No abstract

No abstract

The concept of empathy-the intellectual or imaginative apprehension of another's condition or state of mind-is central for understanding a broad range of social phenomena including, in particular, moral development. Within this latter context, an empathic disposition can be regarded as the capacity to adopt a broad moral perspective, that is, to take "the moral point of view." This paper discusses the development of a 64-item self-report measure of empathy, constructed by comparing the responses of groups with high-and low-rated empathy, using the combined MMPI-CPI item pool. After providing evidence concerning the scale's reliability and validity, an attempt is made to show its relevance for specifically moral conduct by relating empathy scale scores to real life indexes of socially appropriate behavior and to certain previously wellvalidated measures of personality. Some form of empathic disposition, roletaking ability, or social sensitivity is assumed by all approaches to personality which take the interpersonal situation as a major focus of concern. Accordingly, most writers in the role-theoretical tradition (Cottrell, 1942;Gough, 1948;Mead, 1934;Sarbin, 1968) have given careful attention to this aspect of social functioning. Mead, for example, has argued that role-taking ability is the key variable in social and moral development; extending this line of reasoning he equates the "g" factor in intelligence with social sensitivity, the origins of which can be found in the central nervous system. In a similar vein, Cottrell and Dymond (1949) also maintained that empathy is the basic process in all social interaction.Empathy, seen as an everyday manifestation of the disposition to adopt a broad moral perspective, to take "the moral point of view," also becomes important within the context of l This paper is based on a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the

This article reviews the empirical literature on personality, leadership, and organizational effectiveness to make 3 major points. First, leadership is a real and vastly consequential phenomenon, perhaps the single most important issue in the human sciences. Second, leadership is about the performance of teams, groups, and organizations. Good leadership promotes effective team and group performance, which in turn enhances the well-being of the incumbents; bad leadership degrades the quality of life for everyone associated with it. Third, personality predicts leadership—who we are is how we lead—and this information can be used to select future leaders or improve the performance of current incumbents.

This article analyzes the topic of leadership from an evolutionary perspective and proposes three conclusions that are not part of mainstream theory. First, leading and following are strategies that evolved for solving social coordination problems in ancestral environments, including in particular the problems of group movement, intragroup peacekeeping, and intergroup competition. Second, the relationship between leaders and followers is inherently ambivalent because of the potential for exploitation of followers by leaders. Third, modern organizational structures are sometimes inconsistent with aspects of our evolved leadership psychology, which might explain the alienation and frustration of many citizens and employees. The authors draw several implications of this evolutionary analysis for leadership theory, research, and practice.