A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures.

Abstract

This article reexamines the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions or extent of leader emergence. We maintain that prior research on trait theories and leadership has been misinterpreted as applying to a leader's effect on performance, when it actually pertains to the relation of leadership traits to leadership emergence. Further, based on current theories of social perceptions, several traits were expected to be strongly related to leadership perceptions. Using the metaanalytic technique of validity generalization, results supported this expectation with intelligence, masculinity-femininity, and dominance being significantly related to leadership perceptions. Also, findings showed that variability across studies in the relation of these traits to leadership perceptions could be explained largely by methodological factors, indicating that contingency theories of leadership perceptions may not be needed. Both of these results contrast with the conclusions of earlier nonquantitative literature reviews on traits and leadership perceptions and with conventional thinking in the leadership area.Trait theories have not been seriously considered by leadership researchers since Mann (1959) and Stogdill (1948) reported that no traits consistently differentiated leaders from nonleaders across a variety of situations. The thesis of this article is that, first, these reviews have often been misinterpreted, and second, there are both theoretical and methodological reasons for reconsidering the relations between the traits of potential leaders and their tendency to be perceived as leaders by others.The findings of the Mann and Stogdill reviews have been misinterpreted in three respects. First, though both reviews dealt with only leadership emergence or the perception of leadership in groups with no formal leader, many current theorists (Landy, 1985;Muchinsky, 1983) report that their conclusions pertain to the topic of leadership effectiveness. This confusion probably stems from the title of Mann's (1959) review, "A Review of the Relationships Between Personality and Performance in Small Groups." Though Mann mentions performance, the relations he investigated were between personality and attained leadership status as indexed by peer ratings, observer ratings, or by being formally nominated as a leader by group members. None of the leadership studies he reviewed used group task performance or ratings of group effectiveness by observers as dependent variables. Second, there were many consistently significantThe authors would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Ralph Alexander on an earlier version of this article.

When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence

“…A primary and consistent predictor of status in groups is perceived competence (e.g., Berger et al, 1972;Driskell & Mullen, 1990;Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986). In general, groups confer higher status on individuals who exhibit abilities that help the group succeed (Berger et al, 1972;Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989;Emerson, 1962;Goldhamer & Shils, 1939).…”

“…First, confident individuals might appear more socially skilled to others, even when their confidence is unwarranted by actual task abilities. Groups accord higher status to those with perceived social skills (Bass & R.), 2008;Lord et al, 1986;Stogdill, 1948). Social skills contribute to a group by helping to coordinate other members' activities, solve conflicts, and motivate others while maintaining cohesion within the group (Bass, 2008;Fragale, 2006;Mann, 1959;Van Vugt, 2006).…”

A status-enhancement account of overconfidence.

“…Although the characteristics that can lead to higher status are multifaceted, a primary and consistent predictor of status in groups is perceived 10STATUS ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF OVERCONFIDENCE competence (e.g., Berger et al, 1972; Driskell & Mullen, 1990;Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986). In general, groups give higher status to individuals who exhibit abilities that will help the group succeed (Berger et al, 1972; Eibl Eibesfeldt, 1989; Emerson, 1962; Goldhamer & Shils, 1939).…”

“…In particular, confidence has been associated with higher levels of optimism (Wolfe & Grosch, 1990), trait dominance (Gough, McClosky, & Meehl,, 1951), and extraversion (Schaefer et al, 2004), and lower levels of neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Each of these four individual differences has also been linked to the attainment of status (Anderson et al, 2001;Lord et al, 1986;Stogdill, 1948). Therefore, we measured each of these individual differences.…”

Assessing Leadership Potential at the Naval Academy With a Biographical Measure

“…It would be useful to confirm the reasons for these differences in results for 1987 graduates and earlier graduates. And in future lA meta-analysis that appeared subsequently found that dominance and emotional stability were associated with leadership, but sociability was not--need for achievement and self-confidence were not studied (Lord et al, 1986).…”