The Bright and Dark Sides of Leader Traits:
A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm
Ronald F. Piccolo
Rollins College
The Galapagos Finches
Darwin’s Finches → Fortune’s CEOs?
• Physical Traits have evolved over time
– Mutation and Adaptive Radiation select traits
that are suitable for reproduction and survival
• Beaks, Opposable Thumbs, Multicolored Feathers
• Psychological Traits have a Genetic Source
– These traits shape attitudes (job satisfaction)
and behaviors (productive and deviant
behaviors, life and work preferences, etc.)
• Psychological Traits shape Leadership
Leadership is Universal
AGENDA
• Reflection
– Brief History of Leadership Trait Paradigm
• Application
– Antecedents of Traits
• Evolutionary Psychology; Theory
• Behavioral Genetics
• Contradiction
– Countervailing Effects of Traits
• Speculation
– Possible Explanations & Researchable Ideas
1948
Stogdill (1948)
Intelligence
Initiative
Alertness
Persistence
Insight
Self-confidence
Sociability
Responsibility
Reflection
1959
Intelligence
Dominance
Masculinity
Extroversion
Adjustment
Conservatism
Mann (1959)
1974
Achievement
Responsibility
Cooperativeness
Persistence
Insight
Tolerance
Self-Confidence
Sociability
Stogdill (1974)
1986
Intelligence
Dominance
Masculinity
Lord(1986)
Reconfirming Mann (1959)
1991
Drive
Confidence
Motivation
Cognitive Ability
Integrity
Task Knowledge
Self-Confidence
Sociability
Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)
The Leader Trait Paradigm
Intelligence
Intelligence
Intelligence
Achievement
Drive
Dominance
InitiativeDominance
Responsibility
Confidence
Masculinity
Alertness
Masculinity
Cooperativeness
Motivation
Persistence
Extroversion
Persistence
Cognitive Ability
Insight Adjustment
Insight
Integrity
Self-confidence
Conservatism
Tolerance
Task Knowledge
Sociability
Self-Confidence Self-Confidence
Responsibility
Sociability
Sociability
The ‘Big Five’ Personality Trait Taxonomy
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
(Emotional Stability)
Heritability of Personality
0.6
0.5
.51
.46
.45
0.4
0.3
0.2
.20
.18
.20
0.1
0
Neuroticism
Extraversion
5 twin studies in 5 countries
N=24,000 (Loehlin, 1992)
Big Five Ave.
Plomin and
Caspi (1999)
Identical
Fraternal
Human behavior is substantially
shaped by evolutionary
psychological adaptations
The ‘Big Five’ & Leadership
Big Five Trait
k
N
r

Neuroticism
74
18,740
-.14
-.20
Extraversion
66
12,581
.21
.30*
Openness
42
8,281
.17
.25*
Agreeableness
49
10,934
.07
.10
Conscientiousness
38
8,102
.19
.27*
Judge etetal.al.(2002).
Personality
and Leadership:
A Qualitative
and Quantitative
Review. Journal
of Applied
Psychology,
87,Psychology,
765-780. 87, 765-780.
Judge
(2002).
Personality
and Leadership:
A Qualitative
and Quantitative
Review.
Journal
of Applied
Lower-Order Personality Traits & Leadership
Big Five Trait
k
N
r

Locus of Control
15
2,347
.08
.13
Self Esteem
9
7,451
.14
.19*
Sociability
19
5,827
.24
.37*
Dominance
31
7,692
.24
.37*
Achievement
16
4,625
.23
.35*
Dependability
16
5,020
.18
.30*
Judge etetal.al.(2002).
Personality
and Leadership:
A Qualitative
and Quantitative
Review. Journal
of Applied
Psychology,
87,Psychology,
765-780. 87, 765-780.
Judge
(2002).
Personality
and Leadership:
A Qualitative
and Quantitative
Review.
Journal
of Applied
The ‘Big Five’ & Leadership
Emergence
r
k
Effectiveness
r
k
Neuroticism
30
-.24
18
-.22*
Extraversion
37
.33*
23
.24*
Openness
20
.24*
17
.24*
Agreeableness
23
.05
19
.21
Conscientiousness
17
.33*
18
.16
R (multiple r)
.53
.39
Judge et al. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.
Traits & Leadership
Intelligence & Leadership
k
N

SD
151
40,652
.27
.17
95% CI 95% CI
Lower Upper
.24
.30
Judge et al. (2004). Intelligence and Leadership: A Quantitative Review and Test of Theoretical Propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 542-552.
But of course there are skeptics…
• “…the validity of personality inventories as
predictors of job performance and other
organizationally relevant criteria [are]
generally low” (Murphy & Dziewezynski, 2005; p. 345).
• “…the relationships (measured by correlations)
are low. Personality has low explanatory and
predictive power” (Andersen, 2006; p. 1088).
• “…multiple correlations are inappropriate and
[personality] validities remain so poor as to
cast doubt on their utility” (Morgeson et al., 2007).
Persistent Criticisms
• Emergence ≠ Effectiveness
– Kaiser et al. (2008). “The Fate of Organizations”
• “Not so Big” Five
– Origins, Development Process, Translation
• If Five is Good…
– 10 is Better. 15? Better Still
• Sources of Trait Development? Context?
• Reasonable Alternatives?
– Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory
– Behavioral Approach/Inhibition System
Theoretical Perspectives
Underlying the Leader Trait Paradigm
Evolutionary Theory and
Evolutionary Psychology
Behavioral Genetics
Application
Leadership as Characteristic Adaptation?
• Leadership is a natural adaptive process to
study because
– Leadership exists as collective activity exists
– Natural development of social structure tells
us much about human universals and
individual differences
– “The right stuff” of leader traits may well
depend on the context
– Members follow leaders who are most likely to
insure the group’s survival.
st
21 Century Adaptive Radiation?
A Behavioral Genetics Primer
Environment vs. Genes
• Consider studies of monozygotic (identical
[MZ]) and dizygotic (fraternal [DZ]) twins
reared apart and those reared together
• For MZ/DZ twins reared together:
a=additive genetic effect (broad heritability)
c=common or shared environment effect, and
e=error or unique similarity (or non-shared) environment effect
rMZ = a2 + c2
{in MZ = variance in genes + environ}
rDZ = (0.5  a2) + c2
{DZ share half as many genes}
1 = a2 + c2 + e2 {variance = shared genes + shared environ + unique}
Note: MZ twins=100% genetically similar (identical genes); DZ twins=50% genetically similar (share 50% genes)
Genes and Body Mass Index (BMI)
Heritability of
Body Mass Index
(BMI)
Hjelmborg et al. (2008)
10,556 Finn twins
Hur (2007)
Shared
genes
Shared
Non-shared
environment environment
M
F
M
F
M
F
80%
82%
7%
4%
13%
14%
82%
87%
0%
0%
18%
13%
65%
61%
5%
8%
30%
31%
888 Korean twins
Schousbo et al. (2004)
624 Danish twins
Genes and Obesity
BMI=([weightlbs703]/heightin2)
Correlation between pairs in
terms of Body Mass Index (BMI)
.14
Spouses
.62
Identical twins reared apart
.74
Identical twins reared together
.13
Adoptive siblings reared together
.16
Biological siblings reared together
0
0.5
Source: Grilo, C. M., & Pogue-Geile, M. F. (1991). The nature of environmental influences on weight
and obesity: A behavior genetics analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 520-537.
1
Behavioral Genetics
Summary: Variance in Body Mass Index
Average sources of
variability in BMI
Interestingly, weight gain also
shows high heritabilities so even
change may be genetic
29
Behavioral Genetics: Studies of Exercise
Sample
Genes
Environment
Unique
Australia (males)
22.9
20.6
56.6
Australia (females)
31.1
16.4
52.5
Denmark (males)
44.4
4.7
51.0
Denmark (females)
50.1
3.1
46.8
Finland (males)
55.8
6.2
38.0
Finland (females)
61.0
0.0
39.0
Netherlands (males)
68.1
2.7
29.2
Netherlands (females)
50.3
13.3
36.5
Norway (males)
33.6
31.1
35.4
Norway (females)
56.6
0.0
43.4
Sweden (males)
63.9
0.0
36.1
UK (females)
70.5
0.0
29.5
MEAN
51.4
7.5
41.1
Behavioral Genetics: Altruism
As measured by parents’ and teachers’ rating of degree to which child:
•Volunteers to help others; Is willing to help someone who has been hurt; Shares
treats with friends
* When child was age 7.
Source: Knafo & Plomin, Developmental Psychology, 2006.
Behavioral Genetics
Drug Use
Drug
Shared
genes
Shared
Non-shared
environment environment
Any
77%
0%
23%
Cannabis
76%
0%
24%
Stimulants
76%
0%
24%
Psychedelics
81%
0%
19%
Opiates
44%
33%
23%
Cocaine
44%
13%
43%
Mean
66%
8%
26%
Source: Kendler et al. (2006) study of 1,386 Norwegian twin pairs.
Behavioral Genetics
Smoking
Shared
genes
Shared
environment
Non-shared
environment
659 American
male twins
64%
19%
17%
434 American
female twins
77%
0%
23%
1063 Australian
female twins
74%
3%
23%
851 American
female twins
78%
7%
15%
1979 Australian
female twins
70%
18%
12%
Study
Behavioral Genetics
Aggressive Antisocial Behavior
Aggressive antisocial behavior was rated by parents using items such as:
• destroys one’s own and others’ belongings
• fights with other children
• attacks others
• threatens others
Sample:
1,480 pairs of
Swedish twins
Source: Eley, Lichtenstein, & Moffitt, Development & Psychopathology, 2003.
Behavioral Genetics
Genes, the Environment, and Leadership
• Relative to differences in genes, differences in
environment appear to play a minor role in
variability in socially desirable (weight, exercise,
altruism, etc.) and undesirable (drug use,
criminality, infidelity) behaviors.
• “Leaders are born” to the extent that identical
twins reared apart shared strike similarities in
terms of leader emergence.
• Across various measures of leadership, studies
show significant heritabilities, often in the 3060% range (Arvey et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2004)
Genes & the Environment
• 50% of Personality is heritable
– But that doesn’t mean 50% is environmental
• Situational variables may themselves have a
genetic source
• Genes interact with the Environment
– Genes do not exist independent of environment
• Olson et al., 2001 (pp. 845-846):
“Asking how much a particular individual’s attitudes or traits are
due to heredity versus the environment is nonsensical, just like
asking whether a leaky basement is caused more by the crack in the
foundation or the water outside.”
Contradiction
Trait Paradoxes: The Big Five Traits
Benefits
Costs
Extraversion
Greater leadership emergence;
higher job and life satisfaction
More impulsive (deviant)
behaviors; more accidents
Agreeableness
Higher subjective well-being;
lower interpersonal conflict; lower
deviance and turnover
Lower career success; less able to
cope with conflict; more lenient in
giving ratings
Conscientiousness
Stronger job performance; higher
leadership effectiveness; lower
deviance
Reduced adaptability; lower
learning in initial stages of skill
acquisition
Emotional stability
High job/life satisfaction; better
job performance; effective
leadership; retention
Poorer ability to detect risks and
danger; more risky behaviors;
more realism
Openness
Higher creativity; greater
leadership effectiveness; greater
adaptability
More accidents and
counterproductive; rebelliousness;
lower commitment
Sources: Judge & LePine (2007); Judge et al. (2009), “Bright and Dark Sides…”
Trait Paradoxes
Beyond the Big Five Traits
Bright Side
Dark Side
Intelligence
Most “successful” trait in social
and applied psychology.
Leaders with high IQs regarded as
atypical; high need for cognition.
Narcissism
Authoritative component
associated with emergence; seek
social approval. Favor bold action.
Arrogant, self absorbed, sense of
entitlement, hostile. View others as
inferior to themselves.
Machiavellianism
High motivation to lead; Willing
to invest social capital; Skilled at
use of multiple influence tactics.
Cunning, manipulative, seek
control over followers. Pursue
personal benefit.
Dominance
Command the attention and
respect of others; make themselves
appear competent; Strong desire
for achievement.
Prefer hierarchy and status;
control conversation; put pressure
on others. Motivate through fear.
Now what?
• Psychological Traits reflect Adaptive Radiation
– fitness, reproduction, survival
• Traits have a Genetic Source – and are
meaningful predictors of behavioral patterns
including those associated with leadership
emergence and effectiveness
• The leader-trait paradigm:
–
–
–
–
Yields ‘low’ correlations
Offers little (no) integration of context
Offers little (no) description of trait development
Ignores possibility of trait paradoxes
Speculation
Consider Trait Interactions
Trait Predicting Service Performance
β
SE
Emotional Stability
.03
.13
Extraversion
-.03
.10
Conscientiousness
.27**
.09
Agreeableness
-.01
.10
Emotional Stability – Extraversion (IV+/I+)
.25*
.12
R
.38**
.09
R2
.15**
---
∆R2 (IV+/I+)
.06*
---
Sample: 122
employees ofwas
regional
healthby
and
fitness
center. (ICC-1=.51)
Performance
evaluated
two
supervisors
Source: Judge and Erez, Personnel Psychology, 2007.
Interpersonal Circumplex
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Source: www.personalityresearch.org
Why Contradictions?
Consider 2nd order estimates (i.e., variability)
(a) Effect of X on Y
(b) when variability is constant
Source: Cavaretta et al., (working paper)
(c) when variability increases
TFL x LMX → JCT
However, at ‘extremely’ low
values of LMX (mx< 1.9; 9%),
relationship b/w TFL & JCT <0.
Source: Piccolo and Colquitt (2006)
Concluding Thoughts
• Leader Trait Paradigm
– Sources of Trait Development
• Evolution & Behavioral Genetics
– Trait Paradoxes
• Variability
• Construct Drift
– Context
Characteristic Adaptations
Leadership Emergence and Effectiveness
Moderators
Traits
ILTs
Traits
Big Five
Core self-evaluations
Other traits
Adaptive processes
Getting along
Getting ahead
Providing meaning
Subjective
Effectiveness
Rated effectiveness
Follower attitudes
Leader Emergence
Perceived Leadership
Leader ascendance
Leader ascendance
Moderators
Threats
Resources
ILTs=Implicit Leadership Theories
Based on Judge et al., Leadership Quarterly, 2009.
Objective
Effectiveness
Unit performance
Unit survival