Personality Traits in Leadership Behavior

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2004, 45, 49–54

© 2004 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0036-5564.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Personality traits in leadership behavior

HEGE KORNØR

1

and HILMAR NORDVIK

2

1

Unit for Addiction Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway

2

Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Kornør, H. and Nordvik, H. (2004). Personality traits in leadership behavior.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

,

45

, 49–54.

Correlational analyses of the personality traits measured by the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and threeleadership styles, that is, Change, Production, and Employee (CPE) measured by Ekvall and Arvonen’s (1991) CPE questionnaire, were performed.The sample was 106 Norwegian leaders. Three common factors comprising leadership styles and personality domains were interpreted as“looking for new possibilities,” “hard working,” and “dealing with people.” Considering personality traits as behavior tendencies in unspecifiedsituational contexts and leadership styles as behavioral tendencies in the leadership context, and due to the self-report nature of the data, itis argued that the factors show consistency in self-perceptions independent of context. The strongest predictors of the CPE total score wereConscientiousness and Extraversion; Openness and Agreeableness were specific predictors of Change and Employee, respectively.

Key words:

Personality traits, leadership, NEO PI-R, leadership behavior, leadership effectiveness, five-factor model.

Hege Kornør, Unit for Addiction Medicine, University of Oslo, Mario, Kirkevn 166, N-0407 Oslo, Norway.

E-mail: [email protected]

Leadership effectiveness can be predicted by two leadershipbehavior dimensions, that is, task-oriented and relations-oriented behavior. Research findings suggest that individualsscoring high on both dimensions perform better as leaders(e.g., Blake and Mouton, 1964). According to the contin-gency approach, proposed by Fiedler (1967), ideal leader-ship behavior profiles vary with the characteristics of thecontext.

Ekvall and Arvonen (1991, 1994) have suggested a thirdbehavior dimension, that is Change/Development, findingthat high scores on all three dimensions predicted highperformance regardless of the situation. The relevance ofa third behavior dimension was also advocated by Yukl(1998), and Adizes (1979, 1987) even proposed a four-foldconception of managerial tasks, that is, Production, Admin-istration, Enterprising, and Integration, in which Enterpris-ing resembles Ekvall and Aronsen’s Change/Development;Production and Administration seem to be two aspects ofthe concern for task and structure, and Integration is therelation-orientation or concern for people, that is, Employeein Ekvall and Arvonen’s nomenclature.

Both behavior and contingency approaches propose cer-tain behavior styles that are closely related to leadershipeffectiveness. Behavior styles have been elaborated into con-structs, such as charismatic, transactional, transformationaland visionary leadership (e.g., Nystedt, 1997). From thecontingency view, leadership competence may be the abilityto adapt one’s behavior style according to what is requiredin the situation. A pertinent question then becomes to whatextent such flexibility is possible for normal human beings.Although people of course do adapt their behavior to thesituation, we also know that individual behavioral character-istics may be recognized across situations due to personalitytraits. Personality traits have been defined as “dimensionsof individual differences in tendencies to show consistent

patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions” (McCrae &Costa, 1990, p. 23). Many investigations have documentedthat personality traits are remarkably stable (e.g., McCrae &Costa, 1990), they have a significant hereditary component(e.g., Loehlin, 1992), and they have behavioral implications,that is, they influence behavior in any situation and theycontribute to decide which situations persons are motivatedto enter and participate in (e.g., Matthews & Deary, 1998).In the last 10–15 years much personality trait research hasbeen framed within the Five-Factor Model (FFM), which isa hierarchical model of personality traits with five big traits,called domains, on the top, that is, Neuroticism, Extraversion,Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and six sub-traits,called facets, beneath each domain (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Although considerably disputed (e.g., Brown, 1988),studies back to the early part of the 20th century have evid-enced that personality traits are involved in leadership com-petence and behavior (Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959; Lord,De Vader & Alliger, 1986). Among the domains in the FFMConscientiousness and Extraversion have been shown topredict managerial performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991;Salgado, 1997). Recently, this view has been supported byJudge & Bono (2000), who found that effective transforma-tional leadership, which resembles Ekvall and Arvonen’sChange and Employee, was predicted by Extraversion andAgreeableness.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate rela-tionships between the personality traits in the FFM andscores on the CPE questionnaire developed by Ekvall andArvonen (1991) to measure the Change/Development,Production /Task /Structure, and Employee/Relations lead-ership orientations. The CPE asks questions about whatleaders tend to do in leadership contexts. The Revised NEOPersonality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992)asks questions about what the person tends to do in general,

50

H. Kornør and H. Nordvik

S

cand J Psychol 45 (2004)

© 2004 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

across situations and contexts. The question that we addressis whether behavioral tendencies are specific for the leader-ship context or are inherently related to general behavioraltendencies. Nystedt (1997) rated leadership profiles derivedfrom the CPE on personality trait dimensions. However, wedo not know any previous study of how persons simultane-ously assess themselves on CPE leadership styles and theNEO PI-R personality traits.

Some presumptions can be made at this stage: Due to itscreative and visionary aspects, Change/Development appearsto have something in common with Openness to experience;Production /Task/Structure may depend on the purposeful,strong-will, and determined qualities of Conscientiousness;and the empathic and interpersonal characteristics of Agree-ableness may converge with Employee/Relations.

METHOD

Sample

The sample consisted of 106 respondents, 64 males and 41 females.Mean age was 41.9 years (SD = 7.9 years). Respondents were par-ticipants at various leadership and career development programs atthe Norwegian School of Management (BI), the National PoliceAcademy, the Norwegian School of Economics and BusinessAdministration (NHH), and others. The respondents were currentlyholding leadership positions, mainly at a middle management level.The sample represented a wide range of work and leadership experi-ence, educational levels, organization sizes and types, and trades.

Instruments

Two instruments were used, a Norwegian translation of Ekvall andArvonen’s (1994; 1991) leadership behavior questionnaire, the CPE,and the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), also translated intoNorwegian.

The leadership behavior questionnaire contains 36 items for theassessment of three leadership behavior dimensions, that is, Change/Development, Production/Task/Structure, and Employee/Relations.For each item there was a five-point rating scale ranging from“not appropriate” to “completely appropriate.” In the Ekvall andArvonen (1994) study, leaders’ subordinates answered the leadershipbehavior questionnaire. In the present study, however, we changedthe CPE into a self-report version; the leaders were instructed toassess their own behavior on the same items as subordinatesassessed their leader in the original CPE. All the CPE items can beseen in Table 1.

The NEO PI-R consists of 240 items measuring the 30 facets thatdefine the five domain factors of the FFM; all the facet and domainnames are reported in Table 2. The items are statements of person-ality tendencies accompanied by five-point rating scales, rangingfrom “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” As in the CPE, someitems in the NEO PI-R also ask how the respondents think they areregarded by others, as in “Some people think I’m selfish and egoist-ical” and “Most people I know like me.”

Analyses of preliminary Norwegian data (

N

= 216) on the NEOPI-R indicated satisfactory reliability coefficients and very similar factorstructure with other countries (Nordvik, Eriksen & Gravraakmo, 1998).Unpublished results from a larger sample (

N

= 824) confirmed highalpha coefficients for the facets scales, varying from 0.54 to 0.84with a mean of 0.71. In this sample the coefficients of congruencefor the five domains with the US norm sample varied from 0.95, for

Openness to 0.98, for Conscientiousness. Thus, the Norwegian ver-sion of the NEO PI-R satisfied basic psychometric requirements.

Procedure

The inventories were handed out during lectures on various topicson leadership. Some respondents responded promptly, while othershanded in their self-reports the next day. Subjects were asked orallyand in written instruction to respond as honestly as possible, andnot to reflect extensively upon their responses.

Confidentiality was guaranteed. Also, participants were offeredfeedback on their scores. All but one respondent accepted this offer.The feedback included a leadership profile (CPE), a personality pro-file (NEO PI-R), and information on how to interpret these profiles.

RESULTS

NEO PI-R scores

NEO PI-R scores are T-scores, with norm means of 50 andSD = 10. Therefore, the sample means and SDs show howthe sample deviates from the general norms. The lowestmean was in the Neuroticism facet Anxiety (46.3), and thehighest in the Extraversion facets Assertiveness and Activity(both 54.5). The highest domain score was in Conscientious-ness (52.5) and the lowest in Neurotocism (46.7). The meanscores on Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness were50.8, 49.7, and 51.0 respectively. In none of the NEO PI-Rvariables did the deviation from the population norm reachwhat Cohen (1992) specifies as a medium effect size, namelyone half of the estimated population SD.

The SDs in the sample varied from 8.00 to 10.0. Thus, thesample was slightly more homogeneous in personality traitscores than a random sample from the population, but thiseffect was not great enough to substantially attenuate cor-relations because of range restriction.

The CPE dimensions

In order to investigate whether the CPE measures three inde-pendent dimensions, as maintained by Ekvall and Arvonen,we first factor analyzed the 36 items of the CPE, applyingPrincipal component extraction and Varimax rotation. Threefactors had eigenvalues greater than 1. Table 1 shows the rotatedfactors together with the corresponding factors reported byEkvall and Arvonen (1994). The coefficients of congruence(Gorsuch, 1983) between the two analyses were 0.83 for fac-tor 1, 0.74 for factor 2 and 0.86 for factor 3, indicating thatthe CPE dimensions were fairly replicated in the presentstudy, and that our self-report version of the CPE measureabout the same factors as the original subordinate-reportversion. According to the item loadings the factors correspondto Employee, Change, and Production, respectively.

The three factors in our study explained 34.7% of thevariance, which strongly contrasts the claim from Ekvall andArvonen (1994) that the corresponding factors in their studyexplained 97% of the total variance. Judging from the Ekvalland Arvonen factor loadings, however, their claim cannot be

Scand J Psychol 45 (2004)


51


correct. According to our calculation from their results theexplained variance should be 44.7% rather than 97%.

Relationships between personality traits and leadership dimensions

Correlations.

Having obtained evidence for the existence ofthe leadership factors in the CPE data; we computed scoresfor the three factors in Table 1 by the SPSS regressioncommand and proceeded to investigate correlations betweenthese dimensions and the NEO PI-R dimensions.

Table 2 shows the correlation coefficients between thetraits measured by the NEO PI-R and the CPI factorsinterpreted as the leadership dimensions of Change, Pro-duction, and Employee. At the domain level Extraversionand Openness were positively correlated, and Neuroticismnegatively correlated, with Change, that is,

r

= 0.34, 0.32,and

−

0.31, respectively, and these directions of correlationsapply to every facet in these domains. The highest correla-tion for the domains was between Agreeableness andEmployee (

r

= 0.43). Extraversion and Conscientiousnesswere positively correlated with all the leadership dimensions.

Table 1. Varimax rotated factor matrix for the CPE items

Factors

Present study Ekvall/Arvonen

Item no. 1 2 3 1 2 3

As a leader, I . . . 19 am considerate 0.65 −0.07 0.20 0.62 0.02 0.2034 show regard for the subordinates as individuals 0.59 0.09 0.05 0.73 0.14 0.19

7 have an open and honest style 0.59 0.06 −0.05 0.52 0.35 0.2516 show appreciation for good work 0.55 0.09 0.09 0.44 0.37 0.22

1 am friendly 0.55 −0.25 0.24 0.52 0.17 −0.0122 stand up for my subordinate 0.55 0.18 0.02 0.56 0.24 0.21

2 listen to ideas and suggestions 0.52 0.00 0.03 0.58 0.30 0.124 rely on my subordinates 0.51 0.09 −0.34 0.53 0.20 0.03

32 am flexible and ready to rethink my point of view 0.45 0.17 −0.08 0.59 0.31 0.0328 am just in treating subordinates 0.45 0.08 0.32 0.64 0.17 0.3425 create an atmosphere free of conflict 0.43 0.07 0.27 0.59 0.19 0.276 am very clear about who is responsible for what 0.43 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.37 0.53

10 criticize in a constructive way 0.42 0.20 0.04 0.44 0.33 0.3213 create trust in other people 0.35 0.16 0.34 0.55 0.29 0.3823 experiment with new ways of doing things 0.04 0.75 0.10 0.16 0.65 0.10

8 encourage thinking along new lines 0.28 0.72 −0.02 0.45 0.56 0.1220 initiate new projects −0.09 0.69 0.13 0.08 0.67 0.1735 offer ideas about new and different ways of doing things 0.15 0.67 0.15 0.24 0.71 0.1711 like to discuss new ideas 0.18 0.64 −0.19 0.44 0.54 0.0714 give thoughts and plans about the future −0.03 0.61 0.13 0.30 0.56 0.2226 see possibilities rather than problems 0.27 0.47 0.16 0.39 0.52 0.15

5 am willing to take risks in decisions 0.04 0.33 −0.08 0.20 0.52 0.2417 push for growth −0.05 0.37 0.34 0.28 0.69 0.2631 allow my subordinates to decide 0.21 0.30 −0.08 0.55 0.20 −0.0329 make quick decisions when necessary 0.06 0.18 0.04 0.27 0.52 0.1836 analyze and think through before deciding 0.32 0.20 0.30 0.32 0.11 0.4930 plan carefully 0.09 −0.04 0.70 0.17 0.21 0.6921 am very exacting about plans being followed 0.12 −0.13 0.68 0.03 0.12 0.6333 give clear instructions 0.07 0.04 0.68 0.21 0.28 0.6127 define and explain the work requirements clearly 0.12 0.15 0.67 0.21 0.33 0.6018 set clear goals 0.05 0.44 0.57 0.20 0.46 0.5424 am controlling in my supervision of the work −0.33 −0.05 0.56 −0.07 0.15 0.57

3 create order 0.04 0.23 0.51 0.17 0.22 0.5712 make a point of following rules and principles 0.11 −0.28 0.50 0.04 −0.11 0.56

9 am consistent 0.15 0.20 0.38 0.40 0.21 0.5115 give information about the results of the units 0.26 0.01 0.32 0.24 0.39 0.32

Eigenvalues 4.26 4.17 4.08 5.98 5.36 4.74

Percent explained variance 11.8 11.6 11.3 16.6 14.9 13.2

Note: Ekvall and Arvonen’s results are reproduced by kind permission from Blackwell Publishers.

52


S



Among the facets, the highest correlation was between A3:Altruism and Employee (

r

= 0.51), between E1: Warmth andEmployee (

r

= 0.48), and between C2: Order and Production(

r

= 0.46).

Regression analysis.

Table 3 shows the results of regressionanalyses with the five personality domains as independentand the leadership styles as dependent variables. The highestmultiple correlation,

R

= 0.61, was found for Production,which means that about 37% of the variance in this variablecould be predicted from the personality variables. Conscien-tiousness was the strongest predictor of Production, but alsoNeuroticism; Extraversion, and Openness (negative beta)contributed significantly to Production. Only Agreeablenesshad a significant regression coefficient on Employee, whereasOpenness and Neuroticism (negative beta) were statisticallysignificant on Change. The strongest and only significantpredictors of the total CPE score among the personality

traits were Extraversion and Conscientiousness with betacoefficients of 0.28 and 0.37, respectively.

Factor analysis.

We also performed a common factor analysisof the personality domains and the leadership style dimensions,

Table 2. Correlations between NEO PI-R personality scores and CPE leadership style scores

Change Development

Production Task

Employee Relations

CPE Total

Neuroticism −0.31** 0.15 −0.22* −0.22*N1: Anxiety −0.30** 0.16 −0.12 −0.15N2: Angry hostility −0.05 0.18 −0.32** −0.11N3: Depression −0.28** 0.15 −0.09 −0.12N4: Self-consciousness −0.37** 0.13 −0.17 −0.23*N5: Impulsiveness −0.01 −0.08 0.02 −0.04N6: Vulnerability −0.26** 0.09 −0.32** −0.28**

Extraversion 0.34** 0.08 0.26** 0.39**E1: Warmth 0.22* 0.11 0.48** 0.47**E2: Gregariousness 0.29** 0.07 0.07 0.25*E3: Assertiveness 0.39** −0.04 0.02 0.21*E4: Activity 0.31** 0.15 0.19* 0.38**E5: Excitement seeking 0.25* −0.01 0.02 0.14E6: Positive emotions 0.06 0.08 0.38** 0.30**

Openness to experience 0.32** −0.28** 0.26** 0.18O1: Fantasy 0.17 −0.21* 0.12 0.05O2: Aesthetics 0.16 −0.09 0.27** 0.20*O3: Feelings 0.24* −0.15 0.28** 0.22*O4: Actions 0.35** −0.18 0.06 0.13O5: Ideas 0.24* −0.19* 0.22* 0.16O6: Values 0.19* −0.38** 0.12 −0.04

Agreeableness −0.06 −0.15 0.43** 0.13A1: Trust 0.14 −0.24* 0.39** 0.16A2: Straightforwardness −0.20* −0.14 0.10 −0.14A3: Altruism 0.05 −0.03 0.51** 0.31**A4: Compliance −0.07 0.06 0.32** 0.18A5: Modesty −0.09 −0.13 0.09 −0.08A6: Tender-mindedness 0.01 −0.12 0.44** 0.19*

Conscientiousness 0.12 0.38** 0.25* 0.44**C1: Competence 0.18 −0.03 0.25* 0.24*C2: Order −0.04 0.46** 0.08 0.29**C3: Dutifulness −0.08 0.31** 0.23* 0.27**C4: Achievement striving 0.26** 0.31** 0.13 0.41**C5: Self-Discipline 0.27** 0.22* 0.18 0.39**C6: Deliberation −0.03 0.27** 0.18 0.25*

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Table 3. Standardized regression coefficients (β) with personalitydomains as predictors of leadership styles

Change Production EmployeeCPE total

Neuroticism −0.24* 0.38** −0.04 0.05Extraversion 0.13 0.28** 0.11 0.28**Openness 0.27** −0.34** 0.14 0.05Agreeableness −0.18 −0.13 0.35** 0.02Conscientiousness 0.04 0.47** 0.14 0.37**Multiple correlation (R) 0.47** 0.61** 0.51** 0.52**

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.010.

Scand J Psychol 45 (2004)


53


using Principal component extraction and Varimax rotation.Three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 emerged andthe orthogonally rotated solution is shown in Table 4.

Each of the three leadership dimensions came out withdistinct loadings on only one factor, and each factor showeda distinct loading pattern also for the personality domains.Factor 1 seems to be a “looking for new possibilities, changeand development” factor comprising Change/Development,Extraversion, Openness, and Neuroticism (negative loading).Factor 2 seems to be a “duty and work hard on prescribedtasks” factor involving Production/Task/Structure and thepersonality domains Conscientiousness and Openness inopposite directions. Factor 3 clearly is a “dealing with people”factor, which comprises Agreeableness and Employee/Relations.

DISCUSSION

The extensive use of self-report in personality and leadershipresearch testifies that researchers in these areas have movedfar away from the behaviorist doctrine that only objectiveobservations of behavior are acceptable data for psychology.The CPE dimensions do not appear to have been examinedfor discrepancies between subordinates’ descriptions of theirsupervisors and leaders’ self-ratings. However, the phenom-enon has been studied in comparable settings. According toKim and Yukl (1995), subordinate ratings of supervisors’behaviour are more closely related to leadership effectivenessthan self-reports. On the other hand, research findings alsoshow that leaders’ self-reports are not necessarily biased ina socially desirable direction, nor divergent from subordin-ate ratings (Fleenor, McCauley & Brutus, 1996). In the fieldof personality assessment, the issue of response distortionhas been thoroughly discussed. Research findings show thatresponse distortion tends to occur more frequently amongjob applicants than among job incumbents (Rosse, Stecher,Miller & Levin, 1998), but also that social desirability doesnot function as a moderator of personality-performancerelations (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998). The validity of self-reports has also been supported by documentation of agree-ment with rating by others (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992).

A main argument for the self-report method is that we areinterested in behavioral tendencies, such as personality traitsand leadership styles. To disclose tendencies from behavior,observations would have to be aggregated across a widerange of situations. People have a unique opportunity toaggregate observations of themselves because they arealways there when they behave and participate in any situ-ation. In addition, the persons themselves know the feelings,thoughts and intentions that accompany their own behavior.Thus, there are reasons why self-report may give valid data.

However, it remains that self-report data can be inter-preted at two levels. First, and most immediately, the datashow the structure of the persons’ perceptions and notionsabout themselves; that is, the item responses are interpretedas indices of latent dimensions of perceived human charac-teristics. The NEO PI-R gives self-reports on general behavi-oral tendencies without reference to contexts or situationalsettings. On the contrary, the CPE asks for self-reportedbehavioral tendencies specific in the leadership context.Therefore, the common factors of the self-reported person-ality and leadership variables indicate consistencies in thesubjects’ self-conceptions across the context free and theleadership domain (e.g., Nordvik & Brovold, 1998). Personswho generally view themselves as highly Agreeable reportthat they are concerned about Employees, those who viewthemselves as Extraverted and Open for experience areenthusiastic for Change, and those who look upon them-selves as Conscientious report focus on Production, that is,to get things done. These results from the factor analysisindicate that people tend to be consistent, regardless ofwhether they think of context free personality characteristicsor specific leadership assets.

Second, if we accept scores derived from self-reporteddata as measures of variables, we may investigate hypothes-ized directional effects between the variables. Personalitytraits have been thought of as basic tendencies in indivi-duals’ biological constitution (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1995).Accordingly, personality variables are often conceived aspredictors of leadership variables, as we did in our regres-sion analyses. If we accept the CPE total score as a measureof general leadership proficiency, as proposed by Ekvall andArvonen (1991, 1994), Extraversion and Conscientiousnessare the most valid selection criteria for such proficiency.However, to select candidates for Change, Openness andNeuroticism (negative weight) should be used, and Agree-ableness is the strongest predictor of Employee. Due to thelow scores on Neuroticism in the sample, the effect of thisvariable comes from variance in the middle and low scorelevel. Within this score range those who score highest onNeuroticism tend to prefer the Production style, whereaslow-scorers tend towards Change and Employee. This mayindicate that Change and Employee requires a more relaxed,self-confident, and easygoing personal styles than Production.

Apparent discrepancies in the results from the two ana-lyses are due to how the methods treat common variance. In

Table 4. Rotated orthogonal factor matrix of personality andleadership variables

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

PersonalityNeuroticism −0.62 −0.13 −0.27Extraversion 0.77 0.11 0.17Openness 0.59 −0.45 0.25Agreeableness 0.01 −0.09 0.83Conscientiousness 0.31 0.72 0.33

LeadershipEmployee/Relations 0.17 0.07 0.78Change/Development 0.77 −0.02 −0.25Production/Task −0.06 0.85 −0.15

54


S



Factor 1 in Table 4 the highest loadings are for Extraversionand Change (both 0.77), whereas Table 3 shows that theregression coefficient of Extraversion on Change is only0.13. Although Extraversion and Change have substantialcommon variance, the unique contribution of Extraversionto Change is relatively small because Extraversion has differ-ent common variance components with Neuroticism andOpenness, which are also shared by Change.

Our main conclusion is that people tend to be consistentin their self-report regardless of context and that leadershipstyles are related to personality traits. In an applied setting,this finding supports the view that personality inventories,such as the NEO PI-R, would be useful in managerial selec-tion for assessing a wide range of leadership qualities relatedto effectiveness.

REFERENCES

Adizes, I. (1979).

How to solve mismanagement crisis

. Los Angeles,CA: MNOR Institute.

Adizes, I. (1987).

Corporate lifecycles

. Santa Monica, CA: AdizesInstitute.

Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personalitydimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.

PersonnelPsychology

,

44

, 1–26.Bass, B. M. (1990).

Handbook of leadership: Theory, research andmanagerial applications

. New York: The Free Press.Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964).

The managerial grid

. Houston:Gulf Publishing.

Brown, R. (1988).

Group processes: Dynamics within and betweengroups

. Oxford: Blackwell.Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer.

Psychological Bulletin

,

113

, 155–159.Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992).

NEO PI-R Professional manual

.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Ekvall, G. & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centred leaders: Empiricalevidence of a third dimension of leadership.

Leadership andOrganization Development Journal

,

12

, 18–23.Ekvall, G. & Arvonen, J. (1994). Leadership profiles, situation and

effectiveness.

Creativity and Innovation Management

, 3, 139–161.Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York:

McGraw-Hill.Fleenor, J. W., McCauley, C. D. & Brutus, S. (1996). Self-other

rating agreement and leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly,7, 487–506.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-Factor Model of Personalityand Transformational Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,85 (5), 751–765.

Kim, H. & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of managerial effectivenessand advancement to self-reported and subordinate-reportedleadership behaviors from the multiple-linkage model. Leader-ship Quarterly, 6, 361–377.

Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development.Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

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

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between person-ality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin,54, 241–270.

Matthews, G. & Deary, I. J. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. NewYork: Guildford.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1995). Trait explanation in person-ality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 9, 231–252.

Nordvik, H. & Brovold, H. (1998). Personality and leadership tasks.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39, 61–64.

Nordvik, H., Eriksen, L. & Gravraakmo, A. (1998). NEO PI-R inNorway. On the universality of the Five Factor Model. Posterpresentation, 9th European Conference on Personality, Surrey.

Nystedt, L. (1997). Who should rule? Does personality matter?European Journal of Personality, 11, 1–14.

Ones, D. S. & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desir-ability and faking on personality and integrity assessment forpersonnel selection. Human performance, 11, 245–269.

Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L. & Levin, R. A. (1998). Theimpact of response distortion on preemployment personalitytesting and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,634–644.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and jobperformance in the European Community. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 82, 30–43.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership:A survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Received 18 April 2002, accepted 25 September 2002

Documents

Personality Traits in Leadership Behavior