Individual Differences in Leadership Derailment
Michael J. Najar
DeCotiisErhard, Inc.
Brent D. Holland and Christina R. Van Landuyt
Hogan Assessment Systems
Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Chicago, Illinois April 2, 2004
With the rise of corporate scandals, employees are starting to question the true intentions of their leaders.
This apparent lack of integrity among leaders in the United States has called into question the nature of
leadership. Much research has focused on the positive aspects of leadership, or those things that leaders
do well. Unlike previous research, this study examines the important role that the dark side of personality
can play in understanding ineffective leadership. The study examined the impact of a leader’s
dysfunctional interpersonal tendencies on multi-rater evaluations. Results indicated that (a) dysfunctional
behaviors associated with arrogance, cautiousness, volatility, and skepticism negatively influenced ratings
of performance and (b) dysfunctional behaviors showed differential effects across rater groups.
Dark side personality characteristics represent
flawed interpersonal strategies that (a) reflect an
individual’s imprecise beliefs about others and (b)
negatively influence careers (Hogan & Hogan, 1997).
These dysfunctional tendencies emerge during novel,
stressful, or heavy workloads. Individuals with the
requisite skills and abilities may fail because of flawed
interpersonal characteristics such as aloofness or the
tendency to act in unpredictable ways (Bentz, 1985;
Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall &
Lombardo, 1983). Interpersonal flaws coexist with an
individual’s well-developed social skills, which helps
explain why people with these undesirable qualities
sometimes ascend to leadership roles (Hogan, 1994;
Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Unfortunately, most research
has focused on normal personality characteristics to the
exclusion of dysfunctional tendencies. This study
helps clarify the nature and impact of dysfunctional
tendencies on leaders’ abilities to ascend upward.
What is Leadership?
Effective leadership provides a strategic advantage
over less organized groups. Leadership has been
shown to promote group success and help members: (a)
meet basic needs; (b) get along; and (c) survive (cf.
Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990). Leadership concerns
persuading group members to set aside personal goals
(assuming group and personal goals are different), for a
period of time, so as to advance the group’s interests
(Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). This view suggests
that leadership is an interpersonal exchange in which
the leader agrees to help members achieve individual
goals as long as they work towards, and do not
undermine, group goals. Successful leaders must be
perceived as trustworthy—i.e., members must believe
that the leader will help them achieve personal goals if
they work towards those of the group (Bentz, 1985). In
fact, Dirks (2000) indicated that “…trust in leadership
allows the team members to suspend their questions,
doubts, and personal motives and instead throw
themselves into working toward team goals” (p. 1009).
Why do leaders fail?
Failure has been conceptualized in two ways. The
first is that leaders fail because they lack important
characteristics or abilities to succeed (Bray & Howard,
1983). Essentially, failure is a byproduct of certain
interpersonal or cognitive deficiencies. The second is
that leaders may possess undesirable qualities that
cause failure (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). According to
this perspective, failure reflects an outgrowth of
dysfunctional behaviors that undermine the leader’s
ability to gain trust and, consequently, build an
effective team.
Researchers recognized the negative consequences
of certain personality characteristics (Hogan et al.,
1994). In fact, the Center for Creative Leadership
attempted to define characteristics and behaviors most
frequently associated with the failure of top executives.
McCall and Lombardo (1983) summarized the ten most
common causes of leadership derailment as:
1. An insensitive, abrasive, or bullying style;
2. Aloofness or arrogance;
3. Betrayal of personal trust;
4. Self-centered ambition;
5. Failure to constructively face an obvious problem;
6. Micromanagement;
7. Inability to select good subordinates;
8. Inability to take a long-term perspective;
9. Inability to adapt to a boss with a different style
10. Overdependence on a mentor
Each of these qualities has the ability to undermine a
leader’s ability to gain trust and commitment from
supervisors and coworkers.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael Najar, DeCotiisErhard, Inc., 1287 Lake Plaza Dr., Colorado Springs, CO
80906. E-mail: MNajar@DeCotiisErhard.com
LEADERSHIP DERAILMENT
Why multi-source feedback?
One way to understand whether a leader is
succeeding is perceptions of his or her performance.
Multi-source feedback allows us to understand
perceptions of performance from the perspectives of
different organizational members. By examining
performance from different perspectives, it may be
possible to clarify our understanding of how a leader
interacts with different people.
Multi-source feedback reflects the process of
gathering performance-related feedback from multiple
constituencies within an organization (e.g., supervisor,
peer, and subordinates), and is a useful tool to evaluate
leadership (Bracken & Timmreck, 2001). The
rationale for using multi-source feedback is that
performance varies from time-to-time and different
raters have unique opportunities to observe these onthe-job behaviors (Day, 2000). Therefore, it is
essential to obtain feedback from a variety of sources
to create a more accurate picture of a leader’s
performance.
Leaders are traditionally evaluated by their
supervisor(s). One problem with this approach is that
even poor leaders realize the significance behind
maintaining healthy relationships with their bosses
(Hogan, 1994). Moreover, supervisors do not always
have the opportunity to see leaders’ everyday or typical
behaviors. Consequently, supervisor ratings may not
reflect those typical behaviors that may cause
derailment.
An equally important source of performance
information is a leader’s peers. Peers have more
opportunities to observe everyday behavior than
supervisors do, and most leaders may be less guarded
in the company of equals. Thus, peers should have
more opportunities to accurately rate potentially
derailing characteristics.
Hypotheses
The derailment literature (McCall & Lombardo,
1983; Bentz, 1985; Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996)
suggests that failure can be classified into themes, each
of which is associated with the possession of dark side
tendencies. As indicated above, some of these
tendencies will be more visible to a leader’s peers, as
opposed to the leader’s supervisor.
First, failure is usually associated with an
individual’s inability to build interpersonal
relationships effectively. Leaders who seem arrogant
are less likely to build effective working relationships
with their peers. After all, arrogant individuals tend to
be described as egocentric, unwilling to listen, and
stubborn. Moreover, given that a leader’s success
depends upon effective team building, these individuals
are clearly disadvantaged (Bentz, 1985; Lombardo et
al., 1988; and McCall & Lombardo, 1983). Further, it
is likely that leaders will engage in self-protective
behavior where arrogance is concerned; that is, overt
arrogance toward one’s supervisor is likely to result in
negative consequences. Therefore, a leader’s peers,
not his or her supervisor, will be better equipped to
evaluate everyday relationship building.
Hypothesis 1: Characteristics associated with
arrogance will lead to lower performance ratings by
peers.
Second, some individuals fear being criticized or
blamed and, consequently, they refuse to take risks.
These people remain vigilant against making
embarrassing errors, sometimes avoiding decisionmaking altogether, or deferring to their supervisor. At
work, they may seem cautious, pessimistic, and avoid
accepting responsibility (Fico, Hogan, & Hogan,
2000). Their unwillingness to take initiative or accept
accountability may decrease their value to the work
group and/or organization. Therefore, it seems
plausible to assume that a leader’s unwillingness to
make decisions should be noticed by supervisors and
peers.
Hypothesis 2: Characteristics associated with
cautiousness will lead to lower performance ratings by
both supervisors and peers.
Next, excitable individuals are difficult to please
and typically expect to be disappointed, criticized, or
treated unfairly. Their perceptions of being unfairly
treated generally result in emotional outbursts.
Because of their emotional instability, these leaders
have trouble getting along with others—peers and
supervisors. Most of the time, coworkers will describe
these individuals as impatient, moody, negative, and
somewhat volatile (Fico et al., 2000). Emotional
outbursts will be more difficult to hide, and therefore,
will be seen by both supervisors and peers.
Hypothesis 3: Characteristics associated with
excitability will lead to lower performance ratings by
supervisors and peers.
Finally, in order to lead, one must be followed. We
have argued that leadership involves the ability to
persuade others to set aside personal agendas, at least a
short period of time, for the good of the group.
Convincing others to set aside their individual goals
requires a great deal of trust. Leaders who seem
untrustworthy are less likely to gain others’ support.
Therefore, we expect that leaders who seem cynical
and distrustful will be more likely to receive lower
performance ratings from peers, but not necessarily
supervisors because the leader is not trying to get the
supervisor to set aside his/her personal goals.
Hypothesis 4: Characteristics associated with
skepticism and distrust will lead to lower performance
ratings by peers.
2
NAJAR, HOLLAND, AND VAN LANDUYT
Method
Subjects
The sample included high-potential senior
executives (N = 295) at a Fortune 500 company who
completed an assessment battery as part of an
organizational development project. The sample was
composed primarily of white (63.30%) males
(69.90%).
Measures
Personality Measure. The Hogan Development
Survey (HDS: Hogan & Hogan, 1997) is a 168 item
paper-and-pencil assessment. The HDS assesses
eleven patterns of interpersonal behavior (dark side)
that are most apparent during times of stress and heavy
workloads. These behaviors may impede the
development of strong working relationships with
others, hinder productivity, or limit overall career
potential (see Table 1).
HDS scales measure a variety of potentially
dysfunctional behaviors. The scales of primary interest
in the present research include: (a) Bold – measures
tendency to be arrogant and unwilling to admit
3
mistakes, (b) Cautious – measures resistance to taking
even calculated risks (c) Excitable – measures tendency
to be moody and inconsistent and (d) Skeptical –
measures tendency to be cynical, distrustful, and
questioning of others. The HDS Manual contains
reliability and validity data that define the measure’s
psychometric and predictive characteristics. The HDS
scales show construct validity in terms of both test-test
relations and test-non-test relations. The average
internal reliability coefficient across HDS scales is .67,
and test-retest reliability coefficients average .75.
Criterion Measure. The organization provided
multi-rater performance data. The multi-rater tool
consisted of 54 items measuring four leadership factors
(Business, Results, People, and Self) and 11
interpersonal factors (see Table 2). Raters included (a)
Manager – the candidate’s immediate supervisor; and
(b) Others – a composite group of peers and other
individuals who have observed the candidate’s job
performance. Note that we have also presented an
aggregated rater variable, which is the average score on
each performance dimension across raters.
Table 1. Hogan Development Survey Scales and Definitions
HDS Scale
Definition
The degree to which a person seems…
Excitable
moody and inconsistent, being enthusiastic about new persons or projects and then becoming
disappointed with them.
Skeptical
cynical, distrustful, overly sensitive to criticism, and questioning others’ true intentions.
Cautious
resistant to change and reluctant to take even reasonable chances for fear of being evaluated
negatively.
Reserved
socially withdrawn and lacking interest in or awareness of the feelings of others.
Leisurely
autonomous, indifferent to other people’s requests, and becoming irritable when they persist.
Bold
unusually self-confident and, as a result, unwilling to admit mistakes or listen to advice, and unable
to learn from experience.
Mischievous
to enjoy taking risks and testing the limits.
Colorful
expressive, dramatic, and wanting to be noticed.
Imaginative
to act and think in creative and sometimes unusual ways.
Diligent
careful, precise, and critical of the performance of others.
Dutiful
eager to please, reliant on others for support, and reluctant to take independent action.
LEADERSHIP DERAILMENT
4
Table 2. Performance Dimensions and Definitions
Crit. Dimension
Definition
Resilient
Manages stress easily and in a mature manner.
Trusting
Listens to others and avoids questioning their motives.
Adaptable
Displays willingness to change or take calculated risks.
Communicative
Communicates openly with staff and monitors staff morale.
Cooperative
Completes tasks in a timely manner and avoids procrastinating.
Fair-Minded
Shows respect to coworkers and shares credit for accomplishments.
Dependable
Follows through on commitments and operates with a sense of integrity.
Modest
Acts with humility and remains focused on team, rather than personal, goals.
Judgment
Makes good decisions based on the best available information.
Empowering
Delegates projects to others and ensures priorities are established.
Independent
Begins and finishes work in the absence of direct supervision.
Business Leadership
Ability to think strategically and generate well conceived solutions.
Results Leadership
Ability to take initiative and achieve results.
People Leadership
Ability to work well with others and build a high-performing team.
Self Leadership
Ability to act with maturity, be accountable, and cope well with stress.
Results
Descriptive Statistics. As shown in Table 3, HDS
mean scores ranged from 39.52 (Leisurely) to 63.16
(Diligent) and standard deviations ranged between
25.19 (Skeptical) and 27.99 (Bold). Inter-scale
correlations were moderate, with coefficients between r
= -.15 (Colorful and Reserved) and r = .47 (Colorful
and Bold). Descriptive statistics for the aggregated
(average of Manager and Others’ ratings) criterion
rating dimensions appear in Table 4. Average scores
ranged between 3.94 (Trusting) and 4.52 (Self
Leadership), with standard deviations between .30
(Dependable and Self Leadership) and .44 (Trusting).
Alpha coefficients were within acceptable limits and
range .73 (Modest) and .90 (Self Leadership). The
inter-correlations of criterion dimensions were between
.40 (Independent and Fair-Minded) and .85 (Modest
and Fair-Minded; Results and Communicative; and
People Leadership and Business Leadership).
Table 3. Hogan Development Survey Descriptive Statistics
HDS Scale
Ske
Cau
HDS Scales
Res
Lei
M
SD
Exc
Excitable
51.97
26.51
--
Skeptical
55.50
25.19
.34
--
Cautious
46.56
25.35
.33
.19
--
Reserved
48.38
27.00
.30
.24
.36
--
Leisurely
39.52
27.23
.15
.25
.29
.09
--
Bold
60.90
27.99
.15
.42
-.01
.09
.23
Bol
Mis
Col
Ima
Dil
--
Mischievous
56.54
25.98
.15
.37
.01
.06
.22
.40
--
Colorful
54.78
25.81
-.03
.19
-.22
-.15
.12
.47
.41
--
Imaginative
56.32
25.52
.14
.27
.03
.06
.13
.37
.33
.32
--
Diligent
63.16
26.49
.09
.02
.05
-.03
.17
.13
-.02
.06
-.01
--
Dutiful
48.08
26.74
-.01
-.11
.17
-.16
.00
-.02
-.07
.07
.07
.16
Note. N = 295. Correlation coefficients at or above r = .11 are significant at p < .05.
Dut
--
NAJAR, HOLLAND, AND VAN LANDUYT
5
Table 4. Criterion Rating Dimensions Descriptive Statistics Across Raters
Criterion Dimension
Crit. Dimension
M
SD Res Tru Ada Com Coo Fai Dep Mod
Jud Emp
Ind Bus Res Peo
Sel
Resilient
Trusting
Adaptable
Communicative
Cooperative
Fair-Minded
Dependable
Modest
Judgment
Empowering
Independent
Business Lead.
Results Lead.
People Lead.
Self Lead.
.92
.71
.78
.81
.80
.82
.73
.89
.77
.71
.80
.68
.90
4.27
3.94
4.43
4.34
4.36
4.34
4.43
4.29
4.43
4.23
4.38
4.36
4.25
4.35
4.52
.40
.44
.37
.39
.36
.43
.30
.37
.37
.32
.36
.34
.35
.37
.30
.82
.64
.67
.65
.65
.58
.70
.65
.69
.61
.66
.71
.75
.71
.73
.85
.46
.60
.55
.74
.60
.70
.49
.48
.42
.52
.63
.44
.61
.89
.63
.64
.43
.67
.56
.70
.61
.76
.79
.70
.74
.67
.85
.71
.73
.73
.72
.71
.63
.63
.70
.85
.66
.69
.79
.62
.81
.73
.72
.67
.66
.76
.74
.82
.69
.88
.65
.85
.55
.51
.40
.52
.71
.45
.68
.80
.77
.78
.69
.71
.80
.78
.82
.79
.73
.65
.59
.56
.67
.75
.65
.75
.76
.67
.75
.69
.73
.60
.87
.81
.85
.76
.91
.78
.80
.89
.74
Note. N = 295. All correlation coefficients are significant p < .05. Alpha coefficients appear in diagonal (bold).
Table 5 presents managerial ratings possessing
average scores from 3.27 (Resilient) to 4.60
(Dependable) and standard deviations between .43
(Resilient) and .62 (Adaptable). Finally, Others’
ratings corresponded closely to those of the Manager
with average scores between 3.15 (Resilient) and 4.36
(Dependable) and standard deviations ranging from .35
(Resilient) to .56 (Empowering) (see Table 6). Table 6
also shows scale inter-correlations ranging from .56
(Empowering and Trusting) to .89 (People Leadership
and Business Leadership and People Leadership and
Results Leadership).
Table 5. Criterion Rating Dimensions Descriptive Statistics from the Manager’s Perspective
Criterion Dimension
Crit. Dimension
M
SD Res Tru Ada Com Coo Fai Dep Mod Jud Emp
Ind Bus Res Peo
Sel
Resilient
Trusting
Adaptable
Communicative
Cooperative
Fair-Minded
Dependable
Modest
Judgment
Empowering
Independent
Business Lead.
Results Lead.
People Lead.
Self Lead.
.78
.76
.75
.78
.74
.87
3.27
4.16
4.29
4.43
4.41
4.51
4.60
4.40
4.50
4.38
4.38
4.38
4.40
4.33
4.59
.43
.57
.62
.54
.57
.54
.48
.52
.55
.58
.55
.53
.58
.51
.48
.55
.61
.67
.61
.61
.52
.64
.55
.59
.53
.58
.60
.67
.64
.64
.66
.66
.65
.55
.64
.62
.66
.55
.51
.56
.60
.65
.58
.63
.72
.70
.71
.51
.65
.59
.69
.68
.69
.73
.71
.71
.69
.73
.70
.65
.71
.69
.67
.64
.67
.75
.76
.72
.73
.77
.60
.68
.60
.73
.76
.71
.77
.75
.77
.75
.75
.71
.76
.59
.54
.49
.58
.61
.57
.68
.68
.68
.68
.63
.65
.68
.71
.73
.80
.73
.63
.60
.59
.64
.67
.62
.68
.81
.81
.75
.76
.77
.81
.76
Note. N = 295. All correlation coefficients are significant p < .05. Alpha coefficients appear in diagonal (bold).
.81
.78
.78
.75
.78
.73
.82
.81
.82
.79
.85
.82
.81
.86
.83
LEADERSHIP DERAILMENT
6
Table 6. Criterion Rating Dimensions Descriptive Statistics from Others’ Perspective
Criterion Dimension
Crit. Dimension M
SD
Res Tru Ada Com Coo Fai Dep Mod Jud
Resilient
3.15
.35
.58
Trusting
3.87
.55
.76
.82
Adaptable
4.12
.47
.75
.75
.75
Communicative
4.17
.51
.69
.71
.80
.81
Cooperative
4.13
.53
.70
.66
.76
.79
.78
Fair-Minded
4.22
.49
.71
.72
.71
.71
.76
.79
Dependable
4.36
.49
.77
.75
.74
.80
.79
.82
Emp Ind
Bus Res Peo Sel
.83
Modest
4.12
.46
.68
.71
.67
.69
.67
.84
.77
.82
Judgment
4.28
.50
.72
.65
.77
.78
.82
.72
.80
.69
.90
Empowering
4.17
.56
.63
.59
.73
.74
.80
.66
.67
.61
.80
.87
Independent
4.10
.48
.66
.60
.73
.76
.73
.64
.67
.64
.76
.81
.75
Business Lead.
4.19
.49
.67
.62
.79
.79
.81
.67
.73
.62
.85
.82
.81
.88
Results Lead.
4.19
.51
.78
.71
.81
.84
.83
.75
.84
.75
.86
.79
.79
.85
.91
People Lead.
4.13
.49
.73
.66
.79
.81
.85
.70
.80
.68
.88
.84
.81
.89
.89
.90
Self Lead.
4.30
.47
.77
.69
.79
.77
.82
.74
.82
.73
.85
.79
.78
.83
.86
.88
Note. N = 295. All correlation coefficients are significant p < .05. Alpha coefficients appear in diagonal (bold).
Table 7 presents correlations between HDS scales
and criterion dimensions by rater. Across scales and
perspectives, the Excitable, Imaginative, Skeptical, and
Cautious scales yielded the most consistent validity
coefficients, whereas the Reserved and Dutiful scales
showed the weakest validities. Overall, correlations
ranged from r = .15 (Diligent and Fair-Minded,
Manager) to r = -.28 (Excitable and Resilient,
Aggregate; Cautious and Independent, Aggregate).
We expected tendencies associated with arrogance
to negatively predict Others’ performance ratings.
Results indicated that the Bold scale negatively
predicted performance ratings from the Others’
perspective, but not the Aggregate or Managerial
ratings. The validity coefficients between Bold and
Others’ ratings ranged from -.01 (Independent) to -.20
(Trusting). The results provided some support for
Hypothesis 1.
According to Hypothesis 2, we anticipated that
leaders who seem risk averse would receive poorer
performance ratings across Manager and Others’
perspectives. The results provided some support for
this hypothesis. The Cautious scale was correlated
with the Aggregated criteria (r = -.06 to r = -.28).
Interestingly, the Cautious scale correlated with only
five scales across the Managerial ratings (r = .01 to r =
-.15), whereas Cautious predicted 12 criterion
dimensions across the Others’ ratings (r = -.08 to r = .21).
Volatility showed the strongest relation with job
performance ratings across perspectives. The Excitable
scale predicted all 15 criterion dimensions across
Aggregated ratings (r = -.13 to r = -.28), and Others’
ratings (r = -.15 to r = -.26), and fourteen dimensions
across Managerial ratings (r = -.10 to r = -.22). These
results provide support for Hypothesis 3.
Trust is the key to effective leadership. Leaders
who lack the ability to gain others’ trust will inevitably
fail. Results provided support for Hypothesis 4, which
stated that leaders who seem cynical and distrustful
would receive lower performance ratings from Others.
Consistent with expectations, the HDS Skeptical scaled
predicted fourteen criterion dimensions across Others’
ratings (r = -.08 to r = -.21). In addition, the Skeptical
scale only predicted five dimensions across Manager’s
ratings (r = .01 to r = -.15).
Discussion
The main purpose of the study was to help
understand the relation between dysfunctional
tendencies and multi-rater performance evaluations.
The study found distinct differences between peer and
supervisor ratings. Data indicate that leaders have a
propensity to modify their interpersonal style
depending on the group with whom the leader is
interacting.
.88
NAJAR, HOLLAND, AND VAN LANDUYT
7
Table 7. Hogan Development Survey Correlates with Criterion Ratings by Rater Perspective
Criterion Dimension
HDS Scale
Res Tru Ada Com Coo
Fai Dep Mod Jud Emp Ind
Bus
Res
Peo
Sel
Excitable
Manager
Other
-.28* -.18* -.22* -.16* -.14* -.17* -.20* -.17* -.19* -.13* -.20* -.20* -.24*
-.15* -.16* -.19* -.18* -.20* -.10 -.18* -.16* -.17* -.19* -.16* -.19* -.18*
-.22* -.21* -.25* -.21* -.16* -.21* -.25* -.17* -.22* -.15* -.20* -.22* -.26*
-.21* -.23*
-.16* -.22*
-.22* -.18*
Skeptical
Manager
Other
-.15* -.12* -.09 -.12* -.10 -.09 -.14* -.11 -.10 -.00 -.10 -.13* -.18*
-.06 -.04 -.06 -.07 -.06
.01 -.11 -.01 -.15* -.06 -.13* -.14* -.15*
-.21* -.21* -.19* -.15* -.17* -.15* -.18* -.16* -.18* -.13* -.08 -.16* -.20*
-.14* -.18*
-.14* -.15*
-.17* -.19*
Cautious
Manager
Other
-.23* -.10 -.25* -.20* -.06
-.09
.01 -.14* -.11 -.05
-.16* -.19* -.14* -.24* -.09
-.08
.01
-.10
-.14* -.07
-.08 -.03
-.13* -.08
-.20* -.17*
-.12* -.08
-.17* -.15*
Reserved
Manager
Other
-.08
-.03
-.04
-.11
-.06
-.04
-.02
-.09
.01
Leisurely
Manager
Other
-.13* -.06
-.10 -.05
-.09 -.11
Bold
Manager
Other
-.08 -.10 -.02 -.03
.05 -.04
.02 -.06
-.14* -.20* -.18* -.10
.01
-.05
-.10
-.02
-.02
-.01
-.06 -.06
-.07 -.05
-.12* -.11
-.06
-.07
-.10
Mischievous
Manager
Other
-.16* -.15* -.11 -.12* -.17* -.17* -.22* -.17* -.12* -.08
-.06 -.07
.00
.02 -.09 -.06 -.06 -.08 -.10 -.07
-.10 -.16* -.17* -.09 -.14* -.13* -.18* -.12* -.13* -.10
-.07
-.07
-.04
-.13* -.14*
-.09 -.05
-.13* -.12*
-.15* -.17*
-.09 -.08
-.11 -.14*
Colorful
Manager
Other
-.06
.02
-.08
-.00
-.03
.00
-.04
.02
-.07
-.02
.02
-.07
Imaginative
Manager
Other
-.17* -.14* -.11 -.13* -.21* -.17* -.19* -.17* -.14* -.10 -.11 -.17* -.15*
-.15* -.15* -.15* -.19* -.20* -.16* -.15* -.16* -.20* -.20* -.16* -.21* -.23*
-.11 -.13 -.13* -.05 -.10 -.14* -.12* -.07 -.07 -.08 -.01 -.09 -.03
Diligent
Manager
Other
Dutiful
Manager
Other
.13*
.13*
.11
-.03
-.02
-.01
-.07
-.07
-.06
-.06
-.09
-.03
-.07
-.06
-.04
-.19* -.07 -.06 -.06
-.15* -.08 -.12* -.01
-.13* -.13* -.10 -.05
-.12* .03 -.05
-.06
.03
.07
-.13* -.14* -.05
.03
.01
.07
-.01
-.02
.01
.11* .01
.10 -.00
.09
.08
.03 -.02
.12* .02
-.07 -.03
.02
.03
-.04
-.05
-.08
-.14
-.09
-.06
-.07
-.05
-.01
-.02
-.10 -.06
-.04 -.03
-.14* -.08
.16* -.03
.14* .15*
.14* .05
.11
.09
.07
.10
.03
.00
.07
.03
.08
.07
.04
.04
.07
.05
.04
.05
.10
.04
.02
.03
.05
-.03
-.03
.03
-.02
.01
.00
-.04
-.03
.02
-.05
-.03
-.03
-.17* -.09 -.14* -.07 -.19* -.17* -.17*
-.13* -.13* -.20* -.17* -.15* -.18* -.21*
-.20* -.05 -.09 -.08 -.10 -.12* -.14*
-.06 -.07 -.02
-.01 -.03 -.03
-.14* -.19* -.10
-.08
-.03
-.10
-.19* -.21* -.28* -.23* -.20*
-.11 -.13* -.15* -.15* -.08
-.12* -.18* -.21* -.16* -.16*
.02
-.08
-.06
-.01
-.01
-.03
-.03
.02
-.10
.07
.03
.13* -.09
.09
.10
-.06
-.08
.01
.00
.02
-.04
.11
.08
.06
-.05
-.03
-.02
.14*
.13*
.12*
-.02
.02
.01
-.01
.01
-.02
-.09
-.08
.00
-.09
-.03
-.01
-.17* -.20*
-.21* -.14*
-.17* -.15*
-.11
-.05
-.14*
-.02
.04
-.08
-.14* -.13*
-.22* -.17*
-.07 -.05
.15*
.11
.11
.08 .07
.13* .12*
.09 .08
.04
.03
.05
.04
.02
.02
.06
.03
.03
Note. N = 295. * p < .05. First row reflects aggregated performance ratings – i.e., average of Manager and Other ratings.
As expected, leaders with the tendency to seem
overly self-confident or arrogant received lower
performance ratings from peers, but not supervisors.
Results indicating that peers are more observant of
these arrogant tendencies are important. A leader has a
vested interest in maintaining a collegial relationship
with his/her supervisor. When interacting with others,
however, leaders may be more likely to resist feedback
and act competitively (McCall & Lombardo, 1983).
The consequence is that others may negatively evaluate
these tendencies; the performance ratings support this
position. The long-term implication of these arrogant
tendencies remains to be seen, but it is likely that
leaders who show these tendencies will eventually
struggle to build a team of committed individuals,
which may eventually derail those leaders’ careers
(Hogan et al., 1994).
Leaders must make decisions, but some leaders tend
to be more risk averse than others. We expected riskaverse leaders to receive lower performance ratings
across Manager and Others’ perspectives. Although
results provided some support for the hypothesis,
Others’ tended to observe the risk avoidant tendencies
more so than the Manager. These findings lead to two
conclusions: (a) the most effective leaders do indeed
take some calculated chances and (b) cautious leaders
LEADERSHIP DERAILMENT
tend to mask this tendency from their Manager more
than with Others in the organization. On one hand,
leaders may recognize the potentially negative
consequences of seeming risk averse in the eyes of
their supervisor. Therefore, the leader tries to seem
open to new ideas and risks. On the other hand, leaders
seem more willing to show their cautious side in the
presence of Others. Perhaps leaders are less guarded in
the company of peers and other organizational
members who have little or no direct supervisory
responsibility over the leader.
Leaders who receive the poorest performance
ratings across perspectives tend to behave in
emotionally unpredictable ways. The close
correspondence suggests that leaders who act with
volatility tend to be less able to control the impressions
they make on people within the organization,
regardless of whether the person is a supervisor or
peer. Unlike characteristics associated with arrogance
or cautiousness, emotional outbursts tend to be more
publicly visible and may tend to carry a stronger
negative valence than other derailing behaviors. This
may help explain why these behaviors correlate with
nearly all performance criteria across perspectives.
Research has shown that trust is an integral part of a
leader’s ability to lead. If a leader is unable to
establish trust with Others, he or she will be more
likely to receive poorer performance ratings. Once
again, the leader’s ability to manage impressions seems
to be an important finding. Leaders seem skilled at
projecting trust in the presence of the Manager, but
Others are likely to detect distrustfulness or cynicism
in a leader. Therefore, leaders who seem distrustful
will most likely struggle to gain commitment from
coworkers, and an inability to gain commitment may
ultimately result in failure.
Another noteworthy finding is that leaders tend to
be passively resistant with their Manager (Leisurely),
but more direct with their peers (Mischievous).
Obviously, this finding requires more in-depth
research, but the implication is interesting. This result
suggests that leaders tend to show mild types of
contentious behavior in different forms to different
audiences. Leaders may understand the career limiting
potential of acting too combative with their Supervisor,
so the leader enacts retribution in more passive ways.
Conversely, leaders may feel more confident
confronting issues directly with Others.
Limitations
This study has three primary limitations. First,
performance ratings are only one of a myriad of criteria
that could be used in evaluating leadership
effectiveness. Objective indices of financial
performance would be helpful in determining the
overall effectiveness of a leader. Second, the lack of
previous research on derailing tendencies limited our
ability to draw complex, theoretical hypotheses. That
is, our theories do not help us understand the role of
characteristics that promote derailment.
Future Directions
Although not hypothesized, some other relations
emerged from this study (as shown previously in Table
7). First, the Leisurely scale, which concerns seeming
stubborn and passively resistant, was related to
Managerial ratings, and to a lesser degree, Others’
ratings. Second, the Mischievous scale, which looks at
an individual’s desire to test limits, correlated with
Others’ ratings but did not correlate with Managers’
ratings. Finally, the Imaginative scale, which is
associated with acting in creative or unusual ways,
showed strong relations with Managerial ratings, but
only weak relations with Others’ ratings. Future
research should examine these relationships further.
Continuing research should also focus on creating
theoretical accounts of leadership that will help us
understand the implications of trust and derailment. In
addition, it would be beneficial to establish one
definition of leadership; a team-based approach seems
to be the most promising (Hogan et al., 1994). Finally,
it would be beneficial to look at derailing
characteristics across organizations and managerial
levels.
This study helps clarify the relationship between
dark side personality characteristics and leadership
ratings. The results highlight the importance of
evaluating dark side characteristics from multiple
perspectives. More importantly, the study reinforces
the need to evaluate a leader’s ability through multiple
perspectives. Others seem better equipped to evaluate
non-emotive forms of leader behaviors, whereas
Managers and Others seem equally well equipped to
evaluate on-the-job emotional behavior. Unlike
previous research on leadership, this study
demonstrates empirically the important role that dark
side personality scales can play in understanding the
nature of leadership.
References
Bentz, V. (1985). A view from the top: A thirty year
perspective of research devoted to the discovery,
description, and prediction of executive behavior.
Paper presented at the 92nd Annual Convention of
the American Psychological Association, Los
Angeles, August.
Bracken, D. W., & Timmreck, C. (2001) (Eds.). The
Handbook of Multisource Feedback: The
Comprehensive Resource for Designing and
Implementing MFS Processes. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bray, D. & Howard, A. (1983). The AT&T
longitudinal study of managers. In K. W. Schaie
(ed.), Longitudinal Studies of Adult Psychological
Development (pp. 112-146). New York: Guilford.
8
NAJAR, HOLLAND, AND VAN LANDUYT
Fico, J. M., Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2000).
Interpersonal Compass Manual and Interpretation
Guide. Tulsa: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review
in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-614.
Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team
performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1004-1012.
Hogan, R. (1994). Trouble at the top: Causes and
consequences of managerial incompetence.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice &
Research. 46, 9-15.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What
we know about leadership: Effectiveness and
personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.
Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Developmental
Survey Manual. Tulsa: Hogan Assessment
Systems.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership:
A view from the dark side. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-51.
Leslie, J. & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at
derailment today: North America and Europe.
Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership.
Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C.
D. (1988). Explanations of success and derailment
in upper-level management positions. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 2, 199-216.
McCall, M. & Lombardo, M. (1983). Off the track:
Why and how successful executives get derailed
(Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a
theory of the universal content and structure of
values extensions and cross-cultural replications.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
878-891.
9