The following study was undertaken to explore the link between individual differences in personality orientation and subsequent leadership behaviours in the workplace. More specifically, relationships among two measures of personality and one measure of transformational–transactional leadership style were investigated using data collected from 253 senior executives (and their direct reports) from a highly diversified global corporation. After an initial examination of the personality variables using a correlational approach, a k‐means cluster analysis was used to generate four distinct ‘groups’ based on the mean personality orientation or style exhibited. These groups were labelled accordingly in order to reflect the dispositional characteristics among each cluster of executives: (1) innovators for change or inventors; (2) analytical coordinators or managers; (3) organized pragmatists or implementors; and (4) enthusiastic idealists or motivators. Subsequent ANOVA models using these cluster groups yielded significant differences with respect to the perceptions of both executives and their direct reports of their leadership behaviour. In general, inventors and motivators were found to be more transformational in their leadership style than managers and implementors. These results are discussed in terms of the characteristics of each personality cluster and their respective linkages to the leadership behaviours observed by self and others.

This article reports on a study of the influence practices and effectiveness of 207 middle-level staff and program management personnel in nonmanagerial positions in a high-tech government agency in the United States. Multiple regression results were used to identify spec$ic influence behaviors practiced in lateral relations with peers that directly ajfected supervisors' perceptions of effectiveness. As hypothesized, managerial self-awareness (operationalized as congruence in self-peer ratings) was found to contribute significantly to relationship management aspects of individual effectiveness. Implications of these resultsfor team-bused work in organizations as well as OD and HRD initiatives are discussed.The ability to influence another individual is key for effective management and leadership in organizations. Although it is easy to assign a specific project to a subordinate, it is far more difficult to convince a peer in another function to release confidential information, or to persuade a supervisor to alter his or her position on a major policy decision. Assigning a project to a subordinate simply requires formal authority, while the latter efforts require informal influence skills. There is indeed a world of difference between the two types of relationship. Given that organizations are by definition composed of interpersonal relationships and interdependencies (Katz and Kahn, 1978), one could argue that the process of influence is an inherent requirement for any and every individual role in a given social system-whether formally or informally based. At the systemic level, influence is at least one of the primary means by which individuals and work units in organizations communicate and exchange inputs and outputs with one another. It is also the means for effecting change in the throughput process. The quality, quantity, and timeliness of each input into a Note: The comments and suggestions raised by the editorial team and several anonymous reviewers were greatly appreciated. Thanks also to Mary Zippo for her proofreading assistance.

No abstract

No abstract