Page 1
Personality 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 [email protected] .
Page 2
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
R2s 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.
Page 3
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.
Page 4
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
Page 5
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,
Page 6
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;
Page 7
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.
Page 8
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.
Page 9
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
Page 10
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
Page 11
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 11
researcher wants to know the extent to which the overall level of ratings is similar across the
individual raters (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; 1993). Separate rwg values were computed for
each individual target executive for each rating source (in the case of superior ratings, rwg was
computed only for those cases where more than one rating was available). Similar to the
interpretation of indices of reliability, rwg values closer to 1 indicate better measurement
properties (James et al., 1984). For superior ratings (n = 22 targets), the mean rwg was .88 (SD =
.09); for peers (n = 41 targets) it was .74 (SD = .20), and for subordinates (n = 45 targets) it was
.83 (SD =.18). According to James et al.’s (1984; 1993) criteria, these values indicate a
reasonably high degree of agreement in terms of level within rating groups.
The effectiveness ratings were assessed for interrater reliability with intraclass correlations
(ICC; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Whereas rwg is an index of level of agreement, ICCs provide an
assessment of agreement in terms of rank-ordering (Fleenor et al., 1996). ICCs were computed
separately for the three rating sources. The reliability of the mean of two superiors’ ratings and
the reliabilities of the means of three randomly selected raters within the peer and subordinate
groups were calculated (ICC [1,2] for superiors and ICC[1,3] for peer and subordinates; Shrout
& Fleiss, 1979). For superiors, the ICC was .56, for peers it was .52, and it was .59 for
subordinates. These values are in league with the average for performance ratings of middle
managers, according to a recent meta-analysis (Conway & Huffcut, 1996).
Convergent validity evidence was sought by correlating mean within-source ratings across
rating sources (see Table 2). These coefficients—ranging from .51 to .58—were higher than
most corrected meta-analytic estimates of cross-source convergence based on performance and
skill rating data from middle management samples (c.f. Conway & Huffcut, 1996; Harris &
Page 12
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 12
Schaubroeck, 1988), indicating a relatively high level of convergent validity for the effectiveness
measures.
At a conceptual level, these ratings should be relatively free of certain forms of construct-
irrelevant variance (e.g., leniency) because they were gathered for developmental rather than
administrative purposes (Zedeck & Cascio, 1982) and fastidious policies of confidentiality were
guaranteed. With the empirical and rational evidence taken together, the present effectiveness
ratings appear to be reasonably reliable and valid measures of a generalized reputational
effectiveness construct corresponding to an organizational-level outcome criterion in Campbell,
Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick’s (1970) taxonomy. Table 2 contains descriptive statistics and
summarizes the empirical construct validity evidence for these measures.
Procedure
One clear strength of the ACL is the shear wealth of information it produces. But at the
same time it is somewhat difficult to integrate results across the diversity of scales. To facilitate
interpretation of this wide array of trait data, the ACL scales were mapped into a taxonomy
rooted in the FFM. This approach was stimulated by a study by Piedmont, Costa, and McCrae
(1991). Piedmont et al. jointly factored the ACL scales with John’s (1989) adjectival markers of
the Big Five and also correlated the ACL scales with rotated factor scores computed from the
NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985) Five Factor domain scales. We subsequently replicated their
factor structure of the ACL scales (finding the familiar five factors) in an unpublished study
based on a sample of 240 executives, but because many of the ACL items appear on several
scales, factor analyses of the correlations among the ACL scales are somewhat ambiguous
(Piedmont et al., 1991). Thus, substantive interpretation and taxonomic classification of the ACL
Page 13
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 13
scales should be guided primarily by external correlates—in this case the Big Five NEO-PI
factor scores as reported by Piedmont et al. (1991).
The profile of correlations across the NEO-PI factor scores indicated that most of the ACL
scales are multidimensional, correlating substantially with more than one Big Five factor (see
Table 1). Because of this multidimensionality, it seemed that placing each scale in one and only
one of five taxa representing each of the Big Five (c.f., Barrick & Mount, 1991) would likely be
misleading and thus confound interpretation. Therefore, the ACL scales by NEO-PI factor scores
correlation matrix reported by Piedmont et al. (1991) was used in an iterative series of cluster
analyses (following Milligan, 1980) to organize the ACL scales in a FFM-based taxonomy. The
ACL scales Number Checked, Communality, and Counseling Readiness were not used in these
or any further analyses due to a lack of substantive meaning for the first two scales and different
item content for men and women on the Counseling Readiness scale (Piedmont et al., 1991).
Scrutiny of the profile of correlations between the ACL scales and the Big Five indicators
revealed that not all of the ACL scales are complexly multidimensional. Specifically, the
Femininity, Heterosexuality, and Welsh’s A-1 scales appear to reflect only aspects of
Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness, respectively. Thus, these scales were
removed from the ACL by Big Five correlation matrix and the remaining matrix including only
the 31 multidimensional ACL scales were then subjected to a hierarchical cluster analysis
employing Ward’s method and the squared Euclidean distance metric (Borgen & Barnett, 1987).
Inspection of the results suggested an eight cluster solution. To evaluate the adequacy of an eight
cluster taxonomy, a k-means clustering analysis with Ward’s procedure and the squared
Euclidean distance metric was conducted setting k = 8 (see Milligan, 1980 for a discussion of the
utility of this iterative sequence of hierarchical and k-means clustering in deriving empirical
Page 14
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 14
taxonomies). The results were nearly identical to the hierarchical analysis and easily interpreted.
Table 1 presents a classification scheme of the ACL scales which contains 11 categories (the 8
clusters plus the 3 unidimensional scales) of traits that are based on similar patterns of relation to
the Big Five. For example, Endurance, Order, Adult, Welsh’s A-4, and Military Leadership
together form one category because each scale measures a trait that is saturated mostly with
elements of Conscientiousness and Stability. See Table 1 for a FFM-based organizational
framework for interpretation of the ACL scales and descriptive statistics for this sample. It is
important to note that the scale scores have been normed against a sample of the general adult
population (see Gough & Heilbrun, 1983)—with a M of 50 and SD of 10.
Results
Because of the relatively small sample size, the rarity and richness of the data, and a
heightened concern about Type II errors (i.e., erroneously identifying a point estimate as “not
significantly different from zero” and potentially deterring fruitful avenues in future research),
confidence intervals were relaxed from the conventional level of 95% to 90% in all analyses
(c.f. Cascio & Zedeck, 1983). The zero-order correlations between the ACL scales and self,
superior, peer, and subordinate effectiveness ratings are presented in Table 3. These correlations
are not corrected for measurement error on either predictor or criterion sides, and may therefore
be considered conservative point estimates of the true relationships among these constructs.
ACL-Effectiveness Correlations
There are several noteworthy general characteristics of the ACL-effectiveness correlation
matrix. First, self-reports on the ACL appear to be more and differentially related to coworker
ratings than to self-ratings. Also, despite differences in perspective, there is a good deal of
similarity in the personality correlates across superior, peer, and subordinate ratings. Further,
Page 15
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 15
several of the scales are reasonably correlated with the various effectiveness ratings (53 of 136,
39%, are significant at p < .10). There is, moreover, coherence in the pattern of correlations—
coefficients within each FFM-based taxon are systematically more similar than disparate. To
further distill the order in this data, a series of regression models with stepwise entry criteria
were constructed allowing all of the ACL scales to compete as predictors of effectiveness ratings
from each source. A summary of those four models is presented in Table 4. Because of the
modest sample sizes, the regression analyses should be interpreted with judicious caution as the
maximization process in deriving regression weights is highly sensitive to sampling error (Cohen
& Cohen, 1983). The models were computed and presented here as heuristic devices rather than
as an attempt to construct a generalizable set of equations. All analyses are interpreted in turn
according to the source of effectiveness ratings.
Self-ratings. There were only two ACL scales significantly related to self-ratings of
effectiveness, Intraception and Femininity. According to the ACL authors, these scales measure
the characteristics of attempting to understand people and a helpful, sympathetic orientation to
others, respectively (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Common to both of these traits is the broad
Agreeableness (A)1 factor. Regressing self-ratings onto the significant ACL correlates in a
stepwise model yielded a multiple R2 of .07 (p < .10) with one significant predictor, Intraception
(β = .27). Thus, self-perceptions of executive effectiveness appear mostly related to manifest
agreeableness, especially the other-oriented understanding and sympathetic aspects.
Superior ratings. Several traits correlated with superiors’ effectiveness ratings. The positive
correlations with Autonomy, Aggression, and Critical Parent were the strongest and most
consistent. In FFM terms, these traits primarily reflect low A and low S, indicating that superiors
regard as more effective executives who described their selves as competitive and aggressive,
Page 16
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 16
independent, and critical, if not harsh, in making judgments—especially judgments of others.
The pure A trait, Femininity, was negatively related to superiors’ ratings. As well, the Personal
Adjustment, Nurturance, and Affiliation scales were all negatively related. This pattern indicates
that a behavioral tendency to invest deeply in relationships—to be caring, forgiving, helpful,
and concerned about others—is negatively associated with executive effectiveness in the eyes of
superiors. By contrast, more effective executives are seen as having an aggressive, critical, and
autonomous, perhaps even detached, interpersonal orientation.
The Abasement and Deference scales, both of which reflect a combination of low E and
high A, were moderately inversely related to superior ratings. The low Extraversion/high
Agreeableness syndrome represents a modest interpersonal disposition (Trapnell & Wiggins,
1990) and the correlations suggest that executives who are socially reserved, self-effacing, and
unassuming are regarded as less effective by superiors than are their more assertive and
expressive counterparts.
The positive correlations with the Unfavorable (number of unfavorable or negative
adjectives checked) and Welsh’s A-2 (inhibited and dependent) scales are surprising, as they
measure what appears to be a dissatisfied, self-defeating, and disengaged disposition (low S/low
C/low E). Nonetheless, superiors gave those higher on these scales higher effectiveness
evaluations. Also, the Favorable scale (number of favorable or positive adjectives checked) was
negatively related to superior ratings. The pattern indicates that executives who have higher
opinions of themselves are regarded as less effective by superiors than are their less self-satisfied
counterparts.
Stepwise regression analyses indicated the most parsimonious prediction of superiors’
perceptions of effectiveness was based on one scale, Critical Parent (β = .43, R2 = .19, p < .01).
Page 17
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 17
The overall trend suggests that the kinds of executives superiors deem effective are those who
are described as having a critical faculty or having a tendency to criticize and find faults, acting
with independence and aggression, and who do not seem highly satisfied or content (all low A
and low S). It is clear that this pattern links superior assessments of effectiveness to a tendency
to distance oneself from others interpersonally and a tough, critical demeanor, as the majority of
traits related to higher ratings included a common element of low agreeableness.
Peer ratings. The correlations with peer ratings were fascinating, if not somewhat puzzling
at first. The positive correlations with the traits related to low A/low S (Autonomy, Aggression,
& Critical Parent) and the negative relations with the traits reflecting low E/high A/low O
(Deference, Abasement, & Self-control) tend to mirror the results for superior ratings. The same
is generally true for the other-oriented high A/low S traits of Personal Adjustment, Nurturant
Parent, Nurturance, and Affiliation. Again, this pattern indicates that generous, interpersonally-
oriented, and self-satisfied executives—those who may be less comfortable making critical
business decisions that adversely affect coworkers—are considered less effective by their peers.
Four of the five high C/high S traits (a constellation characterized by diligence, persistence,
and dependability)—Endurance, Order, Adult, and Military Leadership—were negatively
related, and respectably so, with peer ratings of effectiveness. Further, the seemingly
maladaptive traits measured by the Adapted Child and Unfavorable scales (low S/low C/low E)
were positively related to effectiveness from the peer perspective. These correlations seemed
diametrically opposed to common sense.
The apparent paradox is actually the result of a distribution artifact, range restriction,
probably reflective of a corporate form of natural selection. Closer inspection of the distributions
of the conscientiousness/stability-saturated scales correlated with peer-rated effectiveness (e.g.,
Page 18
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 18
Endurance, Adult, Adapted Child) is telling. Compared to the general adult population,
executives are highly disciplined, persistent, resilient, and well adjusted. Hardly any of the
executives in this sample are below the normative mean; the few that are (on most scales, 4) tend
to be only slightly below the population average. So characteristics associated with the “less
favorable” end of these distributions should be framed relative to the national average. For
example, the low anchor for the Endurance and Adult scale distributions in this sample might be
described as “generally persistent, dependable, and consistent.” The high end of the Adapted
Child distribution might be interpreted as “about as dissatisfied and anxious as most people.”
Given the distributions of scale scores, negative correlations between effectiveness and
high C/high S scales suggest executives who are “average” compared to non-executives are
perceived by peers as more effective than executives who are extremely high on these traits.
Investigation of the scatter plots of these relationships (e.g., see Figure 1) corroborated this
interpretation. An intriguing trend here is that the characteristics colloquially thought of as active
ingredients in the success formula (perseverance, tenacity, ambition, and organization) are, at
extreme levels, related to peer perceptions of lower performance—similar to the theoretical
arguments advanced by Kaplan (1991a) and House and Aditya (1997) and discussed above.
The Unfavorable (β = .34), Endurance (β = -.48 ), Welsh’s A-1 (β = -.27), and Succorance
(β = -.24) scales proved to be the only significant predictors in the stepwise regression analysis
predicting peer ratings (R2 = .44, p < .001). Taken together, these results suggest peers see as
least effective those executives who appear extremely ambitious and detail-oriented (high C),
self-satisfied (high S), and concerned about the welfare of others (high A). By contrast,
executives who seem only moderately driven and dutiful (moderate C), less concerned about
Page 19
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 19
others (low A), and relatively more critical of themselves (moderate S) are regarded as more
effective by their peers.
Subordinate ratings. In many ways the subordinate correlations mirror those of superiors
and also parallel much of the pattern of peer correlations. Like the peer relationships, the low
S/low C traits (Adapted Child, Welsh’s A-2, & Unfavorable) are conspicuously related to higher
ratings. And again, these correlations are based on a range-restricted distribution, so similar
interpretations as those offered for peer rating relationships apply. That is, a moderate level of
traits related to anxiousness, fretfulness, and a negative self-concept is associated with higher
effectiveness while a low level of these traits is associated with lower effectiveness from the
subordinate view.
Similar to the superior and peer results, the traits primarily related to low A and somewhat
with low S (Autonomy, Aggression, & Critical Parent) were all consistently positively related to
subordinate ratings. It is noteworthy that these correlations were stronger in magnitude for
subordinate perceptions of effectiveness. Again, the traits indicative of a humble or modest
interpersonal style (Abasement, Deference, & Self Control) were negatively related to
effectiveness (low E/high A). All five of the distinctly other-oriented, agreeableness-saturated
traits (Personal Adjustment, Nurturant Parent, Nurturance, Affiliation, & Welsh’s A-3) were
consistently, and fairly strongly, negatively correlated with subordinate assessments of overall
effectiveness as were, although less strongly, the traits related to self-satisfaction and
understanding (Favorable & Intraception).
Unlike the correlations for peers and superiors, only subordinate ratings were related to
Dominance and Masculinity (high E/low A/high S). Similarly, Exhibition (high E/low A/high O)
was also positively related while Succorance (low S/low C/low E) was negatively related to
Page 20
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 20
subordinate perceptions of effectiveness. These correlations suggest that extraversion plays a
more pronounced role in subordinate perceptions of executive effectiveness than in either
superior or peer perceptions.
The Critical Parent (β = .48), Welsh’s A-1 (β = .27), and Welsh’s A-3 (β = -.26) scales
proved to be significant predictors in the stepwise regression analysis predicting subordinate
ratings (R2 = .39, p < .001). From a subordinate point of view, it seems that highly effective
executives are those who appear critical and tough (low A), relatively less satisfied and less at
ease (moderate S), and socially assertive and visible (high E). Caring and sympathetic executives
(high A) and those who described themselves as restrained and timid (low E) were perceived by
subordinates as less effective.
Discussion
The goal of this exploratory study was to determine how reputational personality as viewed
in terms of the FFM is related to perceptions of senior corporate executive effectiveness. The
present results offer a nod of confirmation to the idea that personality traits do play a role in
leadership outcomes at the top of organizations. Indeed, the regression results suggest that a
respectable amount of variance (c.f., Cohen, 1977) in coworker perceptions of effectiveness was
accounted for by the ACL scales. However, the results were somewhat inconsistent when
contrasted to personality correlates thought to be associated with leadership effectiveness based
on prior research with non-executive samples. The Hogan et al. (1994) review concluded that
effective leaders tend to be high on four of the Big Five dimensions, namely Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Stability. The current study suggests that perceptions of
senior executive effectiveness are associated with a high standing on certain elements of
Page 21
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 21
Extraversion and a lower standing on other elements, low Agreeableness, moderate
Conscientiousness, and moderate Stability for certain aspects and higher Stability for others.
The broad-band Extraversion factor is composed of smaller components or facets. For
example, Costa and McCrae (1985; 1992) have identified the more specific facets of
assertiveness, gregariousness, activity, warmth, excitement seeking, and positive emotionality;
Hogan’s (Hogan & Hogan, 1995) Big Five model splits Extraversion into an energetic and
assertive component and a sociability component. The pattern of ACL correlations reported
above suggest that it is the assertiveness facet, and perhaps also to some extent the activity facet,
that is positively related to perceptions of effectiveness. The ACL scales with a sizable
Extraversion component that were most related to effectiveness ratings all seem to capture the
assertiveness aspect: Exhibition, Aggression, Dominance, (-) Deference, (-) Abasement, and (-)
Self-Control. The ACL scales that seemed to reflect the gregarious and warm interpersonal side
of Extraversion (e.g., Affiliation, Nurturance) and those that appeared to represent the positive
emotionality aspect (e.g., Favorable, [-] Unfavorable, Ideal Self) were all negatively related to
perceived effectiveness. Thus, the broad Extraversion factor may be at too abstract of a level to
be useful in understanding executive effectiveness. It appears that the assertive aspects are
positively related and the sociable facets are negatively related to effectiveness perceptions.
All of the ACL scales that contained a substantial Agreeableness component uniformly
indicated that low Agreeableness was associated with perceptions of higher effectiveness. To the
extent that the ACL taps into a representative sample of the Agreeableness domain, it appears
that this general factor is negatively associated with senior executive effectiveness. Interestingly,
work inspired by McClelland’s (1975) leadership motive pattern—a configuration of higher
power motivation and lower affiliation motivation (based on a model of personality from the
Page 22
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 22
actor’s perspective and operationalized with projective methods)—also suggests that high
Agreeableness (and the sociability aspects of Extraversion) is related to lower corporate
executive and U.S. presidential success (e.g., McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; Spangler & House,
1991). McClelland and Boyatzis (1982; p. 737) claimed that a lower need for affiliation is
“important because it enables the manger to make difficult decisions without worrying unduly
about being liked.” Certain implications for the strong inverse relationship between
Agreeableness and executive effectiveness are considered at length below.
Despite the consistent negative correlations between the ACL scales saturated with high
Conscientiousness and peer ratings of effectiveness, a very misguided conclusion would be that
low Conscientiousness is related to higher effectiveness. It is important to bear in mind the level
and distribution of scores on these ACL scales when interpreting the correlation coefficients.
When one visually inspects the scatter plots with an eye on the normed T-scores for these traits,
it appears that there is a latent curvilinear relationship between Conscientiousness and
effectiveness (e.g., see figure 1). The few individual executives in this sample who scored below
the adult normative mean of 50 on the scales heavily weighted with Conscientiousness received
lower peer ratings than those who were in the 50-60 range who were in turn rated higher than the
many executives who scored more than 1 SD higher than the normative mean.
If persons very low on Conscientiousness aspired to and were selected into senior leadership
roles (a truly rare scenario), then the curvilinear relationship between effectiveness and
Conscientiousness would probably be more apparent. This is supported by post-hoc analyses
conducted with the present data on a tentative and exploratory basis due to the resulting small
sample sizes. T-scores on the ACL Endurance, Order, Adult, Welsh’s A-4, and Military
Leadership were spilt at 50 (the normative mean) and correlations with peer ratings were
Page 23
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 23
contrasted for the opposing groups. Consistently, there was a positive correlation for the groups
scoring below the mean and a negative correlation for those above the mean. Thus, it appears
that a moderate degree of Conscientiousness is necessary for effective executive leadership, but
more is not necessarily better.
The role of Stability in effectiveness perceptions appears to be relatively complex, like that
for Extraversion. Many of the Stability-related ACL trait correlations indicated that higher
Stability was related to lower effectiveness. Yet a few of the ACL correlations also suggested
that, for some aspects of Stability, there is a positive relationship. The ACL scales mostly
composed of the Stability facets related to hostility, irritability, and negativity (e.g., Aggression,
Critical Parent) were related to higher effectiveness. Similarly, the ACL scales that seemed to tap
the non-depressive and non-self-conscious aspects of Stability (e.g., Ideal Self, Personal
Adjustment, Favorable, Unfavorable) were related to lower coworker ratings. The scales that
appear to capture the impulse control facet of Stability (e.g., Endurance, Order, Adult) were,
however, negatively related to effectiveness. The scales that get at the depressive, self-conscious,
and impulsive facets of Stability each evidenced range-restriction. So it is best stated that a
moderate level of these traits is related to higher effectiveness. In contrast, the irritable and
negativity facets of Stability seem to be positively related to executive effectiveness.
Implications
Before drawing further implications from this study, it is instructive to consider seriously
what the effectiveness ratings measure. Psychometrically, they are rather reliable measures, but
of what? Based on a content analysis of the open-ended explanations for each rating and research
on implicit leadership theory (e.g., Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984), it is suggested that these
measures reflect an evaluation in terms of generalized and pervasive cognitive prototypes of
Page 24
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 24
what it takes to meet corporate responsibilities at the senior level. These prototypes—created and
used by executives themselves—appear to be multidimensional, but primarily weighted by
tangible outcomes. Consider the following example of one coworker’s response: “In terms of
results he is a 9.5. He consistently delivers. But he falls short in his treatment of people—there
he is a 4. Overall, I give him an 8.” This theme of factoring in bottom-line results more than
coworker consideration was, albeit sometimes subtle, typical of most responses across the three
rating perspectives.
Given this substantive interpretation of the effectiveness ratings and the theoretical
discussion about personality conceptions in the introduction, the position taken here is that this
study is informative about the relationship between the ways executives view their personal
reputation and how well they are thought to stack up to implicit standards for executive
effectiveness. Below, implications are drawn from this study for the understanding of senior
corporate leadership effectiveness and the practice of leadership development.
Understanding Senior Corporate Leadership. The positive relationships between the traits
related to the assertive aspect of Extraversion and perceived executive effectiveness ratings are
consistent with the idea that executives need to aggressively pursue goals, be active and
engaged, and confidently articulate their ideas and beliefs. The negative association between
effectiveness and the gregarious and interpersonal warmth aspects of Extraversion suggest the
importance of maintaining a certain social distance from colleagues (see also Gabarro, 1987;
McClelland, 1975; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). This point will be returned to when
Agreeableness is discussed.
The ACL traits related to Stability evidenced a complex pattern of correlations with the
effectiveness ratings. The effectiveness correlations with the ACL scales that appeared to tap the
Page 25
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 25
more specific facets of irritability, impulsivity, and pessimism suggest that effectiveness is
related to a kind of unpredictable and negative disposition. Another facet of low Stability,
vulnerability (as found in the ACL scales Succorance, low Dominance, and low Masculinity),
appeared to be negatively associated with rated effectiveness. It seems that Stability plays a role
in executive effectiveness in that effective senior leaders must be able to persevere in the face
adversity and cope with the emotional toll of stress (low vulnerability). However, the present
results do not suggest that generally calm and collected, self-satisfied executives are more
effective. Rather, higher ratings were given to those who are more easily angered, somewhat
impulsive, and moderately as opposed to highly self-accepting.
It was surprising that peer ratings were negatively related to traits associated with
Conscientiousness—scales which executives tend to score quite high on. Notice also, that peers
tended to be the most severe rater group, providing the lowest average ratings (see Table 2).
These findings might be interpreted as reflecting a jealousy bias. Leaders with these traits (e.g.,
Endurance, Order, Adult) are likely to set high standards of performance. Given the competitive
nature of the executive suite—where the rewards are high for those who can set themselves
apart—peers may implicitly resent colleagues who set the bar high. However, this seems
unlikely. Although they are “non-significant,” the same correlations for superior and subordinate
ratings are all also in the negative direction. It seems more likely that peers are in a unique
position to observe the negative consequences of extreme Conscientiousness.
Extremely Conscientious people are often too fastidious and painstakingly thorough—even
compulsive—in dealing with projects and tasks (Costa & McCrae, 1992 p. 16; see also, Tett,
1998). Perhaps extremely driven, thorough, and ambitious executives undermine their
performance by taking on too many responsibilities, investing more time and energy in tasks
Page 26
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 26
than is necessary, and getting over-involved personally in their unit’s work and problems. This is
consistent with Kaplan’s (1991a) discussion of “expansiveness” and how this character motive
can have a negative impact on performance. It is not clear why the negative relationship between
Conscientiousness-saturated traits and effectiveness was so pronounced only for peer ratings.
Perhaps the less formal relationships among peers (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995) facilitates the
exchange of information that signals the negative consequences of extreme Conscientiousness.
At any rate, it seems that the relationship between Conscientiousness and executive effectiveness
is curvilinear: too little and one would hardly be organized, thorough, and planful enough to
handle such a complex job; too much and one may be too conservative and self-defeating in
overly ambitious, thorough, and doggedly persistent efforts.
Clearly, the most pervasive Big Five correlate of perceived senior executive effectiveness
was low Agreeableness. The strong and consistent negative relationships between low
Agreeableness ACL scales and effectiveness ratings from all three coworker sources were
surprising. For example, Hogan et al. (1994) persuasively claimed that Agreeableness is a critical
factor required in building a team, fostering trust, and maintaining cooperative relationships.
Perhaps this is so, but there may also be a double-edged quality to this sword.
Leading large corporate institutions in the “constant white waters” of the global
marketplace is an incredibly challenging task. In addition to working with and through other
executives, those at the strategic apex are responsible for making large-scale decisions that affect
the viability of the entire organization. As the recent trends in restructuring and downsizing
attest, many of these decisions have an adverse affect on people. Making difficult decisions such
as these which pit the interests of individuals against the viability and economic interests of an
organization is hardly an easy task, especially for those who have deep concern for the welfare
Page 27
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 27
of affected individuals (McClelland & Boyzatis, 1982; Gabarro, 1987). In this vein, a recent
Fortune article boldly claimed that “the fortitude to accept and even seek psychic pain” through
“a willingness, even an eagerness, to make painful decisions” is indicative of a golden trait—the
“most valuable quality in a manager”—in the executive suite (Colvin, 1997, p. 279).
To the extent that a distant and distinctly non-intimate interpersonal orientation facilitates
making tough decisions that are in the organization’s interests, senior executives with this
“golden trait” are likely to be effective in meeting tough business demands. This kind of success
may compensate for a lack of strong interpersonal ties in energizing the workforce. For example,
Sayles (1993) has suggested that “motivation can be the result of effectiveness, perhaps more so
than its cause” (p. 234). He argued that coworkers identify with leaders who take the initiative
and do what needs to be done to meet objectives, despite how unpopular it may be. In the final
analysis, this position suggests, people want to be on a winning team and this value takes a
higher priority than being on a warm, caring, and cooperative team, particularly in a competitive
individualistic culture such as the U.S. Perhaps this is one reason why conflict management,
group process, perspective taking, and the like continue to be popular topics in management
training programs.
At any rate, it appears that the broad factor of Agreeableness can be both virtue and vice in
executive leadership. On the one hand, low Agreeableness is predictive of higher ratings of
senior executive effectiveness; on the other hand, interpersonal problems continue to be a
prevalent derailment factor and an impetus for developmental activities (e.g., Hogan, 1994;
Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996). Moreover, as the practice and study of leadership evolves from
powerful and influential individual models to group-based relational models—to those that view
leadership as a process embedded within networks of relationships rather than as a process of
Page 28
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 28
individual influence (e.g., Rost, 1991; Drath & Palus, 1993)—the role of Agreeableness may
become even more important as well as controversial.
Leadership Development. A not unfair criticism of static reputational personality trait
models like the FFM is that they appear to have little to say about individual development (e.g.,
Epstein, 1994b; Loevinger, 1994; Pervin, 1994). In fact, two of the FFM’s biggest proponents,
Costa and McCrae (1988; McCrae & Costa, 1990), emphasize the stability of personality traits
across the life span. Although they find six-year stability coefficients of .6 to .7 for the Big Five
in older adults (Costa & McCrae, 1988), these figures still suggest some room for change over
time. Yet, the FFM is not clear on developmental prospects.
A recent study by Digman (1997), however, does offer a way to orient the FFM in
developmental theory. Digman essentially asked “Where are the concepts from the dynamic
theories of Freud, Rogers, Maslow, etc. in the FFM?” and reasoned that these highly abstract
constructs may lie at a higher structural level than the Big Five. And in his higher-order analysis
of several data sets, he found two very gross factors above the Big Five. The first, preliminarily
labeled α, was made up of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Stability and the second, β,
reflected Extraversion and Openness (and some elements of Conscientiousness, such as
achievement striving). Digman’s conceptual analysis suggested that these factors, respectively,
bear striking similarity to such dialectic concepts as socialization and personal growth, Freudian
control and impulse, and intimacy and power (McAdams, 1985) or acceptance and status
(Hogan, 1987). It was also suggested that α and β could be understood as trait analogs to the two
fundamental dimensions of human experience detailed by Bakan (1966): α as reflecting
communion—or an urge toward integration with others—and β as agency—the urge for self-
Page 29
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 29
differentiation and the desire for personal mastery over the environment. Viewed this way, the
FFM seems to have something to say about development.
In a cogent conceptual analysis of why many managers have trouble internalizing and
embracing empowerment and other forms of participative leadership, Drath (1990) applied
Kegan’s (1982) constructive-developmental model of lifelong development. This model of
personality from the actor’s perspective views development as an evolutionary process where the
way in which people make meaning out of experience gradually unfolds in a successively
inclusive series of stages. The evolution of personal meaning-making is propelled by a subtle
shifting emphasis between an orientation to the self (agency) and an orientation to others
(communion). Drath argued that organizations highly value the behaviors associated with a stage
of development which favors an agentic, self-focused orientation and thus many managers are
reinforced to remain in an arrested stage of personal development.
The present quantitative results are consistent with Drath’s (1990) conceptual analysis.
Specifically, the traits associated with an other-orientation were unilaterally inversely related to
perceptions of effectiveness from all three sources of coworker ratings. Interestingly, the only
two significant predictors of self-ratings were traits that reflect an orientation to others, and, the
Intraception scale, which was most strongly related to self-ratings, is made up elements of the
three FFM dimensions that form Digman’s (1997) higher-order communion factor (A, C, & S).
That the executives in this sample who had more of an other-orientation believed that they
were more effective raises the intriguing possibility that some of them were in fact at a higher
stage of development in Kegan’s (1982; 1994) model and that their other-oriented enabling
behaviors seemed to them effective on multiple fronts. This is purely speculative and the present
data can neither negate nor confirm it, but it is one possibility. The flip side is that coworkers’
Page 30
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 30
ratings were at odds with this. In other words, the personality correlates of coworkers’
perceptions of senior executive effectiveness are consistent with the suggestion that
organizations do deter individuals from developing a communal way of making meaning and
behaving as all of the traits conceptually aligned with this orientation were negatively related to
effectiveness ratings. And, as noted above, this does have certain practical advantages (Gabarro,
1987; McClelland, 1975). Another purely speculative, yet provocative, implication is that one
cost of recognized success in senior corporate leadership roles is to prolong—maybe even
forego—higher levels of personal development as several theoretical models of human growth
emphasize the simultaneous capacities for autonomous independence and for forming deep,
intimate, and mutually satisfying relationships as a hallmark of advanced development (Block,
1971; Heath, 1965; Kegan, 1982; 1994; Levinson & Levinson, 1996; Loevinger, 1976; Vaillant,
1993). Further, the quality of interpersonal relationships has been found to be the greatest source
of life satisfaction in late adulthood among gifted men (Sears, 1977).
Those involved in the enterprise of executive development are probably keenly aware of
complex forces that run counter to developmental efforts. Perhaps the largest of these forces are
subtle organizational contextual beliefs and values about effective corporate leadership that
inhibit the development of intimate interpersonal relationships and a sensitivity to others. This
suggests that executive development efforts—particularly those that are intensively character-
based (e.g., Kaplan, 1991b; 1998)—need to recognize the context in which the work takes place,
and possibly even simultaneously work with changes in that culture, in order to increase the odds
that their efforts will have a sustained and positive transformative impact on their clients’
development as managers and human beings. This is an area that has received little attention in
the research community and further exploration of conflicts between organizational contextual
Page 31
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 31
demands and individual executive personal development and potential methods of resolution
between the two is encouraged.
Study Limitations and Future Directions
It is important to recognize the limitations of this study. Most notably, the sample size is
rather small and the observed correlation coefficients are likely influenced by capitalization on
chance due to sampling errors. However, concerns over the reliability of correlations in instances
where most scales in the same taxon were correlated at a similar magnitude (e.g., Autonomy,
Aggression, Critical Parent) can be tempered somewhat. It is unlikely that these correlations
were spuriously of the same generally high level. Nonetheless, it is necessary to replicate this
exploratory study—with a larger sample and/or alternative personality measures—before the
results can be taken too heavily.
Another important limitation is the use of a global, undifferentiated criterion measure
(Campbell et al., 1970; James, 1973). The problem is that these data only tell us what
reputational personality traits are related to global perceptions of senior executive effectiveness.
A critical question, impossible to directly answer with the present quantitative results, is “How
are these personality constructs related to explicit leadership styles and behaviors that are in turn
linked to outcomes?” Although we may have intuitive notions of this causal chain of
relationships, the validity of these speculations remains an open empirical question.
Additionally, perceived effectiveness is only one of many important executive leadership
outcomes. Although coworker judgments of effectiveness have been suggested as one critical
criterion in judging leadership quality (Hogan et al., 1994), there are additional criteria which
organizations also value. Thus, the link between executive personality and such valued outcomes
as bottom-line financial figures, long-term organizational performance and viability, the creation
Page 32
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 32
and impact of organizational strategy, and employee satisfaction, morale, and turnover intent
also deserves attention. It is quite possible that personality variables relate differently across
these diverse criteria, as well as differently than they do to perceived effectiveness. A better
understanding of how personality relates to various valued outcomes will undoubtedly better
illustrate the effects of leader personality. It can also potentially inform the practice of executive
selection, which has failed to take full advantage of recent developments in the field of
personality assessment (DeVries, 1993; Hogan et al., 1994).
This study attempted to use the FFM to interpret the pattern of correlations across a diverse
set of traits. However, there were complex and different relationships for traits related to the
various facets of Extraversion and Stability and interpretations of these correlations—based on
content analyses of the items comprising the ACL scales and external correlates—should be
considered tentative. Future research using instruments specifically designed to operationalize
the Big Five and their constituent facets would be helpful in disentangling these complex
relationships. Future research would also do well to assess the extent to which there are non-
linear relationships between personality variables and criteria, especially when the variables are
related to Conscientiousness.
Another limitation is bound with the methodology. This study design reflects typical
approaches to personality research where a series of scales are independently correlated with a
criterion. This practice tends to loose the person in personality research (Pervin, 1994).
Exploring isolated trait correlations in implicitly additive models tells us little about personality
systems, which are an interactive gestalt system of personality variables. Future research that
explores leadership outcomes and personality systems at an integrated and holistic level, e.g., by
identifying clusters of personality prototypes through inverse factor analysis of persons across
Page 33
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 33
personality variables (e.g., York & John, 1992) or by clustering large samples of leaders
according to their profiles of scores across the Big Five, may be revealing and very informative
for understanding the leadership implications of personality configurations as well as helpful in
the essentially idiographic practices of executive development and selection.
These results, limited as they are, are significant if for no other reason than because they
are based on an exclusive and extremely rare sample. No other comparable quantitative studies
were found in the recent definitive reviews of the scholarly leadership literature (e.g., Bass,
1990; Hogan et al., 1994; House & Aditya, 1997; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1991). This research
represents a step in quantitatively triangulating grounded theory, such as those offered by Drath
(1990) and Kaplan (1991a), about senior leadership effectiveness and personality.
Conclusion
This study supports the idea that the Big Five reputational personality factors are related to
leadership effectiveness in senior corporate executive roles. However, the positive linear
relations between effectiveness and Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Stability and effectiveness were not found. Rather, it appeared that only the assertive facet of
Extraversion was positively related to executive effectiveness while the sociable facet was
negatively related. Stability also showed a somewhat complex and differentiated set of
relationships with effectiveness—a moderate level of self-acceptance seemed to be optimally
related to effectiveness while vulnerability seemed to be negatively related. Agreeableness was
entirely inversely related to effectiveness while Conscientiousness seemed to be curvilinearly
related with the most effective executives standing slightly above the adult normative mean.
Page 34
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 34
Footnotes
1 For the remainder of the results section, the Big Five interpretation of results are denoted
as E for Extraversion, A for Agreeableness, C for Conscientiousness, S for Stability, and O for
Openness to Experience.
Page 35
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 35
References
Allport, G. W. (1958). What units shall we employ? In G. Lindzey (Ed.) Assessment of
human motives (pp.239-260). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd Ed.). New York: Free Press.
Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books.
Block, J. H. & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the
organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.) Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology
(Vol. 13, pp. 39-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Borgen, F. H. & Barnett, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling psychology
research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 456-468.
Briggs, S. R. (1989). The optimal level of measurement for personality constructs. In D. M.
Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality Psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp.
246-260). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial
behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill.
Cascio, W. F. & Zedeck, S. (1983). Open a new window in rational research planning:
Adjust alpha to maximize statistical power. Personnel Psychology, 36, 517-526.
Page 36
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 36
Cohen, J. (1977) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press, Inc.
Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Colvin, G. (1997). The most valuable quality in a manager. Fortune, 136, 279-280.
Conway, J. M. & Huffcut, A. I. (1996, April). Testing assumptions of 360-degree
feedback: A meta-analysis of supervisor, peer, subordinate, and self-ratings. Paper presented at
the 10th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego,
CA.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1985). NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) Professional
Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal
study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 853-863.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
DeVries, D. (1993). Executive selection: A look at what we know and what we need to
know. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256.
Digman, J. M., & Inouye (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of
personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116-123.
Page 37
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 37
Drath, W. H. (1990). Managerial strengths and weaknesses as functions of the development
of personal meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, 483-499.
Drath, W. H. and Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense: Leadership as meaning-
making in a community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Epstein, S. (1994a). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious.
American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
Epstein, S. (1994b). Trait theory as personality theory: Can a part be as great as the whole?
Psychological Inquiry, 5, 120-122.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from
different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.
Fleenor, J. W., Fleenor, J. B., & Grossnickle, W. F. (1996). Interrater reliability and
agreement of performance ratings: A methodological comparison. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 10, 367-380.
Gabarro, J. J. (1987). The development of working relationships. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
Gough, H. G. & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Check List manual (1983 ed.). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Harris, M. & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and
peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-61.
Heath, D. H. (1965). Explorations of maturity. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
Page 38
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 38
Hogan, R. (1987). Personality psychology: Back to basics. In J. Aronoff, A. I. Rabin, & R.
A. Zucker (Eds.), The emergence of personality (pp. 79-104). New York: Springer.
Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Vol. 2), 874-919.
Hogan, R. (1994). Trouble at the top: Causes and consequences of managerial
incompetence. Consulting Psychology Journal, 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. (1995). Hogan personality inventory manual (2nd Ed.). Tulsa, OK:
Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark and
M. B. Clark (Eds.) Measures of leadership (pp. 343-354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library
of America.
House, R. J. & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?
Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.
Jaques, E. & Clement, S. (1991). Executive Leadership. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
James, L. J. (1973). Criterion models and construct validity for criteria. Psychological
Bulletin, 80, 75-83.
James, L. J., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
James, L. J., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An Assessment of within-group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
Page 39
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 39
John, O. P. (1989, November). Big Five prototypes for the Adjective Check List using
observer data. In O. P. John (Chair), The Big Five: Historical perspective and current research.
Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Multivariate Experimental
Psychology, Honolulu, HA.
John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimesnions of personality in natural
languages and in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research
(pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A. & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80-105.
Kaplan, R. E. (1991a). Beyond ambition: How driven managers can lead better and live
better. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kaplan, R. E. (1991b). Character shifts: The challenge of improving executive performance
through personal growth (Report No. 143). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Kaplan, R. E. (1996). Forceful leadership and enabling leadership: You can do both.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Kaplan, R. E. (1998). Getting at character: The simplicity on the other side of complexity.
In R. Jeanneret and R. Silzer (Eds.), Individual Assessment: The Art and Science of Personal
Psychological Evaluation in an Organizational Setting. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: Facing the mental demands of modern life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Page 40
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 40
Leslie, J. B., & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment today: North America and
Europe. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Levinson, D. & Levinson, J. (1996). Seasons of a womans life. New York: Knopf.
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Loevinger, J. (1994). In search of grand theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 142-144.
Lombardo, M. M., & McCauley, C. (1988). The dynamics of management derailment.
Greensboro, NC: 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.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & DeVader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization
theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343-378.
Maddi, S. R. (1980). Personality theories: A comparative analysis (4th ed.). Homewood, IL:
Dorsey Press.
McAdams. D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological inquiries into
identity. New York: Guilford Press.
McAdams. D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal
of Personality, 60, 329-361.
McCall, M. & Lombardo, M., & Morisson, A.M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How
successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.
Page 41
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 41
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R.A., & Lowell, E. L. (1958). The achievement
motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McClelland, D. C. & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term
success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint analyses of the NEO-PI
and other instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends
and emerging directions (pp. 237-245). New York: Springer-Verlag.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality
across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R. & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
application. Journal of Personality, 60,175-215.
Milligan, G. W. (1980). An examination of the effects of six types of error perturbation on
fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika, 45, 325-342.
Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situation, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure.
Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.
Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social,
organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, R. B. (1988). Delegation: The power of letting go. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Page 42
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 42
Pervin, L. A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5,
103-113.
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adjective Check List scales and the
five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630-637.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the 21st century. New York: Praeger.
Sayles, L. R. (1993). The working leader. New York: Free Press.
Sears, R. S. (1977). Sources of life satisfactions of the Terman gifted men. American
Psychologist,42, 119-128.
Shrout, P. & Fleiss, J. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
Spangler, W. D. & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership
motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 439-455.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Tett, R. P. (1998). Is Conscientiousness ALWAYS positively related to job-performance?
The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 36 (1), 24-29.
Trapnell, P. D. & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales to
include the Big Five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 781-790.
Tupes, E. C. & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.
(USAF WADC Tech. Note No. 61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.
Vaillant, G. E. (1993). The wisdom of the ego. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.
York, K. L. & John, O. P. (1992). The four faces of Eve: A typological analysis of
women’s personality at midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 494-508.
Page 43
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 43
Yukl, G. & Van Fleet, D. D. (1991). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In
M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
(Vol. 2), 147-197.
Zedeck, S., & Cascio, W. F. (1982). Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater
training and purpose of appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 752-758.
Page 44
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 44
Table 1.
Adjective Checklist Scales, Definitions, and Descriptive Statistics
ACL Scales Scale Definition M SDConscientiousness & Stability
7 Endurance To persist in any task undertaken 56.44 6.608 Order To place special emphasis on neatness, organization, and planning 56.47 7.70
31 Adult Independence, reliability, thoroughness, and ambition 57.05 7.2337 A-4 (-O,+I) Discipline, ambition, goal-directed, and clear-thinking 57.88 7.2926 Military Leadership Steadiness, dutifulness, self-discipline, and dependability 57.34 6.63
Stability, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, & Extraversion24 Ideal Self Sense of personal worth and effectiveness 57.39 8.69
2 # Favorable Number of favorable adjectives checked 55.93 7.579 Intraception To attempt to understand the behavior of oneself and others 54.75 8.55
28 Femininity Helpfulness, sympathy, and affection (A) 48.46 8.30Stability, Agreeableness, Extraversion, & Conscientiousness
23 Personal Adjustment Ability to cope with interpersonal demands and a feeling of efficacy 55.02 8.4030 Nurturant Parent Supportive, calm, and accepting 54.46 7.8610 Nurturance To provide material or emotional benefits to others 50.90 8.9011 Affiliation To seek and maintain numerous personal friendships 52.55 8.9136 A-3 (-O,-I) Contentment, agreeableness, and optimism 47.91 8.87
Agreeableness, (low) Extraversion, & (low) Openness18 Abasement To express feelings of inferiority through self-criticism or withdrawal 41.72 8.3519 Deference To seek and maintain subordinate roles in relationships with others 45.19 9.9821 Self-Control To hold oneself back in social interactions 44.71 10.1012 Heterosexuality To approach others with vigor, warmth, and a sense of humor (E) 50.44 9.84
Extraversion, (low) Agreeableness, & Conscientiousness22 Self-Confidence Self-confidence, poise, and self-assurance 58.94 8.12
5 Achievement To strive to be outstanding in pursuits of socially recognized value 60.70 7.176 Dominance To seek to be influential and have control in social affairs 60.03 7.71
27 Masculinity Assertiveness, independence, and tough-mindedness 57.36 8.20(low) Agreeableness, Openness, & (low) Stability
14 Autonomy To act independently of others or of social values and expectations 51.73 10.0215 Aggression To behave competitively with little regard for social graces 55.02 10.2429 Critical Parent Judgmental, severe, and harsh; tough in evaluating others 55.62 11.46
Extraversion & Openness32 Free Child Playfulness, spontaneity, and self-centeredness 54.91 10.4825 Creative Personality The desire to do and think differently from the norm; originality 53.59 9.2713 Exhibition To behave in such a way as to elicit the immediate attention of others 50.94 9.5916 Change To seek novelty of experience and to avoid routine 48.17 10.1234 A-1 (+O,-I) Informality, vitality, and playfulness (low C) 47.06 9.31
(low) Stability, (low) Conscientiousness, & (low) Extraversion17 Succorance To solicit sympathy, affection, or emotional support from others 43.36 7.4233 Adapted Child Inhibited, self-defeating, submissive, and dependence on others 40.41 7.7535 A-2 (+O,+I) Dissastisfied, detached, temperamental, rebellious 44.74 8.59
3 # Unfavorable Number of unfavorable adjectives checked 43.86 7.24
Page 45
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 45
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Validity Evidence for Effectiveness Ratings
Rating Source N M SD Min Max Self Sups. Peers Subs. Self 42 7.71 1.03 5.50 10.00 -- Superiors 40 7.91 1.27 5.00 10.00 .47** (.56)
Peers 41 7.47 .98 4.90 9.13 .27 .58** (.52)
Subordinates 45 8.03 .68 6.50 9.50 .28 .56** .51** (.59) Mrwg .88 .74 .83
Note. Coefficients along the diagonal are intraclass correlation coefficients. Mrwg is the mean rwg
computed for each target executive within coworker rating sources.
** p < .01.
Page 46
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 46
Table 3 Correlations between Adjective Check List Scales and Effectiveness Ratings by Rating Source Correlations with Big Fivea Effectiveness Rating Source
E A C N O ACL Scale Self Superior Peer Subordinate
.12 -.02 .53 -.33 -.10 Endurance .12 -.03 -.46** -.15
.06 .01 .51 -.31 -.16 Order .17 -.07 -.37* -.13
.07 .12 .46 -.49 -.06 Adult .09 -.13 -.42** -.17
-.01 .04 .42 -.36 -.08 Welsh's A-4 .21 .01 -.25 .04
.19 .06 .44 -.35 -.03 Military Leadership .15 -.13 -.31* -.21
.29 .07 .26 -.46 .11 Ideal Self .15 -.13 -.33** -.13
.31 .21 .30 -.44 .04 Favorable .12 -.28↑ -.31** -.28↑
.08 .30 .33 -.34 .06 Intraception .27↑ -.23 -.34** -.29↑
.16 .32 .04 .03 -.03 Femininity .26↑ -.31↑ -.10 -.14
.27 .29 .29 -.40 -.06 Personal Adjustment .13 -.29↑ -.36* -.36**
.22 .28 .35 -.47 -.15 Nurturant Parent .18 -.23 -.33* -.41**
.19 .46 .18 -.29 -.12 Nurturance .07 -.32* -.31* -.41**
.30 .33 .19 -.48 -.12 Affiliation -.05 -.33* -.29↑ -.37**
.19 .37 .07 -.30 -.18 Welsh's A-3 -.05 -.16 -.11 -.46**
-.37 .39 -.11 .32 -.10 Abasement -.01 -.35* -.23 -.45**
-.21 .48 .10 -.08 -.24 Deference .01 -.42** -.27↑ -.40**
-.37 .34 .16 -.12 -.28 Self-control .02 -.24 -.26↑ -.32*
.50 .06 -.10 -.09 .03 Heterosexuality .03 -.16 .03 -.07
.51 -.12 .24 -.31 .10 Self-confidence .12 .05 .00 .11
.38 -.23 .44 -.24 .06 Achievement .02 .06 -.20 .08
.51 -.33 .22 -.24 .10 Dominance .06 .25 .09 .24↑
.32 -.44 .13 -.24 -.01 Masculinity .01 .19 .08 .26↑
(table continues)
Page 47
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 47
Correlations with Big Fivea Effectiveness Rating Source
E A C N O ACL Scale Self Superior Peer Subordinate
.15 -.54 -.12 .09 .18 Autonomy -.03 .40** .34* .45**
.28 -.49 -.08 .23 .22 Aggression -.03 .39** .39** .44**
.06 -.55 .03 .27 .15 Critical Parent .12 .43** .29↑ .52**
.49 -.12 -.05 -.16 .28 Free Child .01 .06 .04 .13
.26 -.07 .04 -.19 .42 Creative Personality .14 -.07 -.08 .18
.44 -.28 -.14 .02 .21 Exhibition .03 .18 .26 .32*
.34 -.12 -.24 .10 .34 Change -.02 -.02 .08 .05
.17 -.12 -.35 -.04 .02 Welsh's A-1 .14 -.06 -.07 .08
-.21 .11 -.29 .50 .03 Succorance -.17 -.24 -.12 -.26↑
-.24 -.04 -.37 .56 .10 Adapted Child -.10 .03 .39** .30*
-.21 -.19 -.29 .27 .30 Welsh's A-2 .21 .38* .11 .35*
-.20 -.29 -.33 .41 .05 Unfavorable -.17 .35* .49** .44**
N 42 40 41 45
Note. E = extraversion, A = agreeableness, C = conscientiousness, N = neuroticism (low
stability), and O = openness to experience. a Correlations reported in Piedmont et al. (1991). ↑ p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Page 48
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 48
Table 4
Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis Results Predicting Self, Superior, Peer, and
Subordinate Effectiveness Ratings from the Adjective Check List Scales
Significant ACL Scale Big Five Correlationsa
ACL predictors E A C N O B SE B β Model R2
Self-Ratings
Intraception .08 .30 .33 -.34 .06 .04 .02 .27↑
Final model F (1,40) = 3.17↑ .07
Superior Ratings
Critical Parent .06 -.55 .03 .27 .15 .05 .02 .43**
Final model F (1,38) = 8.63** .19
Peer Ratings
Unfavorable -.20 -.29 -.33 .41 .05 .56 .02 .34*
Endurance .12 -.02 .53 -.33 -.10 -.07 .02 -.48**
Welsh’s A-1 .17 -.12 -.35 -.04 .02 -.04 .02 -.27↑
Succorance -.21 .11 -.29 .50 .03 -.03 .02 -.24↑
Final model F (4,36) = 6.99*** .44
(table continues)
Page 49
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 49
Significant ACL Scale Big Five Correlationsa
ACL predictors E A C N O B SE B β Model R2
Subordinate Ratings
Critical Parent .06 -.55 .03 .27 .15 .03 .01 .48**
Welsh’s A-1 .17 -.12 -.35 -.04 .02 .03 .01 .27*
Welsh’s A-3 .19 .37 .07 -.30 -.18 -.02 .01 -.26↑
Final model F (3,41) = 8.69*** .39
Note. E = extraversion, A = agreeableness, C = conscientiousness, N = neuroticism (low
stability), and O = openness to experience.
a Correlations reported in Piedmont et al. (1991).
↑ p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Page 50
Personality and Executive Effectiveness 50
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Executives’ Adjective Check List Adult scale T-scores plotted against averaged peer
ratings of effectiveness to demonstrate curvinlinearity and the importance of level in interpreting
the correlations with conscientiousness saturated scales.
ACL Adult Scale T-score
7060504030
Mea
n Pe
er E
ffec
tiven
ess R
atin
g
10
9
8
7
6
5
4