Table Of ContentPersonality and Executive Effectiveness 1
Running Head: PERSONALITY AND EXECUTIVE EFFECTIVENESS
Personality Correlates of Perceived Senior Executive Effectiveness:
An Application of the Five-Factor Model
Robert B. Kaiser
Kaplan DeVries Inc.
Author Note: Poster session presented at the 13th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX. I am grateful to Bob Kaplan for constructive
feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. Thanks go to James M. LeBreton and S. Bart
Craig for conversations that facilitated the design and methodology of the study. David DeVries
is also recognized for thoughtful discussion about the meaning of the results. Correspondence
about this article may be sent to the author at Kaplan DeVries Inc., 1903 Ashwood Court,
Greensboro, NC, 27455. Electronic mail may be sent to
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 2
Abstract
Previous work has suggested how the personality correlates of effective leadership can be
understood within the Five-Factor Model of trait structure. Yet this has not been demonstrated
with executive samples. In this exploratory study, senior executives’ Adjective Check List scores
were correlated with reliable self, superior, peer, and subordinate ratings of overall effectiveness.
Analyses were interpreted within the five-factor/Big Five framework. The traits measured by the
ACL scales were significantly related to coworkers’ perceptions of effectiveness, with multiple
2
R s ranging from .19 to .44 across rating sources. Moreover, the relationship between the Big
Five and executive effectiveness appeared to be more complex—and somewhat contradictory—
when compared to previous suggestions gleaned from research with lower level managers.
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 3
Personality Correlates of Perceived Senior Executive Effectiveness:
An Application of the Five-Factor Model
Behavioral scientists have long been interested in the link between individual differences
and leadership. Yet, at least historically, consensus on the utility of personality in understanding
corporate leadership performance has been ambivalent at best (Bass, 1990; Yukl & Van Fleet,
1991). Since Stogdill’s literature review in 1974, however, there has been mounting recognition
of an important relationship between personality and business leadership effectiveness(e.g.,
Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; House & Aditya, 1997). There are many reasons for this surge
in interest, to be sure. Perhaps the most influential reason is traceable to recent conceptual and
empirical work which has raised the state-of-the-art in personality theory and research.
Maddi (1980) and Hogan (1987; 1991) have called attention to the important distinction
between two different meanings ascribed to the term “personality” (see also McAdams, 1992).
Although these two conceptualizations of personality are undoubtedly related, albeit in ways that
are not presently well understood, it is useful to recognize the distinction as the two views are
clearly not equivalent. One approach is personality considered from the observer’s point of view.
In this context, personality refers to the ways in which a person’s typical and largely
decontextualized manifest behaviors are described (either by her self or by others) in order to
convey a general sense of what she is usually like. In other words, personality from the
observer’s perspective is tantamount to one’s social reputation and might be thought of as a
collection of relatively static and enduring surface (Hogan, 1987) or periphery traits (Maddi,
1980). Surface traits are phenotypic in nature because they are based on observations of social
behavior. Hogan has argued convincingly, as have others (e.g., McAdams, 1992), that these
reputational characteristics are what is measured by most standard personality inventories.
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 4
In contrast to personality from the observer’s perspective is personality from the actor’s
perspective (Hogan, 1987; 1991). Here, personality is construed as the core of individuality
(Maddi, 1980)—the dynamic intrapsychic structures, networks, and processes which interact
with situational contingencies to motivate behavior (see also, e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1996;
Pervin, 1994). Because this view of personality invokes the notion of causality, it might be
thought of as the collection of source factors which gives rise to one’s reputed personality.
Source factors are not directly observable and thus can only be inferred. Fundamental to this
theoretical view of personality is the recognition that behavior is a complex dynamic function of
personal and contextual variables that are in an ongoing and reciprocal state of flux. Such
individual difference variables include, but are not limited to: the relative situational salience of
multiple and sometimes conflicting needs and motives (Allport, 1958; Epstein, 1994a;
McClelland, 1985; Murray, 1938); levels of ego functioning and development (Loevinger, 1976;
Vaillant, 1993) and ego-control and ego-resiliency (Block & Block, 1980); identity, life themes,
and idiographic experiential history (McAdams, 1985); and, perhaps ultimately, the
phenomenological experience or subjective psychological meaningfulness of situations and
events (Kegan, 1983; 1994; Mischel & Shoda, 1996).
It would seem apparent that personality from the actor’s perspective provides a richer and
more differentiated understanding of a person’s nature than does personality from the observer’s
point of view. However, the study of personality at either level of analysis can yield important
and useful information (Hogan, 1991; McAdams, 1992; Mischel & Shoda, 1996). Few would
deny that it is important to appreciate behavior in the context of how a person interprets the
experience of reality. At the same time, few would argue that one’s reputation—a social
construction based in part on the manifest expression of the internal dynamics of the actor—is
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 5
not important. In the context of leadership in corporate institutions, one’s relatively enduring or
characteristic ways of behaving and his or her resultant reputation can have a dramatic impact on
innumerable social processes and managerial outcomes. The present research explores the link
between reputational personality traits and perceptions of senior executive effectiveness.
The Five-Factor Model of Trait Structure
The development and refinement of the Five-Factor Model (a.k.a. the Big Five) has
provided a powerful and widely adopted framework for organizing and understanding
phenotypic reputational personality traits. This hierarchical model of personality trait structure
can be thought of as a sort of Rosetta Stone for interpreting within a common conceptual system
the wide array of specific traits identified by personality theorists and test constructors (John,
1990; McCrae, 1989; McCrae & John, 1992). It is not a theory of personality per se; rather the
Five-Factor Model (FFM) is an empirical way of summarizing—at a relatively abstract and
broad level—the pattern of covariation among objective measures of personality constructs.
As demonstrated in factor analyses of personality trait scales conducted by Fiske (1949) and
Tupes and Christal (1961) and later popularized by McCrae and Costa (1987), Digman and
Innouye (1986), and Goldberg (1993), the FFM holds that five general factors can
comprehensively account for the intercorrelations among the domain of specific reputational
personality traits, regardless of how they are measured. These five broad-band, relatively
abstract, and fundamental taxonomic dimensions are often identified as: Extraversion (including
such traits as activity, assertiveness, gregariousness, positive emotionality), Agreeableness
(friendliness, trust, sympathy, cooperation), Conscientiousness (responsibility, organization,
persistence, achievement), Neuroticism or (low) Emotional Stability (insecurity, anxiousness,
vulnerability, negative emotionality), and Openness to Experience or Intellectance (imagination,
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 6
curiosity, unconventionality, broad-mindedness). The ubiquitous finding of these five factors in
repeated factor analyses of trait personality data suggests that most, if not all, reputational trait
scales can be understood as a specific “taste” representing a particular blend of “ingredients”
from one or more of the Big Five classes of trait dimension “flavors.”
The FFM and leadership effectiveness. A compelling argument for the usefulness of the
FFM in understanding leader effectiveness was offered by Hogan et al. (1994). Casting
cumulative studies of objective personality measures and various effectiveness criteria in terms
of the FFM, they concluded that potent leaders, more so than less effective leaders, tend to be
regarded as assertive, talkative, and active (Extraversion); better adjusted, more stable and
resilient (Emotional Stability); responsible, organized, and achievement-oriented
(Conscientiousness); and likable, supportive, and trustworthy (Agreeableness).
Although a generally insightful discussion, close reading of Hogan et al.’s review and
integration indicates that, while we do indeed know a good deal about reputational personality
traits and leadership effectiveness in general, we are far less informed about these phenomena in
the specific context of the corporate executive suite. Perhaps understandably given the elite
nature of this population, published quantitative data linking objective measures of personality
and explicit measures of effectiveness at senior executive levels is virtually non-existent. (Not
one study in the Hogan et al., [1994] review was of senior executive personality and
effectiveness.) It remains an open question whether or not findings linking reputational
personality to leadership outcomes in middle-management samples generalize to the senior
executive population.
Senior leadership and personality. Middle-management and senior corporate management
functions place unique sets of demands upon incumbent leaders (e.g., Jaques & Clement, 1991;
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 7
McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988). It seems prudent, then, to question the tenability of
assuming that the personality correlates of effectiveness in lower levels are the same as those at
the highest levels. For example, it is well documented that some personal qualities associated
with success in lower levels and rapid career progression can also undermine performance in
senior positions (Hogan, 1994; Kaplan, 1996; Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996; Lombardo &
McCauley, 1988; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCaulley, 1988; McCall et al., 1988).
Quite frequently managers are promoted based on a solid track record of bottom-line results,
but when they reach senior levels, relationship problems often become apparent and can
overshadow tangible accomplishments. Hogan (1994; Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990) has
suggested narcissism is usually the culprit here. Because of a strong motive to justify beliefs of
personal superiority and a concomitant lack of regard for others, he argues, these darkly
charismatic managers achieve appealing tangible results at exorbitant human costs. Although
these managers are perennially rewarded for results with promotions and increased
responsibility, the human costs eventually become too great for the organization to bear, and
another derailment case is added to the tally.
Kaplan has developed the notion of “expansiveness” as a drive of highly ambitious
executives that, in extreme measures, can stall a career. Based on years of action-research,
Kaplan (1991a) concluded many high-achieving managers are compelled to and, at least early
on, reinforced to continually expand their realm of mastery and develop a sense of worth based
on personal accomplishments. But when expansiveness runs unmitigated, an otherwise brilliant
executive can become too absorbed in strivings for personal success and alienate coworkers
while losing sight of organizational needs.
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 8
In a recent review of the study of leadership, House and Aditya (1997) suggested that high
achievement motivation—a non-conscious urge for personal accomplishment and excellence
(McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1958)—contributes to high performance in lower
levels and poor performance in high-level executive positions. Like Kaplan’s expansive
executives, the highly achievement motivated senior leaders described by House and Aditya
(1997) are thought to be so personally involved in performance that they are hesitant to delegate
authority and responsibility, a critical component to effectively negotiating the myriad and
highly complex demands of a senior role in a large organization (Jaques & Clement, 1991;
Nelson, 1988). As a result, a consistent record of excellent performance in middle management
ranks can slowly wane at the senior level of large corporations when what is in the best interest
of meeting organizational needs is subordinated in the service of satisfying personal achievement
needs.
It is important to note that the reputational (i.e., surface) personality correlates of leadership
effectiveness identified in the Hogan et al. (1994) review—high Conscientiousness, Emotional
Stability, Extraversion, and Agreeableness—appear partially at odds with current theory on the
deeper-seated (i.e., source) cognitive/affective antecedents of poor executive performance. For
example, the motivating dynamics of Kaplan’s (1991a) expansive drive conceptually manifest
into reputational characteristics in the form of high Conscientiousness, perhaps also with
elements of high Extraversion, as does House and Aditya’s (1997) interpretation of achievement
motivation. Thus, extremely high Conscientiousness may reflect, to some degree, extreme
expansiveness and inordinate achievement motivation, both of which are thought to contribute to
poor performance in senior corporate management positions.
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 9
The present study was an attempt to relate self-reports of senior executive reputational
personality traits to perceptions of effectiveness and thus sketch a rough bridge between the large
literature base on middle managers and the lacking literature on top level managers. The effort
was exploratory—hypothesis generating rather than hypothesis testing—as no specific a priori
hypotheses were explicitly examined. However, it was anticipated that taxonomic application of
the FFM would provide a useful way of framing the link between reputational personality and
executive effectiveness.
Method
Participants
The present data was gathered for the purpose of assessment to be used in developmental
feedback. The sample is comprised of a total of 48 senior executives who participated in a long-
term individualized leadership development process (see Kaplan, 1998 for further description of
the process). Most were 45 to 60 year-old white men (2 were women) holding such titles as Vice
President, COO, and CEO in private sector firms based in the U.S. Effectiveness ratings were
collected from a variety of co-workers who were demographically similar to the target
executives. A total of 100 superiors, 208 peers, and 319 subordinates provided ratings for 40, 41,
and 45 target executives, respectively. Forty-two executives provided self-ratings.
Measures
Personality. Participants completed a battery of self-report personality inventories as part of
the developmental process. For the purposes of this study, the Adjective Check List (ACL,
Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) was used to operationalize personality. The ACL contains 300
adjectives and respondents are asked to check those terms that will allow a “comprehensive,
analytic, and differentiated portrait” of himself or herself (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983, p. 1). The
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 10
results are scored to produce 37 scales representing reputational traits derived from diverse
origins such as Murray’s (1938) classic need-press theory of personality, Berne’s (1961)
psychodynamic theory of transactional analysis, and Welsh’s (1975) structural theory which
portrayed creativity and intelligence as two fundamental dimensions of personality. The scales, a
brief description of each, and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1, which is further
described below in the procedures section.
Effectiveness. Effectiveness ratings were collected for each target from the target and a
median total of 14 (range of 10 to 31) coworkers—on average, a median of 2 superiors (range of
1 to 8), 5 peers (range of 2 to 16), and 7 subordinates (range of 2 to 13). Each coworker was
requested, during a semi-structured interview about the target’s leadership performance, to
“Please give a rating of X’s overall effectiveness as an executive on a ten-point scale. Briefly
explain.” Murphy and Cleveland (1995) have noted that superiors, peers, and subordinates each
have a unique and qualitatively different relationship with a given manager and thus are likely to
hold different perceptions of that manager. Accordingly, ratings from these sources were treated
separately.
Although single-item measures such as the present effectiveness measure are not inherently
deficient (Judge & Ferris, 1993), they are potentially susceptible to unreliablity. Thus, the
psychometric qualities of the effectiveness ratings were critically examined. Specifically, the
measurement properties of the ratings were evaluated in terms of interrater agreement and
interrater reliability within rating sources (c.f. Fleenor, Fleenor, & Grossnickle, 1996) and
convergent validity between rating sources.
James’ rwg statistic was used to determine the level of agreement within rating sources. This
index is appropriate when a group of raters rate a single target on a single construct and the
