms exist for evaluating "true" leadershippotential nor for selecting those most likely to succeed as leaders. Ifleader selection were improved, not only would the mission of producingeffective officers be made easier, the ultimate goal of increasing war-fighting capabilities would also improve.

The first challenge is to discover what the military identifies as"good leadership." To those in the military, leadership and management aredistinct entities. An ideal military leader is envisioned as an inspiring,dynamic, heroic, role-model; an individual who subordinates would follow upa hill into enemy fire. "Leaders lead people and managers manage


11/63

6activities" (Schneider, 1989). While an effective CEO probably needs asmuch if not more management skills than s/he needs leadership skills,management skills are believed to be less important to a military leader,especially in wartime (Meyer, 1980).

The conceptualization of leadership most consistent with the militaryideal is Bass' (1985) notion of transformational leadership. According toBass (1985), transformational leaders instill in followers trust, respect,and a willingness to perform at peak levels. They encourage followers tobelieve in themselves as well as in the group's mission. Frequently,transformational leaders are seen as heroic.

In contrast, transactional leadership emphasizes the exchanges thattake place between leaders and followers (e.g., rewards subordinates willreceive for certain levels of performance). Transactional leaders informsubordinates about what needs to be done to receive rewards and whatbehaviors will result in punishment. Transformational leadership is anexpansion of the leadership concept which builds upon a transactionalleadership base, using both transformational and transactional behaviors toachieve maximum unit effectiveness. Transformational leaders possesstransactional features and more (Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1988).

Consequently, it should come as no surprise that transformationalleaders are more effective than transactional leaders. This has beendemonstrated in numerous studies (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1989; Hater &Bass, 1988) including a study of Naval Officers in the surface warfarecommunity (see Yammarino & Bass, 1989). It follows that militaryeffectiveness could be enhanced if transformational leadership was increasedamong military officers.

There is considerable evidence that leadership skills can be improved


12/63

7by training (Bass, 1981). But another fruitful avenue may be to selectindividuals with personal qualities that make them more amenable toleadership training--individuals with leadership potential. Earlier workwith Navy leaders r.iessed the usefulness of the variables used currentlyto make selection decisions for admittance to the U. S. Naval Academy(USNA) in predicting leadership. These results indicated that theselection variables (i.e., SAT scores, engineering and science interests,recommendations from high school officials, extra curricular activities, andhigh school rank), while good predictors of academic success, were unrelatedto transformational or transactional leadership behavior at the Academy orin the Navy fleet years later (see Yammarino & Bass, 1989; Atwater &Yammarino, 1989).

The present study assessed a different set of potential predictors,namely, measures of personal attributes. Specifically, a number ofvariables assessing personality, thinking style, psychological types,interests, and life experiences were investigated as possible predictors oftransformational and transactional leadership. The sample studied weremidshipmen leaders at the U. S. Naval Academy.

Selecting Potential PredictorsMidshipmen at the Naval Academy are subjected to many tests as

applicants, upon admission, and throughout their four years of training.Among the data available are a measure of personality (Cattell's SixteenPersonality Factors [16PF], Cattell, 1950), psychological type (Myers-BriggsType Indicator [MBTI], Myers & McCaulley, 1986), vocational interests(Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory [SCIII, Campbell, 1974), and variousUSNA performance indicators such as military performance grades and thenumber of varsity sports played by the midshipmen. These measures provide a


13/63

8wealth of information about personal attributes of these young leaders. Thechallenge to the investigator is to develop research-based %ypotheses aboutwhich of the many available measures are the most likely predictors of

leadership.Traits

Research suggests that intelligence would be among the traitspredictive of leadership (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987; Lord et al., 1986; Bass,1981). Lord et al. (1986), in their discussion of Mann's (1959) review,indicated that 88% of the studies found positive relationships betweenintelligence and leadership. Also likely correlates are measures ofdominance or aggressiveness (Bass, 1981) and warmth or people orientation(Bass, 1985). Bass (1985) suggests that social or affiliation orientationwould be more likely among transactional leaders than transformationalleaders. Transformational leaders may be more power-oriented.

In a military environment, self-discipline and conformity would also beexpected to be associated with effective leadership. Leaders must set anexample and provide a role model. In the military, a role model mustconform to numerous rules and regulations. Campbell (1986) found U. S. Armygenerals scored higher than high level executives on conformity. Singer andSinger (1986) found conformity to be related to transformational leadershipamong "ideal leaders" as reported by college students.Psychological Type (MBTI)

Psychological type, as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI), has been used extensively in organizations, primarily as anorganizational development tool designed to enable managers to understandone another better. Psychological type can be thought of as a quasi-personality measure, assessing one's preferences for methods of:


14/63

9(i) collecting information, (2) making decisions, (3) relating to people,and (4) organizing one's life. In an organizational development applicationof MBTI, managers learn about their own type as well as the types of thosewith whom they interact. Such information facilitates understanding of whythey and others behave as they do. Based on the type descriptions providedby Myers and McCaulley (1986), it was hypothesized that three of the fourpreference types would be related to leadership. Relating to people(Extraversion/Introversion), acquiring information (via Senses/Intuition),and making decisions (dominated by Thinking/Feeling) were expected to berelevant to leadership. The fourth preference for means of organizingone's life (Judging/Perceiving) was not expected to be related toleadership.Experience-Varsity Sports

Most leadership experts would agree that experiences in life have animpact upon leadership development (see Bass, 1981). Athletics are anactivity thought by many military officers to be a valuable experience formilitary leaders. Campbell (1986) found general officers in the Armyscored high on athletic interests compared to national norms and to a sampleof individuals in a leadership training program. Earlier work with NavalAcademy midshipmen suggested that playing a varsity sport was related totransformational and transactional leadership as perceived by subordinates(Atwater & Yammarino, 1989). It has been suggested that playing on avarsity team served as leadership training because team members learnedcooperation, teamwork, and positive motivational skills (Atwater &Yammarino, 1989). It was hypothesized that this experiential variable wouldoperate as a predictor of subsequent leadership performance.


15/63

10Vocational Interests (SCII)

Previous research suggests that one's vocational interests may bepredictive of leadership success. Nash (1965) reviewed research on thevocational interests of managers and found that managers tend to beinterested in verbal and persuasive activities and that they have a stronginterest in interacting with people, especially in relationships where themanager is dominant. Managers also prefer activities that involveindependent thought, initiative, and risk. Campbell (1986) found thatleaders tend to show low levels of interest in domestic activities, art,

music, and nature; and high levels of interest in adventure, military,politics, and management. It was hypothesized that interests as assessed bythe SCII would be related to leadership.Thinking Styles (CTI)

Intelligence, as measured traditionally, is an excellent predictor ofsuccess in school, but has little or nothing to do with who will earn themost money or prestige, or have the most satisfying relationships. However,intelligence defined as "common sense" may be more important. According toSeymour Epstein at the University of Massachusetts, "how well people managetheir emotions determines how effectively they can use their intellectualability... if someone is facile at solving problems in the quiet of heroffice but falls apart in a group, then she will be ineffective in a greatmany situations" (New York Times, April 5, 1988). Dr. Epstein developedthe Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI) which measures an individual'sability to respond effectively to life. This test is a new development inassessing constructive and "counter-productive" thinking skills. Bass(1985) indicates that while transactional and transformational leaders maybe equally intelligent, transformational leaders are expected to be more


16/63

11proactive and creative. The present study used the CTI in an exploratoryanalysis to assess its usefulness as a predictor of transactional and

transformational leadership.Method

SampleThe focal leaders in this study were 99 male and eight female

midshipmen at USNA selected to serve as Plebe Summer squad leaders duringthe first three weeks of plebe (freshman) indoctrination. Plebe Summersquad leaders are chosen from members of the incoming first and second classmidshipmen (seniors and juniors) on the basis of their demonstratedperformance and leadership abilities. They spend three weeks of theirsummer indoctrinating the incoming plebes into life at USNA. As part of theindoctrination process, the squad leaders teach plebes to wear uniforms,march, salute, deal with pressure, and become members of the U. S. Navy.Squad leaders, in essence, transform civilians into members of a highlyregimented military culture.

Each squad leader is in charge of 11 to 13 plebes. The squad leadersspend almost all of their time during the assigned three weeks with theplebes. The plebes assert that by the end of the three weeks they knowtheir squad leader very well.

The plebes (subordinates) reporting to each squad leader also served asparticipants in the study. The subordinate sample consisted of 1,235 plebes(89% male) who completed questionnaires on the last day of the three-weekindoctrination period about their squad leaders' leadership. The plebesthen rotated into a new plebe summer squad with an entirely new group ofsquad leaders to complete the final three-week indoctrination period. The107 squad leaders then either left USNA for their summer cruise or began


17/63

12their next summer assignment.

Eleven Company Officers, Navy Lieutenants or Marine Corps Captainsassigned to USNA for two to three years, in charge of the summer squads alsoparticipated in the study. They completed questionnaires rating the squadleaders in their company on leadership. (Company Officer data wereincomplete as two Company Officers failed to return their questionnaires.)

Descriptive information was obtained from members of each participantgroup and can be summarized as follows:

1. The squad leaders' ages ranged from 19 to 22. Fifty seven percentwere about to enter their junior (second class) year. Seventy-four percentof the squad leaders were math, science, or engineering majors. Twenty-sixpercent were humanities or social science majors. Forty-two percentindicated that their first choice for service selection would be air, 20%said submarines, 15% stated surface, 12% preferred Marines, and 11%responded with "other."

2. Plebes were generally between 18 and 20 years old; only 4% wereover 20. After three weeks of indoctrination, 96% were committed tograduating from USNA.

3. Seventy-four percent of the Company Officers were USNA graduates.Fifty-two percent of the Company Officers had known the midshipmen they wereevaluating before they became plebe summer squad leaders.Measures

Traits. The 16PF was developed by Raymond B. Cattell in 1949 (Cattell,1950). Since that time, it has matured into one of the most importantpersonality assessment instruments available to behavioral scientists. The16PF was developed via factor analysis of hundreds of traits and wasfinally revised to include what Cattell believed were the 16 core dimensions


18/63

13of personality. The 16PF is typically used to measure personality traits innormal populations, unlike an instrument such as the Minnesota MultiphasicPersonality Inventory (MMPI) which is usually used to assess abnormalities.

The 16PF is administered to all midshipmen during their first week atUSNA. It is scored on 10-point bi-polar adjective scales. The sixteenpersonality traits measured include: warmth, intelligence, emotionalstability, dominance, impulsiveness, conformity, boldness, sensitivity,suspiciousness, imagination, shrewdness, insecurity, radicalism, self-sufficiency, self-discipline, and tension. Based upon the descriptions ofthe 16 traits given by Krug (1981), five traits were selected as likelypredictors of leadership:

Warmth - Personable and easy to get along with. Persons scoring highon this trait are often more satisfied in occupations where interpersonalcontact is a critical feature. This trait is an indicator of "people-orientation."

Intelligence - A rough measure of intellectual functioning. Althoughthe population at the Naval Academy (M = 7.4, SD = 1.5, range = 5) iscertainly not representative of intelligence found in the general population(M = 5), there is sufficient variation in this measure for the currentstudy. While indications from previous work were that aptitude as measuredby SAT scores were not predictive of leadership (see Atwater & Yammarino,1989; Yam arino & Bass, 1989), the literature suggests that intelligence isa consistent correlate of leadership (Lord et al., 1986).

Boldness - High scoring individuals are adventurous, bold, andenergetic. Karson and O'Dell (1976) have called this the "Errol Flynn"factor. These individuals enjoy being the focus of attention in a groupand are quick decision makers. Competitive athletes score significantly

... .i ..... .


19/63

14above average on this dimension. This measure was selected instead ofdominance as it appeared in the description to be more directly linked toleadership. The dominance trait was described as aggressive, directive,forceful with others, and preferring their own way.

Self-discipline - Self-discipline was chosen as a potential predictorbecause of its relevance to leadership positions in the highly regimented,highly structured environment of USNA. It is a measure of control overemotions and behavior and being organized and neat. These are all featuresthought to be advantageous to success as a midshipman at USNA.

Conformity - Individuals who score high on this scale tend to bepersistent, respectful of authority, and good at following the rules.Military cadets tend to score above average (Karson & O'Dell, 1974). Thisis a characteristic also likely to be very important to success as amidshipman at USNA.

The imaginative personality factor was believed to be a predictor oftransformational leadership, but it was not included in analyses because asmeasured by the 16PF, this trait is described as "the absent-mindedprofessor factor." It does not measure imagination in the visionary,creative sense. Emotional stability as a personality trait measured by the16PF also was excluded because its description was a very clinical one. Itmeasures one's ability to stick with a task and not become easilydistracted. Emotional coping, a component of the CTI (described below),

measured emotional stability in a more appropriate way.Psychological Type. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was

administered to each midshipmen leader in his/her third-class (sophomore)year. The MBTI measures preferences in the following areas (see Myers &McCaulley, 1986 for details):


20/63

15Extraversion/Introversion (E/I) - The first preference concerns how

the individual relates to the world; i.e., whether s/he is primarilyinternally oriented (introverted) or oriented toward others (extraverted).

Sensing/Intuiting (S/N) - The second preference concerns the way inwhich an individual collects data for decision-making. Sensing types takein data via the senses while intuitives focus on future possibilities andsee beyond that which is immediately available.

Thinking/Feeling (T/F) - This scale concerns an individual'sorientation toward making decisions. Thinking types make logical decisionsbased on objective facts while feeling types base judgments and decisions onpersonal values and other people's feelings.

Judging/Perceiving (J/P) - This is an individual's preference forlifestyle. Judging types like a planned organized approach to life and tendto want things settled and decided. Perceiving types are adaptable,flexible, and like to stay open to new experiences.

Two of the preferences were expected to be predictive of leadership:extraversion and feeling. No directional hypothesis regarding sensingversus intuiting was formulated as both types could be leadership-oriented.It was believed that the preferences related to decision-making(thinking/feeling and sensing/intuiting) would be the most directly relatedto leadership. These scales were scored "two" for E,S,T, or J, and "one"for I,N,F, or P.

Experience-Varsity Sports. A predictor was included which indicatedthe level of a midshipman's involvement in varsity sports while at USNA.This measure was the number of varsity sports the midshipman had playedaveraged across semesters. If the midshipman played two varsity sports eachof six semesters, the score was two. Forty-three percent of the midshipmen


21/63

16squad leaders had engaged in varsity sports.

Vocational Interests. The Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (SCII) iscompleted by all applicants to USNA as part of their admission application.The inventory consists of 325 items which are divided into seven parts.Five of the parts measure likes and dislikes of various occupations, schoolsubjects, activities, amusements and types of people. The scale for thesefive parts is a three-point format: like, indifferent, dislike. The sixthpart measures preferences between a given pair of activities (e.g., airlinepilot or airline ticket agent). The seventh part asks the subject todescribe his/her own characteristics (e.g., "usually start activities of mygroup").

Researchers at the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center(NPRDC) have used SCII items to create a career interest scale whichpredicts career tenure and is related to persistence at USNA (Alf, Neumann,& Matson, 1988). While these scales were unrelated to transactional ortransformational leadership at USNA or in the fleet (see Atwater &Yammarino, 1989; Yammarino & Bass, 1989), it was of interest in this studyto determine whether any of the 325 individual items on the SCII werecorrelated with leadership. On the basis of item content analysis by judgesknowledgeable about leadership, 58 items were hypothesized to be related toleadership (see results below).

Thinking Style. Epstein's Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI) wasadministered to the midshipmen leaders in groups, approximately six mcnthsafter their duties as plebe summer squad leader had been completed. Theycompleted the instrument before being debriefed on the preliminary resultsof the study. The CTI scales (Epstein & Meier, undated) were derived froma factor analysis of items that sampled people's everyday constructive and


22/63

17counter-productive thinking. The six scales measured by the CTI aredescribed below.

1. Emotional Coping is made up of nine items such as: "I worry a greatdeal about what other people think of me"; "when unpleasant things happen tome, I don't let them prey on my mind"; "I tend to take things personally"(reverse scored); and "it bothers me when anyone doesn't like me" (reversescored). Epstein and Meier (undated) report that those who score high onemotional coping are self-accepting and tend not to overreact to unfavorableexperiences.

2. Behavioral Coping contains 12 items such as: "I am the kind ofperson who takes action rather than just thinks or complains about asituation"; "I look at challenges not as something to fear, but as anopportunity to test myself and learn"; and "when faced with upcomingevents, I usually carefully think through how I will deal with them."Epstein and Meier (undated) suggest that people high on behavioral copingare action-oriented, optimistic, and do not dwell on past injuries.

3. Categorical Thinking contains 12 items that refer to thinking inextreme, rigid, judgmental ways, and being intolerant of others. Items inthis scale include: "If I do poorly on an important test, I feel like atotal failure and that I won't go very far in life"; and "there arebasically two kinds of people in this world; good and bad,"

4. Superstitious Thinking contains nine items such as: "I believe if I

think terrible thoughts about someone, it can affect that person's well-being"; and "I believe in not taking any chances on Friday the 13th."

5. Naive Optimism is a measure of counter-productive thinking, whichincludes seven items that refer to grossly overgeneralizing from positiveevents. Items include: "I think everyone should love their parents"; and "I


23/63

18believe people can accomplish anything they want to if they have enoughwillpower."

6. Negative Thinking is predominantly a "doom and gloom" scale. The10 items include: "When I am faced with a new situation, I tend to thinkthe worst possible outcome will happen"; and "my mind sometimes drifts tounpleasant events from the past."

The response scale for the CTI is: I = definitely false, 2 = mostlyfalse, 3 = neither true nor false, 4 = mostly true, and 5 = definitely true.High scores indicate the use of that type of thinking style by anindividual. While not correlated with traditional measures of IQ oracademic achievement, CTI scales correlate with success in living, successin work, success in social relationships and emotional well-being (seeEpstein & Meier, undated). Emotional coping and behavioral coping wereexpected to be the most likely predictors of leadership.

Leadership Measures. The leadership data were collected at the end ofthe third week of Plebe Summer in August of 1988. A version of theMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), described in detail by Bass(1985) and Bass and Avolio (1989), was modified slightly for thispopulation. Squad leaders (focal leaders) completed questionnairesprimarily describing their perceptions of their own leadership behavior.Plebes completed a subordinate form of the questionnaire about their squadleader at the end of the first three-week indoctrination period, immediatelyafter their squad leader had left USNA for summer cruise. Company Officersfilled out leadership questionnaires describing the leader behavior of thesquad leaders of whom they were in charge. Respondents completing thequestionnaires indicated the frequency of various leadership behaviorsobserved (or in the case of self assessments, performed). Items were rated


24/63

19on five-point format ranging from 0 = "not at all" to 4 = "frequently if notalways." Some items also asked for the respondents' reactions to the focalleader and were rated on the same frequency scale.

Nine leadership scales were formed by averaging the responses to theitems using the procedure described by Yammarino and Bass (1989). Thetransformational leadership scales and a sample item from each scale(subordinate form) were:1. Charisma - (6 items) - I am ready to trust him/her to overcome any

obstacle.2. Individualized Consideration - (6 items) - Gives personal attention to

me when necessary.3. Intellectual Stimulation - (6 items) - Shows me how to think about

problems in new ways.4. Inspirational Leadership - (6 items) - Provides vision of what lies

ahead.The transactional leadership scales and a sample item from each scale

were:5. Contingent Promises - (3 items) - Talks about special rewards for good

work.6. Contingent Rewards - (3 items) - Personally pays me a compliment when I

do good work.7. Management by Exception - Active - (4 items) - Would reprimand me if my

work was below standard.8. Management by Exception - Passive - (4 items) - Shows he/she is a firm

believer in "if it ain't broken don't fix it."The non-leadership scale and a sample item was:

9. Laissez-Faire - (6 items) - However I do my job is OK with him/her.


25/63

20Results

Correlational ResultsIntercorrelations among the thinking styles scales (CTI) are presented

in Table 1. Many of the scales were correlated. The intercorrelations werevery similar to those found by Epstein and Meier (undated), however, thesignificant positive correlation between naive optimism and behavioralcoping and significant negative correlation between naive optimism andcategorical thinking found in this study were not significant in the Epsteinand Meier studies.

Insert Table 1 about here

Intercorrelations of the personality variables (16PF) are presented inTable 2. As expected, there were a number of significant correlations, mostin the .2 to .3 range. Of the five variables considered as potentialpredictors of leadership, the correlation between boldness and warmth (.29),boldness and self-discipline (.29), and self-discipline and conformity (.43)were significant.

Insert Table 2.about here

The intercorrelations of the MBTI scales are presented in Table 3. Theonly significant correlation was between S/N and J/P (.38), indicating thatsensing types tend also to be judging types.



26/63

21Correlations between MBTI scales and the thinking styles scales (CTI)

are presented in Table 4. The majority of the correlations were notsignificant with the exception of E/I with behavioral coping, superstitiousthinking and negative thinking. The correlations suggest that extravertstend to score higher on behavioral coping and lower on superstitious andnegative thinking. T/F correlates positively with emotional coping,thinking types score higher on emotional coping than feeling types.


Correlations among the personality variables and the thinking styles(CTI) and MBTI scales are presented in Table 5. Noteworthy are thepositive correlations of boldness with emotional and behavioral coping andthe negative correlation of this trait with superstitious, negative, andcategorical thinking. Self-discipline also correlated positively withconstructive thinking and negatively with counter-productive thinking. Thelargest correlations among personality and MBTI scales were those betweenE/I and warmth (.33) and between E/I and boldness (.36). Extraverts tendedto be both warm and bold or adventurous.


The correlations between the thinking styles (CTI), personality, andMBTI scales with the average number of varsity sports played per semesterare presented in Table 6. The number of varsity sports played correlatedpositively with behavioral coping and negatively with superstitiousthinking and conformity.


27/63

22


Intercorrelations among the leadership scales as perceived bysubordinates and superiors are presented in Table 7. The intercorrelationsamong the measures of transformational leadership ranged from .76 to .88 forsubordinates and from .51 to .80 for superiors. The intercorrelations amongthe transactional scales had a greater range for superiors and subordinates.In general, the pattern of correlations among the transformational,transactional, and non-leadership scales were compatible with prior work(Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1989; Yammarino & Bass, 1989).


Combined Scales Correlational ResultsFor the purposes of the correlation and regression analyses which

follow, the transformational and transactional subscales were combined intotwo overall measures of transformational and transactional leadership foreach rater group. Transformational leadership was created by averaging thefour subscales of charisma, individualized consideration, intellectualstimulation, and inspirational leadership for subordinates and forsuperiors. Transactional leadership was created by averaging two subscales,contingent rewards and contingent promises, which correlated .74 forsubordinates and .59 for superiors. Because the management-by-exceptionscales did not correlate consistently with the contingent reward andcontingent promises scales, the management-by-exception scales were notincluded in the combined transactional scale. Laissez-faire was excluded


28/63

23from further analyses because it represents the most inactive form of (non-)leadership (Bass, 1981, 1985).

The correlation between subordinate and superior perceptions ofleadership for the combined transformational scale was .35. The correlationbetween subordinate and superior perceptions for the combined transactionalscale was .24. Both correlations were statistically significant (p


29/63

24scales could be developed which differentiate highly transformationalleaders from non-leaders. The small sample size in this study, however,precluded this type of scale development.


Correlations among the predictor variables (thinking style, personalitytraits, psychological type, and experience) and leadership as rated bysuperiors and subordinates are presented in Table 9. Subordinates'perceptions of focal midshipmen's transformational and transactionalleadership were associated with emotional coping, intelligence,thinking/feeling, and varsity sports. Those scoring higher on leadership asperceived by subordinates tend to be more intelligent and feeling types whomake decisions based on people's feelings. They also were likely to havehad more involvement in varsity sports. The negative correlation betweenemotional coping and leadership was not in the expected direction. Closerexamination of the content of the items on the emotional coping scalerevealed an insensitivity to what others think as a dominant theme. While,in general, this characteristic may help individuals deal with criticism andmay be a mark of individuality, it does not appear to be conducive to beingseen as a transformational or transactional leader by subordinates. This issomewhat consistent with the correlation between leadership and not feelingthat one wins friends easily (Table 8). Those who tend to feeloverconfident or who are less sensitive are perceived as lesstransformational and less transactional. It is also consistent with thepositive correlation between emotional coping and thinking/feeling (Table4) . Thinking types, who make decisions based on facts rather than people's


30/63

25feelings, score higher on emotional coping and are perceived as lesstransactional and less transformational.

Correlations among predictors and superiors' perceptions oftransformational and transactional leadership present a very differentpicture. Behavioral coping, negative thinking, naive optimism, conformity,and thinking/feeling correlated significantly with superiors' perceptions ofboth transactional and transformational leadership. Midshipmen leaders asperceived by superiors tended to be action-oriented, positive thinking, andfeeling types who were conforming. Only "feeling type" correlated withtransformational and transactional leadership perceptions of bothsubordinates and superiors.


Combined Scales Regression ResultsTo better understand the predictors of leadership, regression analyses

were performed using transactional and transformational leadership asseparate dependent variables. Based on the previously cited literature, thehypothesized list of predictors included boldness, warmth, intelligence,self-discipline, conformity, extraversion/introversion, thinking/feeling,sensing/intuiting, varsity sports, behavioral coping, and emotional coping.Because of potential multicolinearity problems identified from correlationalanalyses, boldness, self-discipline, and extraversion/introversion weredropped from the regression analyses. These predictors also had the lowestcorrelations with the criterion measures.

Four separate hierarchical regression analyses were performed using theremaining eight predictors of transformational and transactional leadership


31/63

26as perceived by superiors and subordinates of the focal midshipmen.Independent variables were entered in sets, with thinking styles (behavioraland emotional coping) first, personality traits (warmth, intelligence, andconformity) second, psychological type (sensing/intuiting and thinking/feeling) third, and experience in varsity sports last. The rationale forentering variables in this order was to capture their development in anindividual. It was reasoned that an individual's thinking style developsearly, traits appe-r, then preferences emerge, and finally experiencesoccur. Alternative orders for the variables could be easily rationalized.However, because interest was in the total (rather than additive) predictivepower of these variables, the grouping of predictors into sets was moreimportant than the actual order in which the sets of predictors were enteredinto the regression equations.

The regression results presented in Table 10 indicate that thesepredictors accounted for 28% of the variance in subordinates' perceptions oftransformational leadership of midshipmen leaders. The multiple R of .526was significant (p


32/63

27(multiple R = .322). The standardized beta (-.248) for thinking/feelingapproached significance (p = .08).


As shown in Table 12, subordinates' reports of transactional leadershipof midshipmen leaders were also predicted significantly (multiple R = .572,p


33/63

28In summary, results indicated that a number of significant

relationships existed between personal attributes and transformational andtransactional leadership as rated by superiors and subordinates ofmidshipmen leaders. These correlations and regression results areparticularly noteworthy because leadership was evaluated by subordinates andsuperiors while personal attribute data came from the focal leaders. Thus,there was no same-source (common-method) bias present in these results. Ofadditional interest are the similar patterns of predictors for transactionaland transformational leadership when evaluated by the same rater, yet the

differing patterns of predictors between rater groups (superiors versussubordinates).

DiscussionThe results from this study suggest that personal attributes are

related to the way an individual is perceived as a leader. Thinking styles,personality traits, psychological type, and experiences in varsity athleticseach had components relevant to leadership.Thinking Style

While thinking styles were related to both transactional andtransformational leadership as seen by both superiors and subordinates,leadership was not always associated with constructive thinking. In somecases, thinking referred to as counter-productive (Epstein & Meier, undated)was predictive of leadership. Emotional coping, which was hypothesized to

be positively related to leadership, was in fact negatively related toleadership as perceived by subordinates and unrelated to leadership asperceived by superiors. Close examination of the emotional coping scalerevealed an insensitivity to others' opinions, and perhaps, a "cocky" orarrogant feature. Scoring high on emotional coping means an individual is


34/63

29not overly sensitive to what others think--but at some point "not overly"appears to become "not sufficiently." Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) estimatedthat between 49% and 82% of leadership variance can be attributed to stablecharacteristics which may involve the ability to perceive the needs andgoals of subordinates. If subordinates' opinions are of little interest toa leader, their needs and goals may also be unimportant.

The counter-productive thinking style, naive optimism, was positivelycorrelated with superiors' perceptions of leadership. Perhaps superiors seethis naive optimism as a "can-do" spirit. Negative thinking was negativelycorrelated with leadership supporting the contention that superiors seeleadership behaviors in those who are positive thinkers (perhaps to thepoint of being naive or unrealistic at times).

Superiors' perceptions of leadership also were correlated with highscores on behavioral coping. Behavioral coping is an action-oriented,organized, not easily frustrated type of thinking style. This too isconsistent with positive thinking and "can-do" attitudes. In general,therefore, subordinates' and superiors' perceptions of leadership had verydifferent patterns of thinking style correlates.Traits

Warmth, intelligence, boldness, conformity, and self-discipline weresuggested in the literature as correlates of leadership. Intelligencecorrelated with subordinates' perceptions and conformity and self-disciplinecorrelated with superiors' perceptions. Neither warmth nor boldnesscorrelated with leadership.

Fiedler and Leister (1977) would predict that intelligence would berelated to leader performance when stress was low and the leader wasmotivated to lead. Both conditions existed for the squad leaders in this


35/63

30study. While stress is high for the subordinates, the stress on squadleaders is relatively low. They are in charge and motivated to be goodleaders.

The correlations between superiors' perceptions of leadership andconformity and self-discipline on the part of leaders support the assertionthat subordinates and superiors perceive leadership quite differently.While the overall inter-rater correlations between subordinates' andsuperiors' perceptions of leadership were significant (ranging from .24 to.35), predictors which were associated with subordinates' as compared tosuperiors' perceptions of leadership differed. Superiors tended to seethose who endorse high levels of conformity and self-discipline as leaders.These appear to be characteristics of effective followers as well aseffective leaders. The thinking styles related to superiors' perceptions ofleadership, optimism and action-orientation, also support the suggestionthat superiors really value characteristics of effective followers, andperhaps, what they are evaluating as leadership is really "goodfollowership." This fits conceptually with the roles held at each level.Squad leaders are often evaluated by superiors on their abilities to acceptand carry out responsibilities. It appears that when superiors are ratingleadership their perceptions are influenced by the individual's success as asubordinate.

The lack of relationship between warmth and leadership may be partiallyexplained by the unique leadership situation studied. Plebe Summer squadleaders are supposed to be strict and tough on the plebes. They areindoctrinating "undisciplined" civilians into a highly structured militaryculture. Warmth may be suppressed in these leaders. The hypothesis thattransactional leaders would score higher on warmth than transformational


36/63

31leaders was not supported.

The low correlations between boldness and leadership were surprisingand are not easy to explain. Energetic, adventuresome, quick decision-makers were expected to describe Plebe Summer leaders, but data did notsupport this assertion. Perhaps future research will shed additional lighton this unexpected finding.

Hollenbeck, Brief, Whitener, and Pauli (1988) discuss the uses ofcombining personality and aptitude assessment in personnel selection. Intheir study, measures of self-esteem interacted with aptitude to predictperformance of salesmen; locus of control interacted with aptitude topredict performance of college students. Future research may want toaddress the possible interactions between the aptitude selectors alreadybeing used at USNA and personality/thinking variables used in this study.Perhaps scholastic aptitudes are predictive of leadership if certainmotivational moderators are considered.Psychological Type

Feeling types as measured by the MBTI were more likely to be seen astransactional and transformational leaders by both subordinates andsuperiors. Feeling types base judgments and decisions on personal valuesand other people's feelings as opposed to thinking types who are moreinfluenced by logic and objective facts. This relationship supported thehypothesis concerning thinking/feeling.

The midshipmen population is approximately 25% feeling types and 75%thinking types. While these percentages are consistent with other militarypopulations studied, they are much lower than the proportion of feelingtypes in the general population (Myers & McCaulley, 1986). It is also thecase that feeling types at USNA are almost twice as likely to voluntarily


37/63

32resign as thinking types. While thinking types may have an advantage interms of the academic requirements at USNA, they may have a disadvantage interms of becoming transformational and transactional leaders.

While sensing/intuiting did not predict a significant, unique portionof leadership variance in the regression equations, it was correlated (r =.17, p = .07) with subordinates' perceptions of transformationalleadership. Extraversion, however, was not relited to leadership behavioras was hypothesized. Those who work with the MBTI (Roush, 1989) contendthat because introverts must deal with the external world to function insociety, they often develop extraverted skills even though it is not theirpreference. It is also possible, given the lack of relationship with thepersonality trait boldness, that outgoing, adventurous individuals are notnecessarily any more likely to behave as leaders than their shy, lessadventurous counterparts.Experience-Varsity Sports

Experience as a varsity athlete correlated positively with leadershipas perceived by subordinates but was not related to leadership as perceivedby superiors. This positive finding from subordinates is not likely due tohalo. As suggested in an earlier report (Atwater & Yammarino, 1989),varsity athletes are resented somewhat by their peers at USNA because theirathletic status "gets them out of a lot" (military drill, watchstanding,etc.). The subordinates in this sample were also very new to USNA andprobably were unaware of their squad leader's athletic activities during theprevious two to three years.

Discussions with athletes did reveal, however, that they believe thatvarsity athletics teach them about teamwork, cooperation, consideration forothers, and putting the team before themselves -- all qualities of a


38/63

33transformational leader. Those involved with recriiting USNA varsityathletes have asserted for years that athletics are beneficial for futureNaval Officers. Although individuals who are involved in making admissiondecisions weight candidates' athletic experience positively, there has neverbeen any solid data to support these feelings. Some evidence for theimportance of athletics, however, has been presented in this study.Vocational Interests

The results from the SCII are tentative. The correlations do suggestthat there may be some merit in future scale development using these items.It would be of interest in future work to develop and cross-validateleadership potential scales to see if subsequent leadership performancecould be predicted similar to the way the SCII scales are currently used topredict academic and career interests. It would also be of interest toapply the scale used by Nash (1965) to predict managerial effectiveness to alarger sample of leaders.Regression Analyses

Most of the individual predictors have been discussed in the previoussections. It is noteworthy, however, that a number of the hypothesizedpredictors significantly predicted transactional and transformationalleadership as perceived by subordinates and did quite well predictingtransactional leadership as rated by superiors. The fact that subordinates'perceptions were explained better by the predictors than superiors'

perceptions was probably due in part to subordinates' intense experienceswith the focal leaders.

Similarities existed in the predictors of both transactional andtransformational leadership for each rater group. If, as Waldman, Bass, andYammarino (1988) suggest, transformational leadership builds upon


39/63

34transactional leadership, it is not surprising that the same variables thatpredict one form of leadership would predict the other.

ConclusionsIn general, the results from this study lend support to the notion that

personal attributes are potential predictors of subsequent leadership.Future work needs to replicate the usefulness of these predictors in alarger sample of midshipmen, as well as in the Navy fleet, and eventually insettings outside the military. At this point, the potential usefulness ofthinking styles, personality traits, psychological type, and experiences in

athletics in predicting leadership has been demonstrated.Of particular importance in future analyses is a test of the

hypothesis suggested here that superiors and subordinates attend todifferent attributes in assessing leadership. If this finding isreplicated, the idea that either superiors or subordinates ratings can beused interchangeably is certainly questionable. It also may provide insightas to why earlier findings regarding predictors of leadership wereinconsistent. Not only are leadership criterion measures and methodsimportant, when observations or ratings of leadership are being used, therating source must be considered. The value of predictors differ dependingon who is assessing the leadership. Priorities associated with roles andhierarchical levels of raters may greatly influence what personal attributesare seen as predictive of leadership.

In addition, if superiors are assessing subordinates' leadershipskills (which very often is the case in performance evaluation systems) andthey are heavily influenced by the degree to which that individual is a"good follower," ultimately those promoted to the highest levels in anorganization will be the best followers, not the best leaders. In summary,


40/63

35the current research has shed new light on the issue of leader selection andthe merits of personal attributes in that pursuit. Additional research mustbe completed before concrete selection recommendations are made.


41/63

36References

Alf, E., Neumann, I., & Matson, J. (1988). Revision of the U. S. NavalAcademy Selection Composite. Technical Report No. NPRDC-TN 88-61(September). San Diego, CA : Navy Personnel Research and DevelopmentCenter.

Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. (1989). Transformational leadership amongmidshipmen leaders at the United States Naval Academy. TechnicalReport No. ONR-TR-6. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:Free Press.

Bass, B. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory andresearch. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1989). The multifactor leadership profile. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Campbell, D. (1974). Manual for the SVIB-SCII. Stanford CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Campbell, D. (1986). The personality profiles of general officers. Paperpresented at the Ninth Biennial Psychology in the DOD Symposium.Colorado Springs, April 19th.

Cattell, R. (1950). Personality: A systematic, theoretical, and factualstudy. New York: McGraw Hill.

Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (undated draft). Constructive thinking: A broadcoping variable with specific components. Working Paper, University ofMassachusetts at Amherst.

Fiedler, F., & Garcia, J. (1987). New approaches to effectiveleadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. NewYork: Wiley.


42/63

37Fiedler, F., & Leister, A. (1977). Leader intelligence and task

performance. A test of a multiple screen model. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 20, 11-14.

Fiedler, F., & Mahar, L. (1979). The effectiveness of contingency modeltraining: Validation of LEADER MATCH. Personnel Psychology, 32, 45-62.

Hater, J., & Bass, B. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates'perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journalof Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702.

House, R., & Baetz, M. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizationsand new research directions. In B. Staw (Ed.), Research inorganizational behavior, (Vol.1, pp. 341-423). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Hollenbeck, J., Brief, A., Whitener, E., & Pauli, K. (1988). An empircialnote on the interaction of personality and aptitude in personnelselection. Journal of Management, 14, 441-451.

Hunt, J., & Blair, J. (1985). Leadership on the future battlefield.Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey.

Karson, S., & O'Dell, J. (1974). Personality makeup of the American airtraffic controllers. Aerospace Medicine, 45, 1001-1007.

Karson, S., & O'Dell, J. (1976). A guide to the clinical use of the 16PF.Champaign, IL : Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

Kenny, D., & Zaccaro, S. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits inleadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 678-685.

Krug, S. (1981). Interpreting 16PF profile patterns. Champaign, IL:Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

Lord, R., DeVader, C., & Alliger, G. (1986). A meta-analysis of the


43/63

38relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: Anapplication of validity generalization procedures. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 71, 402-410.

Mann, R. (1959). A review of relationships between personality andperformance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.

Meyer, E. (1980). Leadership: A return to basics. Military Review, 60,4-9.

Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. (1986). Manual: A guide to the development anduse of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Nash, A. (1965). Vocational interest of effective managers: A review ofthe literature. Personnel Psychology, 18, 21-38.

Roush, P. Personal communication. June, 1989. Annapolis, MD: U.S. NavalAcademy.

Schneider, B. (1989). Thoughts on leadership and management. In L. Atwaterand R. Penn (Eds.), Military leadership: Traditions and future trends,(pp.30-33). Annapolis, MD: Action Printing & Graphics.

Segal, D. (1985). Management, leadership and the future battlefield. In J.Hunt and J. Blair (Eds.), Leadership on the future battlefield.Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey.

Singer, M., & Singer, A. (1986). Relation between transformational vs.transactional leadership preference and subordinates' personality: Anexploratory study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 775-780.

Waldman, D., Bass, B., & Yammarino, F. (1988). Adding to leader-followertransactions: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership.Technical Report No. ONR-TR-3. Arlington, VA: Office of NavalResearch.


44/63

39Weiss, H., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior.

In B. Staw and L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior(Vol. 6, pp. 1-50). Greenwich, CT : JAI Press.

Yammarino, F., & Bass, B. (1989). Long-term forecasting oftransformational leadership and its effects among Naval Officers: Somepreliminary findings. In K. Clark and M. Clark (Eds.), Measures ofleadership (pp.XXX-XXX). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library ofAmerica. (Also, 1989, Technical Report No. ONR-TR-2. Arlington, VA:Office of Naval Research.)


45/63

CN0 0N

Cn

Ca)

5-' m Ci4

a) 0 - %0 c'n M

L0 U

-4

41ca

4

-4E-4'-4 4

uu E-415~4 "4

P-4 0 s. N cu4-)4-CuW -P -I & (

4)a az z


46/63

P-4 -

CD 00

CS -4 C

M~ LA N. 10 V)

0ON r 00 -T -%

Z0 0% N. 000

>, N 00 - 0

rnn C a%% c 00 00 0 ! 'I4 C. Cm-44) . . .0)

I0

0040 N1 0 00 00 0 I

00-4

-74 Ch r-. '0 N m% -T 0%e n 0 C1 - 4 - 4 n 0 .D

E-0 01 N1 0l '-4 "4 0% -6 N4

C- 0 co C4 4o -4 C.04 0 C) CD

'.44-4 -T 04-4 %C C"l NI0T

0, 0o~~~~ ~ : -A W07~ 7 N 0 A C" 9 00n 0o4-!71 U)0 4-H g- 04 -4 14 to ~ 9: 1-0 -4 ~ CN z14 0-4 W ~ N1 0 .-0 u1 0 0 0. L41 rI4 4 4 4 X i -I -4

04 cc 9:I c' 0~ 91 U) a7- N 4. 4 c c4N0 0 0 0d 0) 03 0) 04 00H09 cn CA En cI 4 c u 3


47/63

Table 3Intercorrelations of MBTI Scales

MBTI M SD ElI S/N T/FExtraversion/Introversion (E/I) 1.6 .50Sensing/Intuiting (S/N) 1.7 .44 -. 02Thinking/Feeling (T/F) 1.8 .40 .02 .02Judging/Perceiving (J/P) 1.7 .4 5 -.06 .38 .00

Note: N =105; r 2: 19, p 5 .05.


48/63

Table 4Correlations Among MBTI and Thinking Styles Scales

MBTIThinking Styles (CTI) E/I S/N T/F J/P

Emotional Coping .09 -.08 .38 .03Behavioral Coping .24 .08 -.02 .02Categorical Thinking -.16 -.08 .05 -.07Superstitious Thinking -.21 -.13 .06 -.10Naive Optimism .11 -.12 -.17 -.08Negative Thinking -.21 -.19 .10 -.10

Note: N = 74 ; r 2 .21, .p5 .05.


49/63

if) m-~ C14 -4L C-4 C1E-4 f

Q0. -4 4 m.N7 -

c CCC CD-Cl N CD 4'I

a41 .10 C14-4

00n :r- -- 00C'en-M 0 40e-40-I 0 0-4-C'r

>11

%oT %0 0% c r, 4ul4 D 4C2 D

4-4 4

E43ca00 00 T 040 g 0-40-4

E4 I 1H

$4 . C* *l C'

p04 IT- 4m a0 14L'-T n 0 D4 -4 C14

Cu-4) 4.N-)4 4cn 4C-4

-4 ~ 0-4 0o r -4 C- ' -. ?0-4 r,0 -4 CD~4-'00

4J0n1 14 -4 n II4- -0) .0-4

~'4c-0 ccf)ou en

0 bs-I~g .-C >'C4.CJ-C'R 1-4 J' -H40.4

5-3 4l r- 1- . I )A

u 1 o0 -4-0 0000WWq( :*H . 4 . . P,4

0r wI r. 1 IIccba -1> acj

"I o0 41 .-0L E40 4C " 0U to z2 7.7nF4I 4V


50/63

Table 6Correlations of Personal Attributes With Varsity Sports Played

Thinking Styles (CTI) (N = 74) Varsity Sports PlayedEmotional Coping -.13Behavorial Coping .21*Categorical Thinking -.16Superstitious Thinking -.24*Naive Optimism -.01Negative Thinking -.18

Personality Traits (16PF) (N = 105)Warmth -.15Intelligence -.06Emotional Stability .07Dominance .08Impulsivity -.02Conformity -.24*Boldness .02Sensitivity -.16Suspiciousness .12Imagination -.15Shrewdness .12Insecurity .05Radicalism -.03Self-Sufficiency -.13Self-Discipline .00Tension .02

MBTI Scores (N = 105)Extraversion/Intro .00Sensing/Intuiting .11Thinking/Feeling .15Judging/Perceiving -.02

* p 5 .05.


51/63

C' ul'C

0)

--T C 'J0Lf .4Co C..) C-C N4

0. -0a)02 . ~ .a)

co $)U .4.' h04n r00j 0 '-c 0 c'1Ca)w- -oL , ) C) ) C

00CU

02 ,-%

E- '..-4a))00 C4 00 C)- IT 14 r-.t 00' 4 n- 00 -7C' 0-

aQ)02C, r- '0-4 0% ~c1 rJ4 c5 O CC " Lfl 0

C14 ko Ca D% -T L "000 4.400 % 00 n -40 1 r r N%0

cn4%.) m'.' rrs3( C4 C %-U ,0 -4tn ~ t4C

0) 0a).00

r. - -70 04 a~LlL'..- CC ~ 0'r 0%Lf0'4 o C: * .4 w . x U .4 a)

co to 4.1 4 .14 V4 i4. :0%C'70) -4-ir 0%sO1 4.4o

cc cc v0., lC c 0u 9 c :.q49 -c a 04 0 t 0E-) 02ur(,.


52/63

Table 8Significant Correlations Among Selected

Strong-Campbell (SCII) Items and Leadership Scales

Subordinate Perceptions Superior PerceptionsTrans- Trans- Trans- Trans-

actional formational actional formationalOccupationsI Actor/Actress6 Artist .18 -.2011 Author of children's

books14 Auto mechanic .19 .29 .2521 Building contractor .17 .22 .2028 Children's clothesdesigner35 Corporation Lawyer38 Criminal lawyer40 Dental assistant .1762 Housekeeper .1968 Jet pilot No Variance69 Judge73 Librarian .1677 Manager, Chamber

of Commerce82 Military officer No Variance87 Nurse's Aide .22 .2092 Pharmacist .18 .1796 Poet .17 .1898 Politician100 Professional

athlete No Variance113 Sculptor .17School Subjects147 Home Economics158 Physical Education No Variance159 Physics No Variance162 Psychology163 Public Speaking

Activities168 Making a speech170 Repairing a clock .16 .17 .24 .22179 Raising flowers& vegetables .17183 Meeting anddirecting people -.19184 Taking

responsibility No Variance185 Sewing


53/63

Table 8 (continued)

Subordinate Perceptions Superior PerceptionsTrans- Trans- Trans- Trans-actional formational actional formational

Activities (continued)189 Decorating a roomof flowers19 1 Drilling soldiers .17 .23192 Pursuing bandits in

a sheriff's posse .20 .17200 Being a forest rangerAmusements225 Bridge226 Solving mechanicalpuzzles .17 .19 .17235 Leading a scouttroop .16240 Sports page innewspaper .18242 Skiing No Variance252 Playing chess .29 .33Types of People260 Military officers No Variance263 Ballet dancers265 People who assumeleadership267 Aggressive people272 People who havemade fortunes inbusiness275 Outspoken people of

new ideas277 Prominent businessleaders -.28 -.28 -.17278 Athletic personsPreferences BetweenActivities282 Airline pilot/

airline ticket agent No Variance


54/63

Table 8 (continued)

Subordinate Perceptions Superior PerceptionsTrans- Trans- Trans- Trans-

actional formational actional formational

Preferences BetweenActivities (continued)287 Doing a job yourself

/telling somebody elseto do the job .30 .27

288 Dealing with things/dealing with peopleYour Characteristics312 Usually start

activities of my group -.32 -.28313 Have more than my share of

novel ideas314 Win friends easily .25 .24320 Stimulate the ambitions of

my associates .16324 Put drive into an

organization

Note: N = 105; * p < .10.


55/63

Table 9Significant Correlations Among Predictors and Leadership Variables

Subordinate Perceptions Superior PerceptionsTrans- Trans- Trans- Trans-formational actional formational actional

Thinking StylesaEmotional Coping -.25** -.32**Behavioral Coping .22* .28*Catagorical ThinkingSuperstitious Thinking -.20*Naive Optimum .22* .23*Negative Thinking -.26* -.33*Personality TraitsbWarmthIntelligence .20* .23**Emotional StabilityDominanceImpulsivityConformity .22* .26**BoldnessSensitivitySuspiciousnessImagninationShrewdnessInsecurityRadicalismSelf-SufficiencySelf-Discipline .24**TensionMBTI ScoresbExtraversion/IntroSensing/IntuitingThinking/Feeling -.29"* -.35** -.30** -.30*Judging/PerceivingExperiencebVarsity Sports .30** .34**

aN = 74bN = 105* p < .05** p < .01


56/63

Table 10Regression Equation Predicting SubordinatePerceptions of Transformational Leadership

Hier-archical Std. Multiple ChangeStep Predictors r Beta R R2 R2

(1) (CTI) Behavioral Coping .07 .050(1) (CTI) Emotional Coping -.25* -.133 .329* . 11 .11(2) (16PF) Warmth .1 2 .126

(2) (16PF) Intelligence .20* .223*(2) (16PF) Conformity -.03 .044 .400* .16 .05(3) (MBTI) Sensing/Intuiting .17* .160(3) (MBTI) Thinking/Feeling -.29** -.207 .450* .20 .04(4) Varsity Sports .30** .310** .526** .28 .08

Total .526** .28*p 5 .05**p 5 .01


57/63

Table 11Regression Equation Predicting SuperiorPerceptions of Transformational Leadership


(1) (CTI) Behavioral Coping -.10 .273(1) (CTI) Emotional Coping .22* -.162 .322* .10 .10(2) (16PF) Warmth .02 -.029(2) (16PF) Intelligence .07 .095(2) (16PF) Conformity .22* .199 .387 .1 5 .05(3) (MBTI) Sensing/Intuiting .06 .002(3) (MBTI) Thinking/Feeling -.30** -.248 .477 .20 .05(4) Varsity Sports .03 -.025 .477 .20 .00

Total .477 .20 (p .12)*p 5 .05**p S .01


58/63

Table 12Regression Equation Prediction SubordinatePerceptions of Transactional Leadership


(1) (CTI) Behavioral Coping -.01 .013(1) (CTI) Emotional Coping -.32** -.154 .360** .13 .13

(2) (16PF) Warmth .07 .085(2) (16PF) Intelligence .23** .243*(2) (16PF) Conformity -.14 -.044 .445** .20 .07(3) (MBTI) Sensing/Intuiting .10 .122(3) (MBTI) Thinking/Feeling -.35** -.259* .501** .25 .05(4) Varsity Sports .34** .315** .572** .33 .08

Total .572** .33*p 5 .05**p : .01


59/63

Table 13

Regression Equation Predicting SuperiorPerceptions of Transactional Leadership

Hier-archical Std. Multiple Change

Step Predictors r Beta R R2 R2

(1) (CTI) Behavioral Coping .28** .256(1) (CTI) Emotional Coping -.02 -.042 .327* .11 .11(2) (16PF) Warmth .08 .022(2) (16PF) Intelligence .07 .105(2) (16PF) Conformity -.26** .227 .410 .17 .06(3) (MBTI) Sensing/Intuiting .13 .070(3) (MBTI) Thinking/Feeling -.30** -.296* .489* .24 .07(4) Varsity Sports .02 -.002 .489 .24 .00

Total .489 .24 (p = .06)*p 5 .05**p < .01


60/63

Distribution List for Manpower, Personnel, and Training Programs ReportsDirector Research Programs Office of the Deputy Assistant SecretaryOffice of Naval Research (Code 11 ) of the Navy (Manpower &Reserve Affairs)Arlington, VA 22217-5000 5D800, The PentagonWashington, DC 20350-1000Chairman, MI'T R&D CommitteeOffice of the Chief of Naval Research Assistant for Long Range RequirementsCode 222 CNO Executive Panel (Op-OOK)Arlington, VA 22217-5000 4401 Ford AvenueAlexandria, VA 22302-0268Program Manager, Statistics andProbability (Code 1111SP) Head, Manpower, Personnel, andOffice of Naval Research Training BranchArlington, VA 22217-5000 Office of the CNO (Op-813)4A478, The PentagonDirector, Life Sciences (Code 114) Washington, DC 20350-1000Office of Naval ResearchArlington, VA 22217-5000 Assistant for Manpower and Training

Office of the CNO (Op-987H)Director, Cognitive &Neural Sciences 5D772, The Pentagon(Code 1142) Washington, DC 20350Office of Naval ResearchArlington, VA 22217-5000 Assistant for Planning and TechnologyDevelopmentCognitive Science (Code 1142CS) Office of the DCNO(MPT) (Op-01B2)Office of Naval Research Department of the NavyArlington, VA 22217-5000 Washington, DC 20350-2000Perceptual Science (Code 1142PS) Deputy Director Total Force TrainingOffice of Naval Research and Education DivisionArlington, VA 22217-5000 Office of the DCNO(MrM) (Op-IIB)Department of the NavyBiological Intelligence (Code 1142BI) Washington, DC 20370-2000Office of Naval ResearchArlington, VA 22217-5000 Assistant for Training Technology andHuman FactorsDirector, Applied Research Office of the DCNO(MPT) (Op-IIBI)Division (Code 121) Department of the NavyOffice of the Chief of Naval Research Washington, DC 20350-2000Arlington, VA 22217-500W Deputy Director Military PersonnelDefense Technical Information Center Policy DivisionDTIC/DDA-2 Office of the DCNO(M]T (Op-13B)Cameron Station, Building 5 Department of the NavyAlexandria, VA 22314 (12 copies) Washington, DC 20370-2000Science and Technology Division Head, Military Compensation Policy BranchLibrary of Congress Office of the DCNO(MIT) (Op-13 4)Washington, DC 20540 Department of the NavyWashington, DC 20370-2000Commanding OfficerNaval Research LaboratoryCode 2627Washington, DC 20375


61/63

Director, Navy Family Support Program Office Human Factors Division (Code 712)of the DCNO(MFT) (Op-156) Naval Training Systems Center1300 Wilson Boulevard, Room 828 12350 Research ParkwayArlington, VA 22209 Orlando, FL 32826-3224Attrn Dr. Eduardo SalasHeadquarters U.S. Marine CorpsCode MA Commanding OfficerWashington, DC 20380-0001 Navy Personnel R&D CenterSan Diego, CA 92152-6800Head, Leadership BranchNaval Military Personnel Command Technical DirectorAttn: LCDR E.Marits, NMPC-621 NPRDC (Code 01)Department of the Navy San Diego, CA 92152-6800Washington, DC 20370-5620 Head, Fleet Liaison DepartmentDirector, Recreational Services Department NPRDC (Code 03)Naval Military Personnel Command (N-651C) San Diego, CA 92152-68001300 Wilson Boulevard, Room 932Arlington, VA 22209 Head, Training Technology DepartmentNPRDC (Code 15)Deputy Director Manpower, Personnel San Diego, CA 92152-6800and Training DivisionNaval Sea Systems Command Head, Training Systems DepartmentAttn: Code CEL-MP63 NPRDC (Code 14)Washington, DC 20362 San Diego, CA 92152-6800Director, Research &Analysis Division Head, Manpower Systems DepartmentNavy Recruiting Command (Code 223) NPRDC (Code 11 )4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 215 San Diego, CA 92152-6800Arlington, VA 22203-1991 Head, Personnel Systems DepartmentNaval School of Health Sciences NPRDC (Code 12)National Naval Medical Center (Bldg. 141) San Diego, CA 92152-6800Washington, DC 20814-5033Attn. CD R J.M. LaRocco Head, Testing Systems DepartmentNPRDC (Code 13)Technical Director San Diego, CA 92152-6800Naval Health Research CenterP.O. Box 85122 Naval Ocean Systems CenterSan Diego, CA 92138-9174 Command Support Technology DivisionAttn: Mr. Jeffrey Grossman, Code 4402Deputy Director, R&D Department Bldg. 334Naval Training Systems Center (Code 7A) San Diego, CA 92152-500012350 Research ParkwayOrlando, FL 32826-3224 Chairman, Department of AdministrativeAttn. Dr. David E.Daniel Sciences (Code 54)

Naval Postgraduate SchoolHead, Human Factors Laboratory Monterey, CA 93943-5100Naval Training Systems Center (Code 71 )12350 Research Parkway Chairman, Department of OperationsOrlando, FL 32826-3224 Research (Code 55)Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, CA 93943-5100


62/63

Director, Instructional Development and Chief, Survey and MarketEducational Program Support Department Analysis DivisionNaval Education and Training Program Defense Manpower Data CenterManagement Support Activity (NETPMSA) 1600 Wilson Boulevard, #400Pensacola, FL 32509 Arlington, VA 22209Academic Programs and Research Branch Program DirectorNaval Technical Training Command Manpower Research &Advisory ServicesCode N-625 Smithsonian InstitutionNAS Memphis (75) 801 North Pitt Street, Suite 120Millington, TN 38054 Alexandria, VA 22314-1713Assistant for Training and Dr. Meg GerrardPersonnel Technology Psychology DepartmentOffice of the Under Secretary of Iowa State UniversityDefense for Research and Engineering Ames, Iowa 500113D129, Th e PentagonWashington, DC 20301-3080 Dr. Perry W. ThorndykeFMC Central Engineering LabsDirector, Defense Personnel Security Box 580Research and Education Center Santa Clara, CA 95052Suite E,Building 45599 Pacific Street Dr . T. GovindarajMonterey, CA 93940-2481 School of Industrial &Systems EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyPersonnel Analysis Division Atlanta, GA 30332-0205AF/DPXA5C360, Th e Pentagon Prof. David W. JohnsonWashington, DC 20330 Cooperative Learning CenterUniversity of MinnesotaTechnical Director 150 Pillsbury Drive, S.E.U.S. Army Research Institute for the Minneapolis, MN 55455

Behavioral and Social Sciences5001 Eisenhower Avenue Dr. Walter SchneiderAlexandria, VA 22333-5600 Learning Research &Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghDirector, Manpower Program Pittsburgh, PA 15620Center for Naval Analyses4401 Ford Avenue Prof. George A.MillerP.O. Box 16268 Department of PsychologyAlexandria, VA 22302-0268 Princeton UniversityPrinceton, NJ 08544Technical DirectorAir Force Human Resources Laboratory Dr. Jeffery L. KenningtonBrooks Air Force Base, TX 78236-5601 School of Engineering &Applied ScienceSouthern Methodist U niversityLibrary Dallas, TX 75275-0335Naval Training Systems CenterOrlando, FL 32813 Prof. Clark GlymourDepartment of PhilosophyLibrary Carnegie-Mellon UniversityNaval War College Pittsburgh, PA 15213Newport, RI 02940

I


63/63

Prof. Kent E. Williams Dr. Lawrence J.StricicerInstitute for Simulation & Training Educational Testing ServiceUniversity of Central Florida Princeton, NJ 08541P.O. Box 25000Orlando, FL 32816-0544 Prof. Michael Levine

Dept. of Educational PsychologyProf. Paul Feltovich University of linoisSouthern Mllinois University 506 South Wright St.School of Medicine Urbana, IL 61801P.O. Bo x 3926Springfield, IL 62708 Prof. Patricia A. CarpenterPsychology DepartmentProf. Thomas G. Bever Carnegie-Mellon UniversityDepartment of Psychology Pittsburgh, PA 15213The University of RochesterRiver Station Dr. William B. JohnsonRochester, NY 14627 Search Technology, Inc.4725 Peachtree Corners Circle

Norcross, GA 30092

Documents

Personal Attributes as Predictors of Military Leadership